|
|
| TA is obsessed with CBTC, and "New" tech for no reason. (578118) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 11 |
|
|
|
| (578134) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Thu Feb 28 22:25:34 2008, in response to TA is obsessed with CBTC, and "New" tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Feb 28 22:08:34 2008. Carbon steel rots and eventually the cost of maintaining older equipment is greater than the revenue they produce. New cars are heavier because of additional federally mandated safety features. MTA does not need to retain old cars to improve the subway system. Signals are necessary to prevent trains that are stopped from being targets of other trains or around curves so the T/O can keep the train at a safe speed. That being said, there are far too many timers in the system and that makes headways much greater than they need to be. Moscow can run subways on 90 second intervals with long stretches of no express stops, why can't New York City? While New York City does have longer dwell times the number of TPH is below what it could be |
|
|
| (578136) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Feb 28 22:27:21 2008, in response to TA is obsessed with CBTC, and "New" tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Feb 28 22:08:34 2008. I was once on a path train that dumped its air in the tunnels, and one that got tripped. Only the people on the train knew of this, NOBODY ELSE NEDDED TO KNOW. Once there was a trespasser in a conductor cab on a C train playing with buzzers, the CR got on the PA: that you partner? T/O:No must have been someone else. The buzzing stopped. no one reported it because it is daily bull that nobody cares about. It is meaningless in the grans scheme. Probably a CR cab door swung open, or someone got their hands on a key and wanted to fool around. There are lots of those keys floating around, even cops have them. I'd rather a boy who loves trains ride around in a train rather than doing drugs, shooting people, or being shot. There are more important things like maintanence, GUN crime, children without parents, crappy schools, and such, rather than an overrunning train, or a buzzing tresspasser(HAHA, sounds funny) to report. The TSS made the choice not to report it because it was probably a nervous TO, that didn't need any more stress. GET IT? THINK, dude, THINK! The TSS took care of the problem on a personal level rather than letting the issue be chewed up by the slow, crappy system. You would make a good, brainless pawn if you think everything is neatly reported. Like the assholes who give tickets to working people walking between cars in TERMINALS.THINK, DUDE. THINK! |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (578145) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Feb 28 22:40:51 2008, in response to TA is obsessed with CBTC, and "New" tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Feb 28 22:08:34 2008. WITH CBTC, A TRAIN CAN NOT OVERSHOOT 15 OF THE FIRST 5 STATIONS IT COMES TO AND THE INCIDENTS GO UNREPORTED. |
|
|
| (578162) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Feb 28 23:09:05 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Train Dude on Thu Feb 28 22:27:21 2008. Man, you have a bad attitude. I was asking honest questions, and wanted constructive criticism, and you post this. Why?Don't you think there is any truth in my original post? Do you support the TA and the way it is spending money? Then please justify it. I now see, that the in the above message, i was slighlty offensive, profound, and uncontrolled. I went overboard. I appoligize. |
|
|
| (578166) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Feb 28 23:19:15 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by mtk52983 on Thu Feb 28 22:25:34 2008. What about the stanless steel bodied cars?Also, what safety features do the new trains have that the old ones didn't? I though the new trains were less rigid, and were built like th F-units, without a mainframe. I kow they have end frames, but the bodies will buckle in the center during collisions if they lack a full length frame like the older cars. It is hard to believe that they repaired one of the cars involved in the williamsburg wreck, and put it back to service, despite having a good portion of its front damaged, the body was good enough to be put back in service. |
|
|
| (578174) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Feb 28 23:30:27 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Train Dude on Thu Feb 28 22:27:21 2008. Joirnal-Square-K-car posts more fantasies than a wet dream. The ignorant BS about braking, the fictional account of how CCBTC works, what management does or doesn't do, it's mind boggling.But this is Subchat. He's harmless here. |
|
|
| (578176) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Feb 28 23:35:00 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Feb 28 23:19:15 2008. You have more bullshit fantasies about trains than Hugh Hefner's lifetime of wet dreams.If I could fulfill as many fantasies as you have, I'd have the entire Playboy Bunny Squad marching through my bedroom. |
|
|
