[PinkLucy]

You're right. He's even got the little hat.

 

[kEiThZ]

Getting a patent is easy. Defending one is a whole other matter. I don't know how defensible this one is. Sharon, out of curiosity, who's your patent lawyer?

Aside from that. I see so many safety and engineering considerations, that I doubt it would even be considered without first having a full scale mock-up and demo along with some proper assessments. And there's no way the TTC will spring for that. Best of luck to Sharon, I think she'll need a ton of it to move past the concept stage.

 

[SlickFranky]

It may seem like we're all being a little harsh, but there are really some serious flaws with this. Outside-the-box thinking is great and should be encouraged, but it helps to get a second set of eyes on an issue as well, especially if you've been working on something in isolation for so long (10000hrs is 40hr/week for 5 years straight btw). Without outside opinions your mind gets locked into one position, and you keep building off that position, compunding errors and wasting time.


Safety is important. Improving line efficiancy is important. You started out with a real life problem and tried to create a new solution, and I commend you for that. So the crux of your solution is both physical and temporal separation of 'out' and 'in'.

We (TTC riders) already informally use a temporal separation ('out', then 'in), and from my experience it works nearly flawlessly at every station (Y-B peak excluded). Not only does is work well...it's a bottom up, maintenance free, zero man-hour system.

Our physical separation is much less formal. Still, nearly all the time at nearly every station our user-generated 'stand to the side of the doors' method works perfectly. There are several stations (mostly during peak) where this system breaks down and you get a wall of 'in' passengers blocking the 'out' passengers. But in almost every case it is an issue of space on the platform, not of 'in' people rushing the doors. Where, at say St George, are you finding 1.2m (on each side) to dedicate to this? How is shrinking an already full platform going to effect passenger flow?

And that's not even getting into the unguided raising/lowering, the safety issues with raising/lowering vs sliding, the materials (1/32" plastic, ropes, etc), live currents near riders (on purpose!), capacity claims, etc. At the end of the day, people have been building subway barriers for years. There is a long list of safety and durability criteria that need to be met. The bidder that meets all those goals at the lowest price generally gets the contract. There is therefore already significant incentive to reduce cost. Fact is barriers cost what they cost for a reason.

I appreciate your passion for the issue, but I wish you had come here years ago and asked for some input on your invention(s). We could have talked you out of some poor ideas, and inspired you towards some better ones. We wouldn't have stolen your idea and sold it to the MTA or anything. We love this stuff and devote a lot of thought to it too, that's why we're here. We're like free consultants!

 

[subway safety]

Subway Safety

It may seem like we're all being a little harsh, but there are really some serious flaws with this. Outside-the-box thinking is great and should be encouraged, but it helps to get a second set of eyes on an issue as well, especially if you've been working on something in isolation for so long (10000hrs is 40hr/week for 5 years straight btw). Without outside opinions your mind gets locked into one position, and you keep building off that position, compunding errors and wasting time.


Safety is important. Improving line efficiancy is important. You started out with a real life problem and tried to create a new solution, and I commend you for that. So the crux of your solution is both physical and temporal separation of 'out' and 'in'.

We (TTC riders) already informally use a temporal separation ('out', then 'in), and from my experience it works nearly flawlessly at every station (Y-B peak excluded). Not only does is work well...it's a bottom up, maintenance free, zero man-hour system.

Our physical separation is much less formal. Still, nearly all the time at nearly every station our user-generated 'stand to the side of the doors' method works perfectly. There are several stations (mostly during peak) where this system breaks down and you get a wall of 'in' passengers blocking the 'out' passengers. But in almost every case it is an issue of space on the platform, not of 'in' people rushing the doors. Where, at say St George, are you finding 1.2m (on each side) to dedicate to this? How is shrinking an already full platform going to effect passenger flow?

And that's not even getting into the unguided raising/lowering, the safety issues with raising/lowering vs sliding, the materials (1/32" plastic, ropes, etc), live currents near riders (on purpose!), capacity claims, etc. At the end of the day, people have been building subway barriers for years. There is a long list of safety and durability criteria that need to be met. The bidder that meets all those goals at the lowest price generally gets the contract. There is therefore already significant incentive to reduce cost. Fact is barriers cost what they cost for a reason.

I appreciate your passion for the issue, but I wish you had come here years ago and asked for some input on your invention(s). We could have talked you out of some poor ideas, and inspired you towards some better ones. We wouldn't have stolen your idea and sold it to the MTA or anything. We love this stuff and devote a lot of thought to it too, that's why we're here. We're like free consultants!

Thanks, for your thoughts.

Well folks<, Just want you to know. These drawing were from my 1st prototype. I have built 15 prototypes in total.

A Yonge/Bloor is uniquely different from that of other stations, but does in fact fall under the category of "separated passenger flow for a single sided platform" using an apparatus. And yes, it is not limited to an up and down thing.

