|
|
| Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. (578118) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 11 of 11 |
||
|
| (581583) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Mar 6 01:37:47 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Mar 6 01:32:00 2008. You're so negative all the time. Bad attitude. Depends and therapy for you! |
|
|
| (581584) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 6 01:38:43 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Thu Mar 6 01:37:02 2008. And when you get off the J at 104, you'd better watch your back, because the guys who hang out at Palace Fried Chicken have been known to follow people home from the station to mug them. |
|
|
| (581585) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 6 01:40:05 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Thu Mar 6 01:16:30 2008. "The burbs don't have as much in the way of resources to combat it".Or something like that. http://nothingtoxic.com/media/1169256062/Raw_Footage_of_the_Teenage_Girl_Beatdown |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (581603) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Thu Mar 6 04:27:22 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Mar 6 01:37:13 2008. Run away and hide, that's the answer. But, you can't hide from yourself. |
|
|
| (581625) | |
Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Thu Mar 6 05:23:52 2008, in response to Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by randyo on Wed Mar 5 05:09:19 2008. IIRC, that type of machine was also at 62nd St and Bay Pkwy. |
|
|
| (581968) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu Mar 6 19:35:57 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 6 01:15:49 2008. Because the criminal element can no longer afford to live in New York. |
|
|
| (581970) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 6 19:41:50 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by J trainloco on Thu Mar 6 19:35:57 2008. That's kind of true. But they are all over Long Island now, which has some of the highest taxes in the nation. |
|
|
| (581976) | |
Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu Mar 6 19:58:01 2008, in response to Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Mar 5 23:30:30 2008. I don't think a BVE test can qualify you to say that CBTC is not required. |
|
|
| (581977) | |
Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Mar 6 20:02:57 2008, in response to Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by J trainloco on Thu Mar 6 19:58:01 2008. But it must have been fun. |
|
|
| (581979) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 6 20:24:57 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by J trainloco on Thu Mar 6 19:35:57 2008. They can afford Long Island, which is even more expensive. Enjoy this video.http://nothingtoxic.com/media/1169256062/Raw_Footage_of_the_Teenage_Girl_Beatdown |
|
|
| (581981) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu Mar 6 20:26:31 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by LuchAAA on Thu Mar 6 20:24:57 2008. What's more expensive? Taxes? For criminals, taxes don't mean much. |
|
|
| (582019) | |
Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Mr Mabstoa on Thu Mar 6 21:49:26 2008, in response to Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by J trainloco on Thu Mar 6 19:58:01 2008. Its like spending lots of hours on flight simulator and then wanting to take the controls of a 747 out of Tenefly.We have a Zelig amoungst us. 
|
|
|
| (582365) | |
Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Mar 7 10:20:04 2008, in response to Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Mar 5 22:40:18 2008. It's 4.5 kph/s for MP89. Older pneu stock like MP59 have 4.7 kph/s acceleration. The experimental MP51 had the highest acceleration at 5.2 kph/s. Anyway, kilometres not miles. |
|
|
| (582384) | |
Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Mar 7 11:12:04 2008, in response to Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Mar 7 10:20:04 2008. It's 4.5 kph/s for MP89.Les caisses en aluminium proposent 3 portes par face de 1.65 m de large. La motorisation est pilotée par informatique avec GTO et les moteurs sont de type asynchrone offrant à la rame une puissance de 2800 kW (soit 4480 ch, contre 2240 ch pour une MP59 !) qui leur permet des accélérations spectaculaires atteignant les 2.2 m/s² en service commercial. 2.2 m/sec2 x 3600 sec/hr x 0.001 km/m = 7.92 kph/sec 7.92 kph/sec / 1.609 mph/kph = 4.92 mph/sec Voila! I gather you are using a different source for the acceleration figure. |
|
|
| (582422) | |
Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Mar 7 13:10:39 2008, in response to Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Mar 7 11:12:04 2008. Everywhere else says 1.25 m/s² including this pdf written by an RATP Director.Some sites list the rate for MP51 as 2.2 m/s² while books says 1.45 m/s² in service. But of course Navily has to say 5 m/s² ! Navily is a nice site but not always good with numbers... |
|
|
| (582550) | |
Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Mar 7 18:27:35 2008, in response to Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by MJF on Thu Mar 6 05:23:52 2008. I was never in that tower so I wasn't aware of that. |
|
|
| (582560) | |
Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Mar 7 18:43:58 2008, in response to Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Wed Mar 5 19:16:16 2008. Certain signals, usually dwarf signals for reverse moves had the screw releases for what the old time Tw/M referred to as "rusty rail" conditions. They never fully explained to me what that meant though. I would assume that the reasoning behind it was that a train operating over an unused portion of track might not properly bridge the track circuit and might allow a false indication of a clear track circuit over a switch thus enabling it to be thrown with a train still present. By requiring the lengthy process of cranking the signal back, the likelihood of being able to throw a switch with a train still on the circuit would be greatly diminished. I do recall when I was a M/M on the West End Line, I had a rail polisher trick on Mondays on which I and the drill M/M from Bay Pky would operate over all the unused switches at Bay Pky and 62 St and operate over the middle track from 9 Av to Bay Pky. On Mondays after a heavy rain storm, the rails would be so rusty that the wheels would not properly bridge the track circuits and when they did they did so intermittently. As a result, automatic signals on the middle track would often come up under the train and trip it. The Tw/M would receive an indication on the model board of a train "disappearing" as the track circuit cleared briefly. You can see if that happened over a switch citcuit, it had the potential to give a false clear indication allowing a switch to be thrown unless the ability to do so was delayed in some way. |
|
|
| (582561) | |
Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Mar 7 18:47:55 2008, in response to Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by randyo on Fri Mar 7 18:43:58 2008. Interesting - a condition defeating the fail-safe. |
|
|
| (582601) | |
Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Fri Mar 7 20:24:10 2008, in response to Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by randyo on Fri Mar 7 18:43:58 2008. good thing it only occurs on unused rails. though a ten car train should be long enough to bridge the circuit, as the last car would be going over cleaner rail. Plus all the wheels are like resistors in parallel. So did this occur with long trains, or only short, 5 or so car trains?Also, if it had issues bridging the signal circuit, what about the traction cirvuit? Or does the higher voltage allow it to "jump"? |
|
|
| (582661) | |
Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Mar 7 22:25:15 2008, in response to Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Mar 7 13:10:39 2008. Navily is a nice site but not always good with numbers...I haven't been to Paris for two decades, so I couldn't give the article a personal sanity check. I did not find any other websites that contradicted the 5 mph/sec. Considering the Green Hornet of 70 years ago had an acceleration of 4 mph/sec on a steel rail(from the Green Hornet Brochure that used to be on the web), an acceleration of 5 mph/sec for a pneu did not seem out of line. Also, the discussion of having twice the power of the MP59 made the acceleration seem reasonable. ...written by an RATP Director. I don't suppose the not having a 5 mph/sec acceleration was a translation error. :=) |
|
|
| (582755) | |
Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Sat Mar 8 00:29:13 2008, in response to Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Fri Mar 7 20:24:10 2008. In certain cases rusty rail can cause the DC to try to find itsway home through the signal circuit, resulting sometimes in dropped track circuits, or in more extreme cases blown fuses (when installed) or blow track relays or resistors. |
|
|
| (582785) | |
Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Bill West on Sat Mar 8 01:36:44 2008, in response to Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by randyo on Fri Mar 7 18:43:58 2008. PRR had a Rusty Rail procedure, It was a lever blocking device and a sign to place on the interlocker handles for switches. They reminded the operator to double check against his own knowledge of area traffic before he lined a move that depended on the track circuit of a little used route. PRR/PATH had a fatal side swipe with a switcher at Hudson tower in ’63 in which failure to do this was the key factor. See the ICC historical accident investigations, picts too.Bill |
|
|
| (582905) | |
Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Mar 8 11:41:45 2008, in response to Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Mar 7 22:25:15 2008. The MP05 will have a slightly higher acceleration at 1.35 m/s². I hope they will be more comfortable than the MP55 and MP59. I'm not a big fan of the screeching sound of MP89's brakes (when air brakes kick in) either so hopefully they fix that too. |
|
|
| (583220) | |
Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Mar 8 18:41:58 2008, in response to Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Fri Mar 7 20:24:10 2008. At the time I was a M/M, the standard train length on the B West End was 8 X 60 Ft cars. |
|
|
| (583244) | |
Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Sat Mar 8 19:26:07 2008, in response to Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Sat Mar 8 00:29:13 2008. I can't see why the DC would try going back over the signal's circuits if it made enough contact to get to the rail.From there, the rails are the easiest way to the ground. Unless there are isuues with the rails not being connected to the ground itself. Isn't this why they use AC for the signals? |
|
|
| (583382) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by H.S.Relay on Sat Mar 8 23:08:03 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 09:29:08 2008. Avoiding a collision by an mile rates the same safety score as avoiding one by an inch.Uh, no. 1 inch = 100.001% safety, which is not allowed. 1 mile > 135% safety, which is acceptable. |
|
|
| (583391) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by H.S.Relay on Sat Mar 8 23:59:10 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Sun Mar 2 01:18:48 2008. "4) Evidently current rule doesn't permit an in-service train tocome partially into a station?! That used to apply only to those trains which were skipping the station or light. The whole premise of station time falls apart if that is the case." "UNLESS THE T/O KNOWS THAT STATION TIME IS IN EFFECT" everybody forgets that part. |
