|
|
| Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... (1134694) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 24 22:47:11 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Jan 24 22:31:53 2012. I thought Flushing and the rest of the system would keep its wayside signals to allow non-CBTC equipment to run as needed. (Like in Paris, where that is possible outside of ATO-only high frequency hours)That depends on the capacity of the Auxiliary Wayside System (AWS). Please remember the primary objective of CBTC was to save money over a conventional block system. The AWS is a conventional block system. The greater its maximum service level, the greater the number of blocks and the greater its cost. If you want the AWS to handle 30-40 tph, then it will have as many blocks and signals as the present system. Add to that CBTC's cost and there's no way the CBTC system will be less expensive than a conventional block system. The AWS is a skeletal block system that is supposed to allow foreign equipment to operate during the night time hours. It provides 3 tph capacity. The AWS blocks usually coincide with where there are interlockings. This is because CBTC cannot handle interlockings and relies on a local block system. Let the tracks between interlockings be absolute blocks and you have your AWS with approximately 20 minute headway. N.B. there's another reason to have a block system. That's for broken rail detection. |
|
|
|