|
|
| Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. (578118) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 11 |
||
|
| (578547) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 19:59:28 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 17:17:24 2008. . Subway cars can easily stop in 100 feet if they operate slowly enough.Thus my speculation that CBTC incorporates a speed control element. 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. Well, let's not go THAT far; life has a way screwing things up in mysterious ways. You build a good system, cross your fingers, and watch out for potential trouble so that you can go on to build a better mousetrap if need be. A trivial weakness given that the MTA will have sufficient new rolling stock within a year or so to supply the necessary rolling stock. Trivial weakness? Hardly. More like HUGE oversight and ignorance. I have no problem saying that one or more people should face action over that poor judgment. How on earth were they going to operate CBTC successfully without trainsets that could operate using CBTC? |
|
|
| (578550) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Fri Feb 29 20:05:50 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 12:59:24 2008. As I understand it, it is not strictly a moving block system.The track is split into virtual signal blocks, which are of fixed limits, and can be reconfigured since there are no stops or track circuits at those boundaries. When there is a train stopped in front of you and it starts to pull away, does your MAL start to increase linearly as if it were attached to the tail of that next train, or does it stay at 0 for a while and then jump up? |
|
|
| (578553) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 20:11:44 2008, in response to 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 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." There are new tech vs old-tech tensions in most organizations. Yur observation is correct but not limited to transit. "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." Metrocard is a runaway success and is more successful than any other farecard story in the history of US transit. MetroCard isn't an orphan; everyone else is the orphan. As to CBTC's supposed failures, we only have you here to tell about them, and you're not exactly impartial. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (578556) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 20:14:09 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Olog-hai on Fri Feb 29 19:56:12 2008. "Where did you pull that year out of?"Your rear end. :0) |
|
|
| (578557) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Fri Feb 29 20:15:59 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 20:11:44 2008. No Ron all you have to do is listen to NorthEastern and PelhamBay Dave the ones who work with CBTC..Accoring to the "figures" of the creatons who was in charge way back when the Entire Larry Line right now is supposed to be CBTC 100% ... Not the case when you have A.R160's without CBTC programming in them.. B.You have almost half the R143 Fleet in By-Pass.. C.You still have areas on the Larry Line not all CBTC its only a small area but still.. |
|
|
| (578559) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 20:16:08 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 19:59:28 2008. Nonsense. MTA diudn't order enough trainsets to go along with the electronics. An oversight, but hardly a disaster.No ignorance involved, except on this board. |
|
|
| (578563) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 20:37:41 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Fri Feb 29 19:58:58 2008. Thanks for the report. More questions, of course, follow....In my opinion, the reasons for pursuing CBTC had a lot to do with internal politics and fiefdoms. More than the usual impatience, I guess, since turnover over time is expected, and people retire, are retired, etc. From an external standpoint, the TA established certain objectives and milestones, all of which, I believe, were a failure. At least with respect to time and money spent, that's indisputable indeed. 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. What's the de facto industry standard for CBTC? I take it that the vendor (Siemens?) is, in your view, working NYCT instead of the other way around. Now instead of NYCT becoming the showcase of CBTC, the vendor uses NYCT to showcase it's new take on a CBTC system - is that it? In the end, the agency got shafted the same as with metrocard. OK, this one just goes over my head. How did NYCT get shafted with metrocard? |
|
|
| (578567) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Feb 29 20:44:15 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Broadway Buffer on Fri Feb 29 19:55:09 2008. Heh. Nah, still an issue today ... you never know where that cab's been. :) |
|
|
| (578573) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 20:49:40 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 20:16:08 2008. MTA diudn't order enough trainsets to go along with the electronics. An oversight, but hardly a disaster.A HUGE oversight! CBTC works with trains that can work with it. NYCT was short of such trains from day zero on, continuing right into the present day, and for some time in the future as well. It's like knowing that you need to make 250 omelettes and only having one carton of eggs on hand; it's more than a mere oversight. I assume that the folks who made the decisions are capable of doing simple arithmetic; perhaps you think that they're not? I'll stick by my original thought on this; the people involved in that decision should be held to account for an oversight of that kind of magnitude. Either these officials are accountable or they're not. |