| (578181) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Feb 28 23:51:15 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Thu Feb 28 23:35:00 2008. Why so negative? What fantasies? That is the truth. They turned a nonslant into a slant! The frame wasn't damaged, only the front end.They could strengthen the ends on the trains by putting up stronger bulkheads with RIVETS(maybe riveting on a bulkhead onto the rigid mainframe, and add rigidity with plates, it will add maybe a few hundred pounds to the weight of the car, but will add more rigidity for crashes if they ever ,god forbid, occur.)-, because they are better than bolts and spotwelds in most cases. Think positive. I know good things can and will happen. PS: YOU MUST RESPECT WOMEN, and MEN. If your only fantasy is having women pertending to be "bunnies" marching through your bedroom, then shame on you. You only need one woman to love, and i hope you find yours. Bunny squads won't make you happy, they will only give you the illusion of satisfaction, but your inner self will not be satisfied. Playboy, and Porno IS bad for everyone involved, even the viewer. Use your imagination, THINK. |
|
|
| (578182) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Feb 28 23:54:09 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Feb 28 23:51:15 2008. "Think positive. I know good things can and will happen."Agreed, but only if you bother to learn something. I suggest you pay close attention to Train Dude and lose the bullshit. That would be a positive step for you. "If your only fantasy is having women pertending to be "bunnies" marching through your bedroom, then shame on you." If you have no sense of humor, then shame on you. |
|
|
| (578186) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Fri Feb 29 00:13:20 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Thu Feb 28 23:54:09 2008. You see, i knew you were not all bad. BUT, what "bullshit"?That is being negative, you are implying something. |
|
|
| (578188) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by joe c on Fri Feb 29 00:16:17 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Feb 28 23:19:15 2008. It is true that CI overhaul shop turned a nonslant R40M into an slantR40,it never returned to service.don't know why. til next time |
|
|
| (578193) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Feb 29 00:42:43 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Train Dude on Thu Feb 28 22:40:51 2008. WITH CBTC, A TRAIN CAN NOT OVERSHOOT 15 OF THE FIRST 5 STATIONS IT COMES TO AND THE INCIDENTS GO UNREPORTED.If that were CBTC's objective, then it's a very expensive solution. There are a lot of solutions that could detect and report such incidents in real time. |
|
|
| (578201) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by BLE-NIMX on Fri Feb 29 01:28:38 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Feb 28 23:51:15 2008. I fully agree with that post and agree we must support women too. If I ever catch you throwing out my December Hustler I will wring your neck. |
|
|
| (578202) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Fri Feb 29 02:21:52 2008, in response to TA is obsessed with CBTC, and "New" tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Feb 28 22:08:34 2008. The issue of CBTC is a complex one. Although I think the TAwould have gotten a better ROI on a more conservative system such as coded track circuits, cab signals and ASC, circumstances beyond the control of just the signal department (or CPM) are mandating that something be done to improve the fixed wayside system with mechanical train stops. You have to understand that the existing system was designed with an important underlying premise: that the motorman was well-trained, generally had good control of his train, and most importantly cared deeply about avoiding an accident. In other words, the system was designed to keep honest people honest and to catch lapses of attention which are normal human failings. Because of many factors including our screwed up legal system, management structure, labor relations, training procedures, etc. there are new design assumptions required of the signal system. Basically the signal engineer today must assume that the train operator is inattentive, has a limited ability to control the train, and is practically a suicidal maniac hell-bent on causing a wreck. I don't think it is possible to go back to the old way, unfortunately. |
|
|
| (578204) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 02:35:07 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Fri Feb 29 00:13:20 2008. I'm implying that you fantasize instead of posting facts.Wait, I'm not implying it; I'm stating it. 8-) |
|
|
| (578205) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 02:38:03 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Fri Feb 29 02:21:52 2008. "You have to understand that the existing system was designedwith an important underlying premise: that the motorman was well-trained, generally had good control of his train, and most importantly cared deeply about avoiding an accident. In other words, the system was designed to keep honest people honest and to catch lapses of attention which are normal human failings." True. "Basically the signal engineer today must assume that the train operator is inattentive, has a limited ability to control the train, and is practically a suicidal maniac hell-bent on causing a wreck." The TA is forced to assume that model because the public today is far less tolerant or understanding of even minor accidents, and far more ready to sue. The TA's management isn't any worse inherently than it ever was (though Kalikow did not negative things) but the public's expectations have changed. |
|
|
| (578207) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 02:38:23 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by BLE-NIMX on Fri Feb 29 01:28:38 2008. LOL! |
|
|
| (578211) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Fri Feb 29 02:56:25 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Train Dude on Thu Feb 28 22:40:51 2008. Thank god for CBTC, then! |
|
|
