|
|
| Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... (1134468) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
|
| (1134481) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Tue Jan 24 02:01:51 2012, in response to Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Gold_12TH on Mon Jan 23 23:55:15 2012. EH? They're equipping more R-160A's with CBTC? Oh, for an eventual increase in rush hour service after full CBTC implementation, I suppose. But so many? |
|
|
| (1134489) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 24 07:16:11 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by G1Ravage on Tue Jan 24 02:01:51 2012. Oh, for an eventual increase in rush hour service after full CBTC implementation, I suppose. But so many?64 Cars means 8 trains. The round trip time for the Canarsie Line is approximately 1 hour. 8 additional trains on the line translates to 4 tph more. Before CBTC the capacity on the 14th Street Line was 24 tph, which they ran through the 1970's. They were operating 17 tph according to the 2009 Hub Bound Report. This will bring their capability up to 21tph for a net capacity decline of 4 tph or 12%. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1134512) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Tue Jan 24 09:36:09 2012, in response to Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Gold_12TH on Mon Jan 23 23:55:15 2012. There are no options on R179 anymore. |
|
|
| (1134539) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12TH on Tue Jan 24 12:45:10 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Jace on Tue Jan 24 09:36:09 2012. No, there is an option on the R-179... two of them; just one option is funded. |
|
|
| (1134542) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Tue Jan 24 13:00:41 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Gold_12TH on Tue Jan 24 12:45:10 2012. There were two options when the base order was 290, but none on the 300 car order. |
|
|
| (1134547) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12TH on Tue Jan 24 13:33:03 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Jace on Tue Jan 24 13:00:41 2012. The base order change from 290 to 300. The option order did not change. Option order for 50 cars is funded. Option order for 80 cars is yet to be funded.
|
|
|
| (1134551) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Tue Jan 24 13:48:02 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Gold_12TH on Tue Jan 24 13:33:03 2012. Somethings not right because that chart shows the base being 290 with the 50 car first option in the 0-6 month range. The table below shows only a 300 car base. |
|
|
| (1134555) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12TH on Tue Jan 24 14:00:43 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Jace on Tue Jan 24 13:48:02 2012. MTA did not bother to correct the mistake. |
|
|
| (1134557) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12TH on Tue Jan 24 14:07:33 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Gold_12TH on Tue Jan 24 14:00:43 2012. I still see the 50 subway car order on the MTA Capital Program Dashboard, even though it is not up to date yet.http://mta.info/capitaldashboard/10_14/agencies/t/categories/601/dashboarda.htm |
|
|
| (1134587) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jan 24 16:39:06 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 24 07:16:11 2012. Typical of MTA shortsightedness it looks like only a limited number of R-160s are being CBTC equipped. Since ENY Yd supplies the L line and is responsible for the J and M lines as well, ALL Eastern Division NTTs should be CBTC equipped. Along with that, ALL BMT/IND train crews should be NTT qualified which I don't believe they are as yet. |
|
|
| (1134593) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Jan 24 17:02:00 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Gold_12TH on Tue Jan 24 13:33:03 2012. Is the 80 for SIR, or to bump R46's to SIR ? |
|
|
| (1134596) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue Jan 24 17:06:30 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by randyo on Tue Jan 24 16:39:06 2012. There is a specific reason why the J/M line R160s will not be equipped with CBTC. Care to guess? |
|
|
| (1134598) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12TH on Tue Jan 24 17:09:27 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Joe V on Tue Jan 24 17:02:00 2012. That is the case and its going to be 60 footer instead of 75 footer. Problem is, it is not funded in. That may change. Probably, more info in the next month's board meeting. |
|
|
| (1134607) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Jan 24 17:28:10 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by J trainloco on Tue Jan 24 17:06:30 2012. They don't need the capacity, bad ROI |
|
|
| (1134610) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 24 17:55:18 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by J trainloco on Tue Jan 24 17:06:30 2012. There is a specific reason why the J/M line R160s will not be equipped with CBTC. Care to guess?$$$$$$$$$..... |
|
|
