|
|
| Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. (578675) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 Stephen Bauman on Fri Feb 29 23:30:58 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 23:17:19 2008. One general question: the inductive loop system seems to rely on loops continuous with each track of the line, and the 'lossy line' used by Bombardier also seems continuous in the same way. Have the discrete, i.e., non-continuous systems, been successful in being reliable? If so, has they achieved this state by using lots of radios,The reason for going to an RF-DCS (as opposed to inductive loop or lossy transmission line) is reduced maintenance cost. The theory was that the RF-DCS wayside equipment would be located in stations and would cover area between stations. This is true for the open air. It hasn't worked that way in the tunnels. given that NYCT's Siemens system uses the most expensive, least compatible, and apparently shortest-enduring radios, that would tend to drive up cost, wouldn't it? A project manager's salary is directly related to the size of projects he manages. |
|
|
|