Anyway, my work is starting to pay off.

I now have a big meeting coming up with ultimate "top" management, I will not say exactly with who. But in my opinion it could not be bigger!!

It really boils down to safety is the solution in creating "ultimate efficiency". ....ie. station skipping.

The specifics of course are TTC's decision of product choice, layout, and even the station skipping specifics, however today in the world there is traditional "egde" safety needing & requiring automatic train control and costs about 10 million a station.

And now there is a secondary choice......mine. Ultilizing "separated passenger flow" , ultilizing the ability to stage your train, and utilizing the ability for not only extreme cost effective platform safety but also the new open window of station skipping concepts, which in fact after taking to many operators around the world, my "also" unique station skipping and "express subway system" conversion is extremely effective in:
1. Moving twice as many people
2. Moving people in just about 1/2 the time.
3. Moving people RELIABLY.
and 4. Moving people in about 1/2 filled trains on first day of operation until the newly found capacity is achieved once again.

The brand new spot available for Toronto would be about 498,000 new spots every am rush hour. This combined with the parking income works out to the 1.346 BILLION in new annual revenue potential for the TTC.

Now are you understanding why this is BIG.

My biggest barrier is not the invention. It really is the pride of "why didn't we figure this out?" This is why I have had such a up hill battle. Change is always difficult to accept at first. We all had to get out of our horse and buggy at one point. And now we all drive cars. Because there are variables from station to station, my patent obviously accounts for that. This patent document is not my final patent application, nor is it my last patent application.

This 1st patent application is the footprint of new innovation to come. It was filed July 29th, 2008.
Sharon

 

[dunkalunk]

In your words, the "ultimate 'top' management" Would have to be Giambrione. I have to assume the quotes are there because he won't be "top" for "long".

 

[kEiThZ]

Good luck with that. You'd have to be some salesman to sell a TTC councillor or GM or a program that's completely politically unfeasible (even if it was technically feasible). In an election year no less!

 

[Cranky Old Fart]

I don't think it was hard to visualize what Sharon was proposing. What we are having a tough time with is how this is going to get pulled off. How do you do this without one train running into the one in front of it (there are no express tracks)?

I think the idea is ludicrous because it vastly increases the complexity of the system. Can you imagine teaching all of Toronto to use such a system, especially without deploying express platforms? Good luck with that.

"Below the main platform for Bay Station is an abandoned platform, which was used for only six months in 1966 when the TTC experimentally ran trains whose routes included portions of both the Yonge-University and Bloor-Danforth lines. This abandoned platform is sometimes referred to as Lower Bay by the general public or Bay Lower by the TTC.

The platform was in service from February to September 1966 as part of an ‘interlining’ experiment, in which the TTC ran trains along three routes, with one matching the subsequent Bloor-Danforth line, and the other two combining parts of the Bloor-Danforth line with the Yonge-University line. The experiment was deemed a failure, largely because delays anywhere quickly cascaded to affect the entire system. Also, as the stations had not been laid out effectively for cross-platform interchange, trains travelling west from St. George and east from Bay alternated between the two levels, leading passengers to wait on the stairs in-between the levels, since they were unable to tell which platform would receive the next train.
With every station served by at least two routes (Bloor-Yonge Station was served by all three routes, with the Yonge-University-Danforth route passing through it twice, once on each level), passengers could travel between any two stations without changing trains; though for some station combinations, such as travel between a station north of Bloor and one on the Bloor-Danforth route, transferring at Bloor-Yonge Station resulted in a more direct path. The TTC found that when the extra time waiting for a train from the correct route was considered, the time savings were not significant.

Interlining was discontinued because of the confusion and delays, although it has been argued that it was politically motivated and that the experiment was sabotaged by the TTC, perhaps even designed to fail from the start. Much of the infrastructure for interlining is still present on the system, and most older stations still have signs informing passengers of each train’s next destination, although they no longer change. While St. George and Bloor-Yonge Stations remained operating upper and lower platforms for the two crossing subway lines, Bay Station would be served by only the Bloor-Danforth line. Lower Bay was closed to the public.

Lower Bay is now used to train new operators, to move trains between the two current lines, for platform-surface experiments, and to allow filming in the subway without disrupting public service. The station has been modified several times to make it look like a "common" North American subway station, and the TTC once had an elaborate pre-built set for converting it to a New York subway station. The set was used for the filming of the movie Don't Say a Word. The TTC asked the production company if they could donate the set. The set remained up for about three weeks as a selling point for other movies but was then torn down due to safety concerns. Other notable movies shot at Lower Bay include Johnny Mnemonic, Bulletproof Monk and Mimic. The station was also featured in the music video "Never Again," which was performed by the band The Midway State, a band local to Toronto.