| (1134612) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jan 24 17:59:36 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 24 17:55:18 2012. The problem with not equipping ALL NTTs with CBTC regardless of the present cost is that when the time comes that they will eventually have to be equipped,it will cost even more money. Remember you can always not use what you have but you can't use what you don't have. |
|
|
| (1134619) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue Jan 24 18:21:01 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 24 17:55:18 2012. I'm suprised you didn't get it right. It's one of your favorite whipping boys when you criticize CBTC. |
|
|
| (1134635) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 24 19:37:19 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by J trainloco on Tue Jan 24 18:21:01 2012. I'm suprised you didn't get it right. It's one of your favorite whipping boys when you criticize CBTC.The basic root answer is money. There's the problem of compatibility between the Digital Communication System (DCS) used on the 14th Street Line with those that will be used on all other lines. NYCT allowed Siemens to substitute its own proprietary DCS for an industry standard. One of the two follower contractors dropped out as a result of this decision. The other offered to reverse engineer Siemen's DCS but NYCT told them to buy them from Siemens. There are two problems: Siemen's DCS receivers and transmitters cost 100 times more than industry standard receivers and transmitters; Siemens cannot supply any more receivers and transmitters because they never made them. They bought them from a sub-contractor. That sub-contractor no longer makes this receiver/transmitter because it is obsolete and nobody is buying it. That sub-contractor builds receiver/transmitters and relies on volume sales. The 32 receiver/transmitters that they are now buying isn't exactly volume in the electronics industry. The big fun will be when CBTC comes to the lines leading to the Coney Island yards. The two CBTC implementations will not be compatible. The 14th Street train will not be recognized on any Southern Division tracks. That means the CBTC will revert to its Auxilliary Wayside System (AWS), which will enforce a 20 minute headway. That will cause delays even during night time hours. Why did Siemens propose the change? $$$$ - the proprietary DCS is integrated into their wayside and onboard computers. This locks NYCT into the Siemens technology. Why isn't NYCT going with this same Siemens technology for other CBTC implementations? $$$$ - no other transit system agreed to Siemen's Three Card Monte DCS substitution. Consequently, all other CBTC implementations are considerably less expensive than the 14th Street Line. These other systems are using other vendors and getting lower quotes. That's why I gave the brief answer as $$$$$. |
|
|
| (1134649) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Ble-nimx on Tue Jan 24 20:28:09 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 24 19:37:19 2012. If they are worrying about running 14 street cars for shop moves to CIY, wouldn't they be doing so in manual mode during midnight hours in bypass, why would they need ATO? |
|
|
| (1134650) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue Jan 24 20:30:16 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 24 19:37:19 2012. There's the problem of compatibility between the Digital Communication System (DCS) used on the 14th Street Line with those that will be used on all other lines.Bingo. The big fun will be when CBTC comes to the lines leading to the Coney Island yards. The two CBTC implementations will not be compatible. The 14th Street train will not be recognized on any Southern Division tracks. That means the CBTC will revert to its Auxilliary Wayside System (AWS),which will enforce a 20 minute headway. That will cause delays even during night time hours. There's plenty of fun before that. How does MOW equipment travel on Canarsie? When b'way bklyn gets CBTC, how does it even get out of the eastern div? FWIW, Flushing will have the same issues, but the rest of the system will be compatible. Who knows how that will shake out... That's why I gave the brief answer as $$$$$ Yes, but simply saying $$$$$ implies that NYCT is not installing Canarsie's onboard CBTC equipment in the entire eastern division fleet simply because they don't want to spend money on it. The L will ALWAYS have it's own dedicated fleet, at least until they replace Siemens' equipment. |
|
|
| (1134658) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Jan 24 20:53:08 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by J trainloco on Tue Jan 24 20:30:16 2012. there still a piece of CBTC trackage on the J line between ENY and MYRTLE..Center track only. |
|
|
| (1134688) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Jan 24 22:31:53 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by J trainloco on Tue Jan 24 20:30:16 2012. FWIW, Flushing will have the same issuesI thought Flushing and the rest of the system would keep its wayside signals to allow non-CBTC equipment to run as needed. (Like in Paris, where that is possible outside of ATO-only high frequency hours) |
|
|
