|
|
| Re: (L) train this morning's commute DISASTER (1229881) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: (L) train this morning's commute DISASTER |
|
|
Posted by j trainloco on Tue Jun 18 20:16:38 2013, in response to Re: (L) train this morning's commute DISASTER, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 18 18:55:19 2013. After the Chambers Street fire on 8th Avenue,they broke out some supervision with radios to clear trains around the dark signals. Certainly a system as complexand expensive as CBTC should have some form of supervisory override as part of the design instead of just laying down,dying and smelling funny.Of course they could do that. CBTC can be disabled on the trains and the signals department can do the same thing that was done at Chambers. Mind you that, during the Chambers fire, the A had significantly reduced headways, the C was suspended, and trains creeped through the affected area. Then again,you don't design a system around proprietary parts that may or may not be available any more after a mere couple of years. I hate to sound like a Luddite here,but building systems with a lifespan of a Windows PC replacing systems that were good for decades doesn't strike me as intelligent thought. Agree. Siemens deployment of CBTC on Canarsie was poor. We need to see how it works with Thales on Flushing. I do find it ridiculous that Flushing and Canarsie will not be compatible with the rest of the system. I also don't like many of the constraints that have been designed into CBTC. |
|
|
|