The tracks connecting Lower Bay are still in existence and are used if subway trains or equipment must be moved between lines. The station platform can be reached through normally-locked service doors on the upper level, and at one end of the upper platform of the station."

 

[Cranky Old Fart]

^ So in other words, you got nothing.

No engineer worth his salt is going to take your comment that 'unpredictables' are reduced at face value.

Hey hold-on a minute a TTC Engineer definitely might

 

[PinkLucy]

In your words, the "ultimate 'top' management" Would have to be Giambrione. I have to assume the quotes are there because he won't be "top" for "long".

That's what I figured too and my first thought was "good luck with that". I doubt his mind's on the job these days.

 

[kEiThZ]

Cranky Old Fart,

This isn't about Lower Bay. There's a reason that was undone. Unreliability and cascading failure are words that come to mind.

But this is about her station skipping proposal which would effectively take one-half to two-thirds of the stations in out of play in each peak direction. I don't know about you, but I'd be mighty pissed if my walk to the station in the morning got turned into a bus ride or an extra train commute and transfer. Her proposal is even worse along the Yonge line where stations are spaced 2km apart. It'll be quite the backtrack just to get a train to where you are going.

 

[DavidH]

In your words, the "ultimate 'top' management" Would have to be Giambrione. I have to assume the quotes are there because he won't be "top" for "long".

Depends on whether you consider the organization's oversight (e.g. the Commission) to be part of management. I wouldn't. There's a reason the job titles of people on commissions and boards do not include the word "Manager".

Obviously we are trying to interpret Sharon's intentionally-vague phrasing, but I suspect it's meant to refer to people at Gary Webster's level.

At this point, I really take this with an entire salt mine.

 

[Asterix]

I know I'm going against my previous bailing on this patently silly thread, but in addition to floating incredibly loony and easily disproven concepts, this poster needs to keep track of what they've claimed:

Thanks, for your thoughts.

I now have a big meeting coming up with ultimate "top" management, I will not say exactly with who. But in my opinion it could not be bigger!!

http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.p...-for-subways-an-obsession&p=345127#post345127

"I now am getting myself some extremely impressive meetings."

http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.p...-for-subways-an-obsession&p=347480#post347480

"I have been granted 4 very big "key" meetings coming up this month."

http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.p...-for-subways-an-obsession&p=352531#post352531

"My 4 big meetings include separately: now 5 meetings

a TTC commissioner,
a Toronto Executive Councillor
Director of CUTA
Director of TEO
Director of Transportation,"

http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.p...-for-subways-an-obsession&p=353485#post353485

"These big meeting are finally forthcoming, and going to be a reality."

http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.p...-for-subways-an-obsession&p=358768#post358768

"I have had my 3 "very big" meetings. (Each over an hour)"

"The Director of Innovation for the US is coming to Toronto to meet with me and is very excited about the new innovation."

http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.p...-for-subways-an-obsession&p=358817#post358817

"You had the same kind of statements my meetings had. It took about 3 rounds and then each and every one of them said."

http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.p...-for-subways-an-obsession&p=358918#post358918

"I promissed experienced engineers and top transit experts too.

They too had the precise full map in front of them with all the approapriate stops shown on the map, which direction, when they stop.

All I had to to do is walk them through the procedure."

"I can assure you these transit specialist, one had a P.HD., after they got it."

"I was even offered my own conference room downtown anytime I needed it, for the purposes of future meetings to come."

"One of my meeting suggested I use the $3.00 fare, and another meeting suggested I use the lower average fare to incorporate metropasses."

http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.p...-for-subways-an-obsession&p=359132#post359132

"All I can say is this is still the evaluation stage, discovery stage, and understanding this was my very first meetings."

http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.p...-for-subways-an-obsession&p=359374#post359374

"The words told to me by 3 separate meetings were. "This is fundamentally sound." I was told "I was right". I was told "There are no flaws, that I see". "I don't see anything wrong with this"."

http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.p...-for-subways-an-obsession&p=359728#post359728

"All I can say is that I had 3 extremely possitive meetings, with no negative comments or feedback."

http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.p...-for-subways-an-obsession&p=359960#post359960

"The last time TTC referred me to an outside consultant firm, a "fair response" was not provided. I have been referred back to TTC now by several other sources."

http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.p...-for-subways-an-obsession&p=361968#post361968

"Now I have 4 direct highly credible referrals to Mr. Gary Webster, the Chief Manager of the TTC.

Also a key Federal Government Director also is flying to Toronto to meet with me."

http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.p...-for-subways-an-obsession&p=367492#post367492

"The reason I am prepared to do this is because as I await my TTC meeting which I trust to be soon, I have and am preparing myself for this to be brought to the media and or city hall steps."

