|
|
| Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. (579303) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 Sun Mar 2 08:51:25 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Sun Mar 2 01:18:48 2008. I think you're right that with respect to items 1-5, although the capabilities of the traditional signal system remain the same - Stephen's measured it, after all - that signal system isn't being used to full effect, to the point where NYCT now believes that operations require items 1-5 almost as a matter of physical reality.But if you're right, then the future doesn't bode well for CBTC, either. Somewhere along the line, things working as they do, there will be a failure resulting in a collision or derailment. And then new items, on the mode of operation you've described, would be put into effect which hamper CBTC's proclaimed advantage. What then? Look for the next-generation signal system and then start the vicious cycle again? Or, train crew as nannies for a fully automated system? That seems to be the logical stopping point for mistrust of crew competence. Is it paranoia, do you think? Railroads in our area, after all, use stop-and-proceed signals. Is it lack of picking out the right people most of the time for crews, or lack of training? It seems like for each item, there was another way to go. As to key-by, there's trying to ensure competent discretion; the solution actually arrived at seems to be no key-by without authorization. The solution to Robert Ray could have been conductors reining in an engineer who had too many problems instead of wheel detectors. Etc. In the end, it seems like the direction was picked to head toward a 'continuous' system like ASC or CBTC, and away from the 'discrete' system we have. Although I think it's interesting that Stephen is attacking this whole distinction that I think I've created here between continuous and discrete by trying to show that all systems under consideration are simply more or less discrete depending on how many points along the line, and 'continuous' is simply my term for 'less discrete', especially since low-end acceleration on NYCT trains is a constant (at least barring faulty motors, etc.). |
|
|
|