| (1134694) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 24 22:47:11 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Jan 24 22:31:53 2012. I thought Flushing and the rest of the system would keep its wayside signals to allow non-CBTC equipment to run as needed. (Like in Paris, where that is possible outside of ATO-only high frequency hours)That depends on the capacity of the Auxiliary Wayside System (AWS). Please remember the primary objective of CBTC was to save money over a conventional block system. The AWS is a conventional block system. The greater its maximum service level, the greater the number of blocks and the greater its cost. If you want the AWS to handle 30-40 tph, then it will have as many blocks and signals as the present system. Add to that CBTC's cost and there's no way the CBTC system will be less expensive than a conventional block system. The AWS is a skeletal block system that is supposed to allow foreign equipment to operate during the night time hours. It provides 3 tph capacity. The AWS blocks usually coincide with where there are interlockings. This is because CBTC cannot handle interlockings and relies on a local block system. Let the tracks between interlockings be absolute blocks and you have your AWS with approximately 20 minute headway. N.B. there's another reason to have a block system. That's for broken rail detection. |
|
|
| (1134697) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 24 22:53:49 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by J trainloco on Tue Jan 24 20:30:16 2012. How does MOW equipment travel on Canarsie?MOW equipment travels 20 minutes behind its leader and the MOW equipment's follower travels 20 minutes behind it. That the AWS' function. That's a penalty that the designers have been willing to pay because they believe that such travel will be during the midnight hours. |
|
|
| (1134699) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 24 23:02:52 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by J trainloco on Tue Jan 24 20:30:16 2012. The L will ALWAYS have it's own dedicated fleet, at least until they replace Siemens' equipment.The Siemens' equipment will have to be replaced because neither NYCT nor Siemens will be able to maintain it in a cost effective manner. It's replacement date will coincide with the Montague St tunnel receiving CBTC. That's when yard moves will introduce 20 minute delays. I believe that a few people in NYCT realize this. That's why they are limiting the number of R160's equipped to operate on the 14th St Line to a bare minimum. All these DCS units will have to be replaced and declared a total loss. They are cutting those losses by converting only 64 cars. |
|
|
| (1134701) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Jan 24 23:07:40 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 24 22:47:11 2012. Paris' ATO is a fixed block system (so far) and the full conventional wayside signaling has been kept. In theory, an experienced driver should be able to handle rush hour manual driving sandwiched between ATO trains. It's just that they don't allow manual driving once past a certain frequency.Once they make the shift to moving blocks, bye bye Museum runs. Whether manual or automatic, the train has to be moving block capable or it will need absolute blocks. |
|
|
| (1134702) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Tue Jan 24 23:09:17 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Ble-nimx on Tue Jan 24 20:28:09 2012. wouldn't they be doing so in manual mode during midnight hours in bypass, why would they need ATO?Even in manual mode they still need signals. My understanding is, with incompatible CBTC, the L trains would be invisible to the signal system, and the equipment on the train wouldn't be able to interpret/display the signals for the line it is on. Then you are down to wayside signals (which, unless they want to maintain two signal systems for large portions of the subway forever, will literally be few and far between). What they *could* do is equip some (by then) R62 work motors with dual systems to escort L line equipment to Coney Island when needed, like how Corona trains are still escorted by R33s... |
|
|
| (1134703) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue Jan 24 23:13:25 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 24 22:53:49 2012. That's not necessarily going to be the answer. NYCT is going to evaluate alternate solutions to the issue. The final answer has not been determined. |
|
|
| (1134704) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue Jan 24 23:15:40 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 24 23:02:52 2012. They're limiting the number of CBTC equipped R160s because outfitting them with Siemens equipment precludes them from running on the M in 10 years when Queens Boulevard will have CBTC. |
|
|
| (1134705) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Jan 24 23:21:31 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 24 23:02:52 2012. It's replacement date will coincide with the Montague St tunnel receiving CBTC.Or when Siemens stops/has become unable to supply parts for it. That happened for an entire class of cars at a certain railway in Japan to which Siemens originally supplied the VVVF inverters. Now they are replacing the whole inverters to domestic ones (Mitsubishi and Toshiba, IIRC). |
|
|
| (1134715) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Wed Jan 25 01:04:48 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by J trainloco on Tue Jan 24 23:15:40 2012. Assuming the (M) is still running to Forest Hills in ten years. |