|
|
| (578574) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Fri Feb 29 20:50:12 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Feb 29 20:44:15 2008. Heh. Nah, still an issue today ... you never know where that cab's been. :)Please Dont remind me, my goodness posting on that George gettign in a cab right behind a T/O with "B/O" issues... Hence the "Can O Good Smells" is a part of my tools... |
|
|
| (578575) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Fri Feb 29 20:51:11 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 20:49:40 2008. I'll stick by my original thought on this; the people involved in that decision should be held to account for an oversight of that kind of magnitude. Either these officials are accountable or they're not.You cant,they are in Florida right now... |
|
|
| (578576) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 20:53:44 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Railman718 on Fri Feb 29 20:15:59 2008. Could use improvement, eh?OK. By the way, it's "cretins." If I recall correctly, "cretin" used to be used by doctors to refer to patients who were mentally retarded, "slow," due to a thyroid deficiency. "Moron" was used to describe people who scored very low on the Binet (eg IQ) test. So you saw those terms on patient charts. No more, of course. |
|
|
| (578577) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 20:53:56 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Railman718 on Fri Feb 29 20:51:11 2008. Well, they might not be able to multiply right, but at least they understand temperature.... |
|
|
| (578578) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 20:54:54 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 20:49:40 2008. "A HUGE oversight! CBTC works with trains that can work with it. NYCT was short of such trains from day zero on, continuing right into the present day, and for some time in the future as well. "Would you have done any better? I can think of lots worse things that could have happened. |
|
|
| (578581) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 20:56:41 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 20:53:44 2008. If I recall correctly, "cretin" used to be used by doctors to refer to patients who were mentally retarded, "slow," due to a thyroid deficiency.That's part of the etymology, more or less, in that it was used to refer to the mentally retarded, but coming before even THAT, it was derived from the term 'christian'. |
|
|
| (578583) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 21:01:14 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 20:54:54 2008. With respect to telling them how many CBTC trainsets would be required? Sure. Anyone here who finished the first course in high school math should be able to work out THAT problem, at least once you give them the hint that you have to actually supply a few more trainsets to keep some spares on hand.As to technical difficulties with CBTC? No, I'm not an engineer, and my knowledge of the physical sciences is mostly theoretical, so I can't help them with that. |
|
|
| (578585) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Feb 29 21:01:37 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 17:17:24 2008. A trivial weakness given that the MTA will have sufficient new rolling stock within a year or so to supply the necessary rolling stock.It's not a trivial problem because a critical component of the carborne CBTC equipment is no longer manufactured. The hold item isn't the lack of rolling stock. It's the lack of an RF-DCS. |
|
|
| (578586) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 21:06:04 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 21:01:14 2008. "Anyone here who finished the first course in high school math should be able to work out THAT problem"Of course that really isn't the problem. It's the Capital Plan negotiations that led to a budget being split up a particular way. What else in the budget had to give way for all the cars to be delivered? That's what makes analyses of this on this board so idiotic. |
|
|
| (578587) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Fri Feb 29 21:06:35 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 20:53:44 2008. By the way, it's "cretins." If I recall correctly, "cretin" used to be used by doctors to refer to patients who were mentally retarded, "slow," due to a thyroid deficiency. "Moron" was used to describe people who scored very low on the Binet (eg IQ) test. So you saw those terms on patient charts. No more, of course.Really?? Then THAT word is too GOOD for them... I have to find one worse... |
|
|
| (578588) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Feb 29 21:07:14 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 20:54:54 2008. Would you have done any better?As you so frequently point out, none of us here are MTA planners. Along with admitting that they often know better than us (and just won't ever join the V to the M!), one should also demand that they do a better job than us amateurs would do. |
