|
|
| Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. (580303) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 Jeff H. on Mon Mar 3 23:00:05 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Mar 3 21:08:57 2008. I brought this up because I believe that a 1200 foot minimum distance between trains should be sufficient toguarantee all green signals ahead. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want schedule speed and you want trains to reach balancing speed or nearly so between stations, it implies longer than 1200' between the rear of the leader and the first _green_ signal behind it. As I said earlier, it is 1800' In order to get closer train spacing near stations, time control is needed. Likewise, on downgrades one needs to use grade time control, otherwise one would have to increase block lengths to compensate for the higher attained speed. Both. I also want them to know by how much they are off schedule - down to the second. If they are running hot, they can kill some time. But if they are behind schedule, it is very difficult to make up time. Keying-by allowed the follower of a delayed train to get back into his time slot by getting closer to his leader than would normally be possible. Obviously this doesn't help the lead delayed train, but that train can skip stops or run express. |
|
|
|