|
|
| (1134716) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by BLE-NIMX on Wed Jan 25 01:05:23 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Tue Jan 24 23:09:17 2012. The Corona work motors are there for signal trip protection. It sounds like the TA is setting the system up to the point they don't want or need a Train operator to ever run a train in manual mode with the system choking CBTC and ATO rules and automatic signal removals. They will be phucked if a system like that goes down on the Lex during rush hour. I wonder if ANYONE up there in the MTA's hall of shame had the balls or even smarts to ask if there was an ACERS setup available that could work with trip cocks for interlocking track sections. |
|
|
| (1134741) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Jan 25 08:23:23 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by J trainloco on Tue Jan 24 23:15:40 2012. running on the M in 10 years when Queens Boulevard will have CBTC.I'm willing to bet that QB will not have CBTC operational ten years from now. If the Canary Sea Line is any model, Flushing will not be operational by 2022. Statistically I won't be around in 10 years, so I can afford to make such long range predictions without fear of suffering consequences should I be wrong. I had not considered that problem. However, there are alternate M routings should the need arise to banish them from QB. They could always go back to sending the M to Chambers and reintroduce the V. Should the dregs of Ridgewood object to losing their one seat ride to midtown, they could always send the M to 96th Street on the completed SAS. The point is they have options that are reasonably cost effective. OTOH, once Montague St gets CBTC, they will have to think long and hard about getting trains to Coney Island for major repairs. Of course NYCT has figured out ways of avoiding repairs to equipment, so they may defer maintenance for the R143's indefinitely to avoid CBTC compatibility problems. |
|
|
| (1134761) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jan 25 11:41:09 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by G1Ravage on Tue Jan 24 02:01:51 2012. They can't do that until the R179 purchase is made. J and M demands on the R160 fleet is severe, and, due to the inflexibility of the R160 being in 4 and 5 car sets, there's nowhere else to get more cars. Even if the R42's are kept and overhauled for another 5 years, there's just no way to do it. |
|
|
| (1134804) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Wed Jan 25 13:56:38 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by randyo on Tue Jan 24 16:39:06 2012. I also question the removal of all wayside signals from the L-line. I guess that means1) No Arnine or B-Type Fan Trips there and; 2) All work equipment in the area, including the garbage train, must be CBTC-equipped as well? Or manually flagged? |
|
|
| (1134821) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Dj Hammers on Wed Jan 25 14:53:00 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by MainR3664 on Wed Jan 25 13:56:38 2012. What was the reason for removing the wayside signals from the L line? At least with wayside signals in place, a backup in case of a CBTC failure could be availible. |
|
|
| (1134844) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Jan 25 17:04:02 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Dj Hammers on Wed Jan 25 14:53:00 2012. Unlike older cab signal installations, CBTC is based on a moving block system rather than fixed block which would be necessary with wayside signals so the two types of block systems would be incompatible with each other. |
|
|
| (1134889) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Wed Jan 25 19:17:01 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Jan 24 23:07:40 2012. Once they make the shift to moving blocks, bye bye Museum runs.In theory (lets pretend money grows on trees), couldn't a CBTC kit be installed to make a museum train CBTC aware but for manual operation? For it to be safe, the signal system only needs three things: 1. The computer must be aware of the museum train's presence, length and speed. 2. The computer must be able to tell the train that it cannot exceed a certain speed, and it obeys. This doesn't need to be automatic, an operator with a close eye on a cab signal can probably respond fast enough to most situations. And if not: 3. The computer must be able to send the train an emergency brake signal to force it to stop, with appropriate stop distance calculations for the given speed to determine how close it can get to another train before needing to do so. |
|
|
| (1134903) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Wed Jan 25 19:56:46 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Jan 25 08:23:23 2012. At some point, NYCT is going to begin implementing CBTC much quicker than it took to implement it on Canarsie. If they don't, they'll start having problems with signal failures all over the IND. There's no reason to think that QB won't, at the least, be in the middle of CBTC implementation 10 years from now. Even if it isn't, there will still come a day when the J/M fleet will start getting onboard CBTC equipment that will result in any cars with Canarsie equipment being incompatible. So why add it to cars that aren't going to run on Canarsie? |