|
|
| (578589) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 21:08:36 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Feb 29 21:01:37 2008. RF-DCS = Radio Frequency Detection/Collection System?I assume they use such a device all throughout a block to localize where the train is occupying space? So why can't they just go with another supplier? I'm not following, unless this somehow ties into Jeff H's post about how NYCT's system is 'proprietary' and atypical, and even then, I'm not quite following. |
|
|
| (578590) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Fri Feb 29 21:11:04 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 21:06:04 2008. That's what makes analyses of this on this board so idiotic.Not All of them Ron.. When CBTC is running right it is amazing, seen it myself.. When its right and you have too many trains in By-pass or not enough trains with the software installed it defeats the purpose of such a wonderful system, because it is. |
|
|
| (578591) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Fri Feb 29 21:11:28 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Railman718 on Fri Feb 29 21:11:04 2008. When its*not right and you have too many trains in By-pass or not enough trains with the software installed it defeats the purpose of such a wonderful system, because it is |
|
|
| (578593) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 21:15:42 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 21:06:04 2008. Then CBTC clearly shouldn't have been expected to be implemented at whatever earlier date, no? Budgets are lists of priorities. Either CBTC is a priority or it isn't. And it sure as hell seemed like a priority - except for the part about actually implementing it to run enough service to meet demand.Here's the problem: are they running any more frequent service today than was possible under the former signal system? In the end, results matter, and if you're going to do a job, and make it a top priority, then do it, and don't do it half-assed such that people can wonder why it was worth the trouble. |
|
|
| (578596) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Feb 29 21:17:11 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 20:37:41 2008. How did NYCT get shafted with metrocard?It's a single vendor, proprietary system (Cubic). Its cost is several times greater than equivalent systems. |
|
|
| (578597) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 21:19:03 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Feb 29 21:17:11 2008. I can see where he was going with the analogy then. Thanks. |
|
|
| (578598) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Feb 29 21:20:58 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 21:08:36 2008. RF-DCS = Radio Frequency Digital Communication System.It's the device that sends the train's status to the central computer and receives commands. |
|
|
| (578599) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Feb 29 21:24:47 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Railman718 on Fri Feb 29 20:50:12 2008. Heh. Do they still sell cans of bullsquirt repellant? :)Yeah, I remember the days when I'd be humming Janis Joplin's "Summertime" in some of those un-air-conditioned trains. Tunnels were like petunias before they sealed up the air. :P |
|
|
| (578601) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Feb 29 21:28:28 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. Yes, I have a bad attitude towards you. Someone posted bullshit> I called him on it and you have the stones to tell me that my thinking is wrong. But to answer your question, YES, I think the TA spends it's money very wisely - every two weeks. |
|
|
| (578602) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Feb 29 21:32:27 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 21:15:42 2008. are they running any more frequent service today than was possible under the former signal system?Hardly. They used to operate 24 tph on the 14th St Line. That said, it's not saying very much. The capacity of the 14th St Line is the capacity of the 8th Ave terminal. That's 24 tph. CBTC isn't going to help it because movements in and out of terminals is under manual control. |
|
|
| (578607) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Fri Feb 29 21:36:20 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Train Dude on Fri Feb 29 21:28:28 2008. "I think the TA spends it's money very wisely - every two weeks."I will agree with that once they call me from when I took my Signal Maintainer Trainee exam that I took back last June. |
|
|
| (578609) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Feb 29 21:50:55 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Fri Feb 29 21:36:20 2008. Potentially - a dangerous job. Pay attention - especially about track safety training. |
|
|
| (578610) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Fri Feb 29 21:56:03 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Feb 29 21:24:47 2008. Selkirk, it is hard to understand your post. I have noticed some of your posts are hard to understand, but you seem to know something. Do you have "the answer" hidden in that post? Maybe it is jargon, may you enlighten me? |
|
|