"I have put over 10,000 hours into this, all I need is a hour meetings, which I believe is forth coming, "

http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.p...-for-subways-an-obsession&p=367725#post367725

"This is why I will not yet sell it to a door manufacturer until I am met with the transit agencies direct such that there are no ridiculous middle man charges."

http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.p...-for-subways-an-obsession&p=371393#post371393

"I now have a big meeting coming up with ultimate "top" management, I will not say exactly with who."

These are all in chronological order starting from November through to February. She needs a meeting. She's had 3 (or is it 4 or 5) meetings with top dogs at the TTC. She's got an open invitation for a conference room. She's discussed minor details like which fare price to use in calculations. TTC referred her to outside consultant who sent her back to the TTC. She just needs a meeting (hopefully soon). She's meeting with big whigs from outside Toronto. She needs to meet with transit people. She's meeting with the top management at TTC.

Contradictions? Maybe it's because none of these meetings ever happened and no one in any position to do so has said anything favourable about the whole scheme because it is completely whacky. There is bad math, poor understanding of transit operation, poor understanding of public construction, poor understanding of transit demand, inability to grasp finance, incredibly amateur documentation, repeated insistence on avoiding pointed questions and repeating the same tired, overly dramatic lines and a fundamental deficiency in effectively communicating straightforward ideas and concepts.

Might be worth noting that in all the months since these meetings (or potential meetings) started happening, not one word has been said by the TTC about considering some radical, earth-shattering operational/design change, nor has anyone leaked such information to any of the hordes of transit geeks who would be all over it. No corroboration or supporting evidence anywhere.

Harsh? Probably, but the evidence for all is documented in posts from this particular user.

Just a question of how much other users are willing to continue to humour the issue and engage in discussion of individual flawed details rather than looking at the bigger picture and realizing the whole thing is pretty much out to lunch.

 

[andomano]

Patents are anywhere from $200 - $30,000, and the plan is to submit up to 15 of them?

I also enjoy the quotes added into her previous post;

"top" management - i.e. not really the top management and
"ultimate efficiency" - i.e. it's not really efficient.

 

[subway safety]

Depends on whether you consider the organization's oversight (e.g. the Commission) to be part of management. I wouldn't. There's a reason the job titles of people on commissions and boards do not include the word "Manager".

Obviously we are trying to interpret Sharon's intentionally-vague phrasing, but I suspect it's meant to refer to people at Gary Webster's level.

At this point, I really take this with an entire salt mine.

Well, You all have been patient with me. It is a curious thing to consider convert "milk run trains" into "4 express train systems". I continue to promise all of you. I do have a solution. The biggest opposition is finding a leader who either has the power to fix the system, or the will to fix the system.

One thing for sure. I do have a solution.

There are only primary inventions to do with platform safety, and I hold the other, which allows for no longer needing precision braking, no longer needing automatic train control, or uniform rolling stock. I think you all understand there are huge captitol cost savings, since there is no middle man at this point. There is no monopoly on the product.

Now I will tell you for those intrigued with the station skipping portion.

For 60 subway stations......................NOTHING CHANGES.


For 10 subway stations, .................you make 1 singular change. You go to work in the opposit direction to connect with the "express subway", and even these people get to work faster than they used to.

No one is negatively effected. The idea is you operate this way from 6 am to say about 8:30 or 8:45 and at precisely the chosen time by management. All trains are instructed uniformly to be back on "milk run" schedule.

Till 8:45, .........1. All trains are about 1/2 full to optimum capacity is reached. (adding 498,000 new spots, that were not available before...system was previously maxed out)

2. All trains get to work in about 1/2 the time.

3. All trains now commute twice as many people.

The spin off benefits are MASSIVE. I have learned all those benefits. (At least 30 of them and each and of themselves are extremely huge)

1 SOLUTION. OVER 30 PROBLEMS SOLVED.

It goes to show THERE IS TRUTH TO THE FACT ......................SAFETY FIRST.

TTC and others missed this when they were first built.

Sharon

 

[Asterix]

For 10 subway stations, .................you make 1 singular change. You go to work in the opposit direction to connect with the "express subway", and even these people get to work faster than they used to.

No. That has been proven false earlier in this thread. You just refused to read or understand the explanation.

No one is negatively effected.

No. Plenty of people are negatively affected. Also proven in this thread. Also refused to be read or understood by you.

Till 8:45, .........1. All trains are about 1/2 full to optimum capacity is reached. (adding 498,000 new spots, that were not available before...system was previously maxed out)

False again. Please see the explanation of how headway determines capacity, not speed.

2. All trains get to work in about 1/2 the time.

False. It has already been explained trains will be more over loaded and many passengers will take significantly longer to get to work.

3. All trains now commute twice as many people.

False again. See explanation of headway determining capacity not speed.

It goes to show THERE IS TRUTH TO THE FACT

The truth of the fact is that your whole concept is deeply flawed and you continue to flagrantly ignore facts and explanations proving this while continuing to misrepresent yourself and your dealings with the TTC.