|
|
| (1134913) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Wed Jan 25 20:35:21 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Dj Hammers on Wed Jan 25 14:53:00 2012. As Stephen Baumann often points out, the chief benefit of CBTC is lower cost for the signal system. If you have to maintain two signal systems, there's much less incentive to have CBTC. |
|
|
| (1134914) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Dj Hammers on Wed Jan 25 20:39:09 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by J trainloco on Wed Jan 25 20:35:21 2012. Hypothetically, if all of the money that was spent on CBTC for the (L) line was instead spent on improving the track, banking curves and building tail tracks at 8th avenue and Rockaway Parkway, would efficiency rise to the point of surpassing efficiency gains provided by CBTC? |
|
|
| (1134923) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Wed Jan 25 20:54:11 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Wed Jan 25 19:17:01 2012. The signal system also requires the train to be:1. In one or two units. 2. Each unit must be 4, 5 or 6 cars. |
|
|
| (1134924) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Wed Jan 25 20:57:06 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Dj Hammers on Wed Jan 25 20:39:09 2012. No, because the money you spent on CBTC would have been spent on replacing the fixed block system that was beyond it's useful lifespan. |
|
|
| (1134926) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Jan 25 21:02:48 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by J trainloco on Wed Jan 25 20:57:06 2012. huh?The older system was able to handle much more service than whats being provided now...so why would there really be a need to update it..? Is this what they do when they want to try something new..call it OUTDATED to find a reason to get rid of it? |
|
|
| (1134933) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Wed Jan 25 21:23:04 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Edwards! on Wed Jan 25 21:02:48 2012. Signal systems reach a point where the components begin to fail. As a result, they have a lifespan, and have to be replaced. All mechanical equipment has this problem. Especially equipment with moving parts like relays. |
|
|
| (1134937) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Jan 25 21:40:19 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by J trainloco on Wed Jan 25 21:23:04 2012. And the particular relay system the NYCTA has is years old and considered obsolete..and not many companies manufacture those components anymore..is that what you were trying to say? |
|
|
| (1134946) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Wed Jan 25 22:31:09 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by Edwards! on Wed Jan 25 21:40:19 2012. No.Signal systems have a useful lifespan. When that lifespan is up, they must be replaced. NYCT could have replaced the signal system with a conventional relay based fixed block system with wayside signalling. Instead, they went with CBTC, ostensibly for the following reasons: 1. CBTC offers capacity that NYCT cannot achieve with fixed block signalling. 2. CBTC is cheaper than fixed block systems with wayside signalling. 3. CBTC can be used to implement ATO, which should theoretically reduce operating costs. People can say all they want about lack of fixed block signalling as a backup to CBTC, but there's no backup to the current fixed block system, and when it fails, I guess that's okay. The 7 line went completely kaput last summer due to failure of the signal system. There have been other catastrophic failures of the signal system, such as the Chambers st IND fire. I suppose the lack of a backup there was ok too. But if the L line goes down for half of a day, then we MUST have a fixed block backup. CBTC, particularly the way NYCT implemented it on Canarsie, has its issues. But it does have distinct advantages over the existing system, which riders should be able to benefit from when it gets fully implemented on Flushing and Queens Blvd. |
|
|
| (1134947) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Jan 25 22:45:27 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by J trainloco on Wed Jan 25 22:31:09 2012. Hmmm...the company line..very good.. |
|
|
| (1134951) | |
Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ... |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Jan 25 22:57:48 2012, in response to Re: Latest updates: R-179 order saga, R-160 CBTC for (L) line & special reports ..., posted by randyo on Wed Jan 25 17:04:02 2012. CBTC is based on a moving block system rather than fixed block which would be necessary with wayside signals so the two types of block systems would be incompatible with each other.CBTC stands for Communications Based Traffic Control. The train knows where it is and how fast it is travelling. The train communicates this information to the Traffic Control System. There are no physical blocks. The Traffic Control System can use a virtual fixed block system, a virtual moving block system or any other system to maintain safe distances between trains. It's not necessary to remove an existing block system to operate under CBTC. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