| (578214) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Fri Feb 29 03:17:23 2008, in response to TA is obsessed with CBTC, and "New" tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Feb 28 22:08:34 2008. This isn't 1904 anymore. Times change and so does subway operations. Just give CBTC a chance. The TA is trying their hardest to cope with congestion and capacity. |
|
|
| (578224) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri Feb 29 03:44:07 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Feb 28 23:51:15 2008. YOU MUST RESPECT WOMEN, and MEN. If your only fantasy is having women pertending to be "bunnies" marching through your bedroom, then shame on you. You only need one woman to love, and i hope you find yours. Bunny squads won't make you happy, they will only give you the illusion of satisfaction, but your inner self will not be satisfied. Playboy, and Porno IS bad for everyone involved, even the viewer. Use your imagination, THINK.I use porn responsibly, and I respect women so please don't make implications about how some of us choose to live our lives. Porn viewers aren't evil people, and a good number of us are decent people who have loved ones to care about. |
|
|
| (578227) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Feb 29 03:53:28 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri Feb 29 03:44:07 2008. I prefer TRAIN porn myself. Nothing raises my semaphore like a warm traction motor. :) |
|
|
| (578246) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by North-Easten T/O on Fri Feb 29 07:40:25 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Feb 28 23:09:05 2008. You want to know why the TA is spending money on the CBTC system, ask the Federal Government. They told the TA awhile ago that they will not pay money toes upgrading the older Signal system any more, because it's out of date. So the TA had to come up with a how put a new Signal System into system. Hence CBTC. CBTC is working right for the most part, it's not running the right way because someone who order the R143's did not order enought cars to do that they had intended to do with it. If they would have order about 100 more cars then CBTC would have been %100 working right now, But instead it's about %75 of what they wanted it to be. Another problem is that the R160a1's should have came in with the CBTC computer and started testing right away, but that was another over sight on the TA part. Ow we have to wait until the last 80 cars before CBTC will come in on them.Once the CBTC system on the L line is working %100 you will see the difference. In the system from BWJ to CNR and 3rd Ave ad 8th Ave. if your in a CBTC train you can run 100ft behind the train in front of you. That is if it's is not a R160. The CBTC system keeps you back more because it does not exactly were that train is sitting on the CBTC block. I have come into station while the other train is moving out but still have a part of the back in so many times I can't any more. I still get a kick out of seeing the people faces when I do it. This it were CBTC save time by alwing you to do this and still keep the trains at a safe distence between of about 50-75ft. If you try to move any closer the CBTC will stop the train on it's own and I don't meen by dumping the brakes but just by putting the brakes on. So in short CBTC is going to do more to save time once it's %100 working. I do see proff of it 3 days a week. How? 1)Trains are alowed to get closer together = Less time between train. 2)Trains do run faster in CBTC then when they are in BY-Pass, hence once all trains are working with CBTC the train will be faster, saving time on your trip. There are more that I can put into this but I don't have time right now, so I will leave it at this. If you still don't beleave that cBTC is going to work down the road now then I don't know what else to tell you. |
|
|
| (578249) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by North-Easten T/O on Fri Feb 29 07:45:09 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Fri Feb 29 02:21:52 2008. Ha I have my train always under controll, but I am still a "suicidal maniac hell-bent on causing a wreck." I just do it in a way that they don't know it's coming. :0 |
|
|
| (578252) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Feb 29 07:49:00 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by North-Easten T/O on Fri Feb 29 07:40:25 2008. Gotta love them zany feds. I'll just leave it there. You know what I did for a living when things were saner. :( |
|
|
| (578267) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 08:24:18 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Fri Feb 29 02:21:52 2008. Very interesting post.The issue of CBTC is a complex one. Although I think the TA would have gotten a better ROI on a more conservative system such as coded track circuits, cab signals and ASC, circumstances beyond the control of just the signal department (or CPM) are mandating that something be done to improve the fixed wayside system with mechanical train stops. What are the circumstances that counseled, in NYCT's view, anyway, in favor of CBTC over the more conservative sort of system that you describe? So far as I can tell, LIRR had a failed experience with CBTC, quite a few years back, so that would be history suggesting it's a bit difficult to pull off, and why have to pull it off if there's an easier path to take, i.e., the conservative path? |
|
|
