|
|
| Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. (579027) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 trainsarefun on Sat Mar 1 18:58:17 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 17:42:54 2008. CBTC might squeeze 5% more trains through non-terminal stations than the present wayside system.Can you show how you computed/estimated that? I'm not sure that the specific empirical method you used to compute the current signal system's capacity would work. Plus, if your 5% figure is correct, how is it supposed to solve capacity problems? that's an improvement of only 1 tph working off a base of 30 tph; ok, it's actually 1.5 tph, but this is a case where I guess it's fine to round down. Also, I recall PATH promising that their use of CBTC would improve capacity by more than 5%, although I forget how much. That leaves a lot of squeezing capability for the current system before CBTC's benefits kick in. I'm not as sure that the current system fares as well with bunching problems requiring what we've called 'squeezing', partly because the station time signals aren't used to full effect. But the far easier solution to THAT problem is likely to try to reduce bunching as much as possible. Command, we have a problem! Indeed. This would be a plausible explanation for the hit-or-miss that is 30 tph operation on the Queens Blvd express tracks. Will the CBTC solution to try to improve capacity on the Queens Blvd Line (and elsewhere) involve lots of 'squeezing'? At a certain limit, 'squeezing' starts to resemble the conveyor belt, one must even guess; I doubt it would get to that point, but we shall see. |
|
|
|