|
|
| Re: R-160 Update (315508) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 19:51:47 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Sep 25 19:22:50 2006. If the goal is to have ATO, then CBTC is proving to be a very expensive way to achieve it. Also, if the ATO as practiced by CBTC adds 30 seconds (as reported by one contributer) to the braking time at an intermediate station, then it's also useless.We've yet to see full operated ATO coupled with CBTC. We can't make assumptions about it. What we can say is that ATO connected with CBTC will feature blocks that move as opposed to stationary ones. Is there any benefit to that? I can't say that with certainty, but it seems as though there is. They don't. They don't have closed loop control on acceleration. Burned out motors are not sufficient cause for sending a car to the shop MOST trainsets have near identical acceleration. Small wonder. Balanced merges are needed to avoid delays. The alternative is non-uniform intervals between trains. That opens up a whole new can of worms for maintaining schedules. You should look at the schedule for the A train. Interesting reading. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|