|
|
| Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. (578473) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 17:17:24 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Feb 29 12:56:06 2008. "Current equipment is designed to have a maximum stopping distance of 275 feet (up from 250 feet for the pre-WWII fleet). If one adds a safety margin of 35%, this comes to 372 feet. This is the minimum safe distance between trains to guarantee that a follower will not rear-end its leader, should the leader decide to derail. The only way to shorten this distance is to improve emergency braking rates. "According to Stephen Baumann, who currently manufactures subway cars. Also, even if true, you don't specify the speed at which this braking distance is rge case. Subway cars can easily stop in 100 feet if they operate slowly enough. The presence of CBTC allows the trains to do so regardless of the fixed block boundaries and is a fail-safe against the misjudgments of a T/O. "CBTC's principal weakness over a wayside-based system is the requirement that all rolling stock must be CBTC-equippped in order for the system to function" A trivial weakness given that the MTA will have sufficient new rolling stock within a year or so to supply the necessary rolling stock. Several classes of cars are already on their way out to the steel recycler or the ocean to make reefs. Will your next complaint be that CBTC cannot be installed in the reefs off New Jersey and cannot be certified to work at zero velocity? :0) |
|
|
|