| (578273) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 08:41:17 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by North-Easten T/O on Fri Feb 29 07:40:25 2008. Very interesting.You want to know why the TA is spending money on the CBTC system, ask the Federal Government. They told the TA awhile ago that they will not pay money toes upgrading the older Signal system any more, because it's out of date. That would explain why PATH is supposed to upgrade to CBTC too; we'll see how they implement it. we have to wait until the last 80 cars before CBTC will come in on them. I don't know why that should be, though. Couldn't they have held more of the older cars in service before the newest cars came in CBTC-ready? This it were CBTC save time by alwing you to do this and still keep the trains at a safe distence between of about 50-75ft. If you try to move any closer the CBTC will stop the train on it's own and I don't meen by dumping the brakes but just by putting the brakes on. Interesting - a penalty brake application. |
|
|
| (578275) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by North-Easten T/O on Fri Feb 29 08:57:41 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 08:41:17 2008. There is still not enought R143's to run the increase service that the TA had planed for. The R160's are still needed for it. |
|
|
| (578278) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 09:07:43 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by North-Easten T/O on Fri Feb 29 08:57:41 2008. Oh, definitely they are required, as you said, because not enough R143 cars were ordered (which is just shocking, really); the R160s without CBTC equipment are functionally equivalent to the R42s they replaced, at least to the senses of the signal system, which can't locate them in a given fixed block. But I'm unclear on why it has to wait until the entire R160 orders are completed, i.e., when they get to the last 80 cars.One other thing - has CBTC been any effective in re-routes and single-tracking by ability to re-shape the signal blocks? It doesn't seem like it, so insofar as I can tell, CBTC is not a moveable block system as implemented, it seems a lot more like a fixed block system that allows for safe movement within or quite near an occupied block at or below the correct speed. |
|
|
| (578339) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 10:45:48 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Feb 29 07:49:00 2008. Not saner, just older... |
|
|
| (578342) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 10:49:24 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 08:24:18 2008. "So far as I can tell, LIRR had a failed experience with CBTC, quite a few years back,"This is the first I've heard of this. Elaborate? Which vendor, dates, which line? Sources? CBTC is alive and well and working just fine on many train systems today. No reason it can't work in NYC. |
|
|
| (578344) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Feb 29 10:59:55 2008, in response to TA is obsessed with CBTC, and "New" tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Feb 28 22:08:34 2008. THUS SPAKE BROADWAY LION:Trains used to be faster. Now they are slower. They say Signals are the issue. LION says same signals as before they not change. ERGO Signals NOT Issue spake said LION. They say but trains are heavier and brake characteristics different. LION says so issue is with trains not signals. LION also says trains are easier to fix. LION SAYS mount track brakes on trains. Even if only used for BIE then it permits higher speeds again with existing signal system. As for Crew Costs... LION says New Yorkers *like* having conductors on their trains, a two man crew is ALWAYS safer than a one man crew. This crewperson is a CHEAP cost for this level of safety and security. Now all of this being said: LION does support automation of subway lines. But first let us make NEW lines. LION says: "BUILD THE MYRTLE-FIFTH AVENUE SUBWAY NOW." LION also says ROAR, but you already knew that. ROAR |
|
|
| (578367) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 11:26:20 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 10:49:24 2008. This is the first I've heard of this. Elaborate? Which vendor, dates, which line? Sources?I don't have details, but let me give you what I can recall offhand. There's a brief description of the episode in LIRR's recent Nelson Assessment (Sept. 2007), available on its website. Apparently throughout the 1990's there was movement in the direction of CBTC, with maybe some work done, and of course the obligatory spending on consultants I'm sure, but it was declared a failure, and LIRR will now proceed, probably, with a cab signal system (interlocking signals still present), using color position lights, e.g., as with Speonk-Patchogue re-signaling. I think that Patchogue-Babylon will be the next segment, although I forget - it could be Speonk-Montauk. Maybe that part of the Montauk Line was going to be the scene of CBTC? I'm not sure. |
|
|
| (578404) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Feb 29 12:56:06 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by North-Easten T/O on Fri Feb 29 07:40:25 2008. You want to know why the TA is spending money on the CBTC system, ask the Federal Government. They told the TA awhile ago that they will not pay money toes upgrading the older Signal system any more,Phase 4 of the CBTC project - search for the guilty. They've progressed from Phase 3 (panic). The Feds are not paying anything for the Canarsie CBTC project. CBTC is working right for the most part, it's not running the right way because someone who order the R143's did not order enought cars to do that they had intended to do with it. If they would have order about 100 more cars then CBTC would have been %100 working right now, But instead it's about %75 of what they wanted it to be. CBTC's principal weakness over a wayside-based system is the requirement that all rolling stock must be CBTC-equippped in order for the system to function. Otherwise, it reverts back to its Auxilliary Wayside System (AWS). This is not a problem