|
|
| (583403) | |
Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Sun Mar 9 00:21:43 2008, in response to Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Sat Mar 8 19:26:07 2008. You do know that in the NYC subway system (with exception ofa few odd places) the signals work on a single-rail track circuit? One rail is continuous and bonded periodically to the substation negative feeder. The other rail is insulated at each track circuit boundary. Connected across the two rails is on one end a transformer secondary with a series fuse and resistor, and on the other end a relay coil with a resistor and fuse in series. As you may know, the DC resistance of a coil is very low. Normally the resistance of the negative return rail is so, so low that almost all of the current flows through it. But if there is some high resistance obstacle, e.g. a broken bond, or rusty rail condition affecting one rail more than the other, the DC return current will attempt to complete the circuit as follows: From wheelset to signal rail, stopped at IJ, through transformer or relay winding to the negative return rail and then back to the substation. The relay operates with on the order of 1 amp AC, the track transformer is generally limited to about 20, and traction return current from one train is tens of thousands of amps, and has an open-circuit potential of 600 volts. Trust me, it blows crap up inside signal cases. |
|
|
| (583460) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Sun Mar 9 09:01:50 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by H.S.Relay on Sat Mar 8 23:59:10 2008. The trouble is that there are instances where the T/O has entered ST territory and found that not all signals are clearing as designed.I've experienced this at Canal St s/b on 8th Avenue exp. It's a location where many T/O's will not take advantage of ST. |
|
|
| (583549) | |
Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Sun Mar 9 12:16:12 2008, in response to Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Sun Mar 9 00:21:43 2008. So i guess it only makes sense to use DC electrification on lines with frequent service.Not only due to low ridership which doesn't call for electrification, but to protect the signals as well, from this vulnerability due to rusty nails. But my question is why not make BOTH running rails part of the return circuit? The AC shouldn't be affected, and it is easy to filter out DC signals with a capacitor, isn't it. But you would need a BIG one. |
|
|
| (583945) | |
Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Mon Mar 10 03:27:33 2008, in response to Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Sun Mar 9 12:16:12 2008. Double-rail track circuits ARE used extensively, for DCand AC electrification, as well as "steam roads" (not electrified) Look up the term "impedance bond" or "reactor bond". |
|
|
| (584124) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Mar 10 13:30:36 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by J trainloco on Thu Mar 6 19:35:57 2008. Crime started to drop before the cost of living rose. If it didn't, you would not see the levels or regentrification that we're now seeing. |
|
|
| (584129) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Mar 10 13:33:26 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Mar 6 00:54:43 2008. You are a profoundly ignorant and insensitive idiot. |
|
|
| (584443) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Mar 11 03:25:49 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Thu Mar 6 00:54:43 2008. You showed very little respect for yourself and for others on this board with your ignorant rant. You seem to be what you hate. :-< |
|
|
| (585164) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by tracksionmotor on Wed Mar 12 23:38:48 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. I post making no defense for anyone....you have to trust me in the skill FRA/railroad places in me. First of all....NO MTA train has a truly stainless steel carbody...it is just a skin over ferrous steel AND IT RUSTS....car wash uses a caustic solution under pressure to wipe away rust dots....only Delorean made a 'RustFrei' carbody to patina. Secondly, any FRA vehicle involved in collision must go through detailed examination. Subway cars have an average weight of 60K pounds and are not railroad (exception SIRR) but probably carry the 700kpsi impact resistance to run FRA traxxx like River Line Light Rail. Subway cars must meet DOT specs but not FRA specs....they are 'buses'. I work heavy passenger rail as FRA cert and what is brought into my shop disgusts me....one car of a married pair had two trucks of CONDEMNED WHEELS which had been in service. Goes into my records, I condemn 'thin wheels'to trainset taken out of service.....management cannot override my authority.....they hired me as a Car Inspector and provided FRA certification....I do Good Works. |
|
|
| (585174) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Mar 12 23:53:36 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by tracksionmotor on Wed Mar 12 23:38:48 2008. I've yet to see rust spots on a Brightliner, and there is evidence that many have not been to a wash in a WHILE. Same for the jersey arrows. Some look like they drove through a storm of horse feces, but no rust spots.Would be a bad investment to buy stainless steel cars that rust, and need a solution to clean. If they rust, then why buy stainless in the first place. It does oxidize quickly, making a protective layer. Condemned wheels in service is a real danger, and is disgusting. Probably why a SEPTA train's wheel broke years ago. Good managment can't override your authority. A condemned train should never see service. |
|
|
|
Page 11 of 11 |
||
