|
|
| Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. (579342) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 10:15:03 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Sun Mar 2 09:23:59 2008. It isn't that CBTC is 'so problematic', it's that problems, often unforeseen, can develop as to any system, even one thought quite safe.Look, e.g., at the WMATA incident at Woodley Park - WMATA had a system with speed control that one would think quite safe, but a train ended up going backward when it was supposed to be going forward, the train engineer apparently didn't notice that his train was going backward for about a half mile and accelerating at that, and the train's engineer didn't engage the brakes or emergency brakes. There's always a way for something to go wrong, even in safe systems. The comparison to BART and MUNI may be inapposite; neither uses the CBTC system that NYCT will be using. That's part of the problem in any comparison; the NYCT CBTC system seems to be sui generis in many respects. And even there, the systems are probably not infallible. Accidents happen, and you try to make corrections. That's how life works. MUNI's system uses a different type of technology - we might as well term it IL-CBTC to contrast it with the RF-CBTC being installed elsewhere nowadays, and is BART's RF-CBTC signal system ('AATC') even fully implemented yet? The last I read about AATC on BART, there were many problems, actually. Any updates? |
|
|
|