for new transit lines or for those with no connectivity with other lines. Its implementation is definitely a problem for systems like New York whose lines are characterized by a branch/trunk topology. if your in a CBTC train you can run 100ft behind the train in front of you. Current equipment is designed to have a maximum stopping distance of 275 feet (up from 250 feet for the pre-WWII fleet). If one adds a safety margin of 35%, this comes to 372 feet. This is the minimum safe distance between trains to guarantee that a follower will not rear-end its leader, should the leader decide to derail. The only way to shorten this distance is to improve emergency braking rates. CBTC equipped rolling stock has the same emergency braking rate as the non-CBTC equipped rolling stock. The notion that CBTC will permit safe operation with 100 foot spacing between trains is a complete fiction. This raises the question as to what is the spacing between trains. A train traveling at 30 mph will cover 4050 feet in 90 seconds. If that train is 600 feet long, the distance between leader and follower will be 3450 feet with 40 tph service levels. 30 tph service levels mean a 4800 foot distance between trains. Higher operating speeds mean even greater distance between trains. Clearly, the capability of operating trains 100 or 400 feet apart will never be required. The follower will get closer to its leader, if the follower's speed is greater than its leader's. This occurs in normal operation when the leader is stopping in a station and the follower is approaching it. The follower will not get closer than 1500 feet to its leader, assuming: service acceleration and braking rates; a 30 second dwell time in the station for the leader and a 90 second headway(40 tph). I have come into station while the other train is moving out but still have a part of the back in so many times I can't any more. Happened all the time, when the Flushing Line operated at 36 tph; the Queens Blvd Line operated at 34 tph and the Lex Express operated at 32 tph. They have signals and trippers within stations to allow the follower to approach the leader within the station at reduced speed. The Canarsie is operating at only 17 tph. Something is wrong, if the follower can get that close to its leader with those service levels. Trains do run faster in CBTC then when they are in BY-Pass, That's hardly surprising because by-pass limits maximum speed. The end-to-end running times for the A/B's was 35 minutes. Today it's 37+ minutes. |
|
|
| (578406) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by North-Easten T/O on Fri Feb 29 12:59:24 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 09:07:43 2008. It is a Moveable Block system only within the two section that I mection before 3-8th Ave and BWJ-CNR, that why the signal flash Green. In the rest of the line were the Signals are regualer, thats were CBTC work with the signal, by only letting train come up to the reds signals to stop the train in a fix block system. Once all train are CBTC Ready then most of these signals will be removed and the rest will then Flash Green and be a moving Block system. |
|
|
| (578410) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Fri Feb 29 13:06:18 2008, in response to TA is obsessed with CBTC, and "New" tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Feb 28 22:08:34 2008. Wow, do you want to bring back horsecars, too? Every modern system has some level of automation; the NYC Subway's signal system has been a dinosaur since the late 60s. |
|
|
| (578411) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Fri Feb 29 13:07:51 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Feb 29 03:53:28 2008. Ew. |
|
|
| (578438) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by error46146 on Fri Feb 29 15:27:19 2008, in response to TA is obsessed with CBTC, and "New" tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Feb 28 22:08:34 2008. So true, especially those timers on the E between 23rd Ely and Lex/53rd, it's just a straight downhill and they put timers there which absolutely kill it |
|
|
| (578473) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 17:17:24 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Feb 29 12:56:06 2008. "Current equipment is designed to have a maximum stopping distance of 275 feet (up from 250 feet for the pre-WWII fleet). If one adds a safety margin of 35%, this comes to 372 feet. This is the minimum safe distance between trains to guarantee that a follower will not rear-end its leader, should the leader decide to derail. The only way to shorten this distance is to improve emergency braking rates. "According to Stephen Baumann, who currently manufactures subway cars. Also, even if true, you don't specify the speed at which this braking distance is rge case. Subway cars can easily stop in 100 feet if they operate slowly enough. The presence of CBTC allows the trains to do so regardless of the fixed block boundaries and is a fail-safe against the misjudgments of a T/O. "CBTC's principal weakness over a wayside-based system is the requirement that all rolling stock must be CBTC-equippped in order for the system to function" A trivial weakness given that the MTA will have sufficient new rolling stock within a year or so to supply the necessary rolling stock. Several classes of cars are already on their way out to the steel recycler or the ocean to make reefs. Will your next complaint be that CBTC cannot be installed in the reefs off New Jersey and cannot be certified to work at zero velocity? :0) |
|
|
