|
|
| Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. (579832) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 Mon Mar 3 08:46:02 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Mon Mar 3 03:19:39 2008. I know what s-z transforms areGee, my remarks seem condescending on second reading. I did not intend them to be. Please accept my apologies. what's the cost of raising the sampling rate? Plug in some numbers to your formulae. I think you'll find that in order to control speed to the same level as a continuous signal system, even allowing for enforcement delay of the latter, you would need to space signals every 100 feet, maybe less. Agreed. I was merely pointing out that conventional wayside signals can provide the same level of speed control protection as coded track signals. BTW, I believe the BRT installed signals every 100 feet on the Brooklyn Bridge a century ago (when cable propulsion was replaced). The stated purpose was to enforce the bridge's weight constraints which mandated 700 foot spacing between trains. There were also speed constraints on the trains, I do not recall whether or not the signals also had timers or relied on the T/O's. Curves, tunnels, etc. See around curves? I'd do it with mirrors (or an occasional repeater). That means an interlocking or approach signal which is under tower control. You mean a tower operator can throw a switch open, while a train is barreling towards it? Just what was the design spec for that interlocking? |
|
|
|