| (578490) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Alex L. on Fri Feb 29 18:23:24 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Train Dude on Thu Feb 28 22:40:51 2008. Without CBTC, a train can't overshoot 15 of the first 5 stations it comes to, either.7 out of every 4 people have problems with math. 8-) |
|
|
| (578515) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Fri Feb 29 19:18:49 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by North-Easten T/O on Fri Feb 29 07:45:09 2008. Oh, you naughty boy, you. :-)Thanks for all the info about CBTC. |
|
|
| (578525) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 19:45:54 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Feb 29 12:56:06 2008. Happened all the time, when the Flushing Line operated at 36 tph; the Queens Blvd Line operated at 34 tph and the Lex Express operated at 32 tph. They have signals and trippers within stations to allow the follower to approach the leader within the station at reduced speed.We can ask the people here who operate NYCT trains, but my uniform observation is that a following NYCT train does not enter the station until the the rear of the leading train has cleared the starting signal outbound. Effectively, the practice creates one enormous block running the length of the station. CBTC equipped rolling stock has the same emergency braking rate as the non-CBTC equipped rolling stock. The notion that CBTC will permit safe operation with 100 foot spacing between trains is a complete fiction. From the descriptions I've seen, I gather there's some kind of a speed control aspect to this. Otherwise the penalty brake application described would be insufficient to stop a train going above a certain speed. Current equipment is designed to have a maximum stopping distance of 275 feet (up from 250 feet for the pre-WWII fleet). If one adds a safety margin of 35%, this comes to 372 feet. This is the minimum safe distance between trains to guarantee that a follower will not rear-end its leader, should the leader decide to derail. The only way to shorten this distance is to improve emergency braking rates. This raises the question as to what is the spacing between trains. A train traveling at 30 mph will cover 4050 feet in 90 seconds. If that train is 600 feet long, the distance between leader and follower will be 3450 feet with 40 tph service levels. 30 tph service levels mean a 4800 foot distance between trains. I think that's correct, which is why I imagine that there's a speed control element to the CBTC system, which would enforce a penalty brake application - or even an emergency brake application, if required - when a train exceeded the speed permitted in that part of the block. But, of course, this is merely speculation on my part; although I don't see how it works otherwise. |
|
|
| (578528) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 19:48:12 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 11:26:20 2008. It is also possible, more likely, that the LIRR ordered a consulting report about CBTC, which means CBTC was a paper recommendation that LIRR rejected in favor of cab signals. |
|
|
| (578532) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Feb 29 19:50:21 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by North-Easten T/O on Fri Feb 29 07:40:25 2008. Why should it need to work "down the road"? Why doesn't it work now? |
|
|
| (578534) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 19:51:07 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Olog-hai on Fri Feb 29 19:50:21 2008. Because not all the cars are CBTC equipped yet? |
|
|
| (578538) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Feb 29 19:53:25 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 19:51:07 2008. Is it organic technology that needs to be grown . . . ? |
|
|
| (578541) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 19:54:34 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Olog-hai on Fri Feb 29 19:53:25 2008. No; it's a time machine that needs to get you out of 1957. |
|
|
| (578544) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Fri Feb 29 19:55:09 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Feb 29 03:53:28 2008. Those poor motormen who had to operate a train of arnines after you finished with them. :-) |
|
|
| (578545) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Feb 29 19:56:12 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 19:54:34 2008. Where did you pull that year out of?I kinda figure that Selkirk's answer was the best one. |
|
|
| (578546) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Fri Feb 29 19:58:58 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 08:24:18 2008. In my opinion, the reasons for pursuing CBTC had a lot to dowith internal politics and fiefdoms. I don't want to get into names and specifics, but there was a certain attitude that "new tech" people were going to displace "old-tech people". CBTC is decidely new-tech, the more conservative technologies, while they would have been newER tech to NYCT, were not bleeding-edge. From an external standpoint, the TA established certain objectives and milestones, all of which, I believe, were a failure. The idea was to anticipate the future direction of railway signaling, and to leap-frog to the forefront and take a leadership role in shaping the application of CBTC to transit signaling. Instead, despite the weight and influence of the TA and other MTA entities, NYCT wound up with an orphan system which is not the de-facto industry standard and which doesn't put the TA in any stronger position going forward with future procurement. Despire all the precautions to the contrary, they got themselves locked into a single-vendor propietary system. In the end, the agency got shafted the same as with metrocard. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 11 |
|