| (578613) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Feb 29 22:00:14 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. Transit is so corrupt. I wish more people in upper management would go to prison for these mistakes. Or just lose their jobs. The FBI needs to take a closer look at Transit. |
|
|
| (578614) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 22:04:55 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Feb 29 21:32:27 2008. CBTC isn't going to help it because movements in and out of terminals is under manual control.I suppose I always figured that CBTC would enable more terminal capacity, otherwise, yes, roughly 24 tph becomes the limit. (Theoretically one could talk about terminating some trains at Union Square, I guess, depending on what this signal system's capabilities really are, but I honestly don't see how that's plausible at higher levels of service - change ends, brake test leaving, the interlocking is located some distance away from the station, and there are other trains approaching and potentially held up). |
|
|
| (578615) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Fri Feb 29 22:07:10 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. North-Eastern, so with CBTC, you have control of the train's speed? Is it like the HBLR system which tells you the maximum allowable speed, and cries if you overspeed?I thought it was fully automated robotrain with CBTC. But anyways, i have been on PATH trains who come up behind the leader, and start to enter as the leader is exiting. Happens often at grove street. Sometimes it is surprising to see a train leave, only to be followed by another less than ten seconds later. Gives a system a "rapid transit" feel. That being said, path uses the "dinosaur" system as NYCTA, but it isn't inefficient, and slow. By the way, the RIVER Line uses a form of this tripper system. It even has grade timers in areas. Instead of physical trippers that stand up, electromagnets become energized at the wayside and trip the train. I find it better than the HBLR system because the HBLR's crying is annoying, and it causes the train to jerk. |
|
|
| (578619) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Feb 29 22:12:50 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 21:56:03 2008. "Inside joke" about the smell of a cab. In the old days before air conditioning, you could de-stink it by dropping the cab window and get some air in there. Nowadays with sealed cars, it recirculates. And the BS repellant is for management. :) |
|
|
| (578626) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Fri Feb 29 22:19:34 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 21:56:03 2008. You might have to graze here for a bit longer to be enlightened ;-) |
|
|
| (578627) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Feb 29 22:21:23 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 22:04:55 2008. I suppose I always figured that CBTC would enable more terminal capacity,CBTC or any other signal system does not increase terminal or any other capacity. Capacity is determined by acceleration, braking rates and dwell time. None of which has anything to do with the signal system. A poorly designed signal system can prevent a system from operating at capacity. However, the designers of the existing block system knew what they were doing. So, if you are looking for higher service levels, CBTC isn't the panacea. |
|
|
| (578630) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 22:23:47 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Feb 29 21:20:58 2008. Thanks.OK, and a critical component of the RF-DCS can't be manufactured because....? |
|
|
| (578632) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Fri Feb 29 22:26:38 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. So a train travelling 45 miles an hour can be stopped in 375 feet using emergency brakes? That is not surprising, as i have been on trains that coast into stations at 45 miles an hour for a bit before grabbing any air. And the motorman still releases and lets it coast a bit before doing the final grab, coming to a stop. This is all without using full service for long, and definately without using emergency brakes. By the way, Brightliners are the ones which can do this, they definately fly into 42nd street faster than a r44.That is a shame that the STEELS, with their one powered axle per truck, could pull a canarsie faster than the New Techs. Similar in the way an Arnine with one powered truck started to overtake a hippo from 34th-42nd. I will not argue that the Standards outperformed the new techs, because i don't know how they performed, or how fast they were, but i assume the new techs have better low end acceleration than Standards due to more motors. This means it is the signalling system which is preventing the New Techs from gaining respect. Timers slow down the line, take them away from where they don't need them(straight aways, tubes), then the New techs will be able to pull off a 35 minute run time. Forget about comparing that to the Bluebirds or Multis though. Although those trains had their issues, they were FAST, so they could probably do the canarsie in less than 30 minutes, no doubt. |
|
|
| (578637) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 22:43:03 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Feb 29 22:21:23 2008. CBTC or any other signal system does not increase terminal or any other capacity. Capacity is determined by acceleration, braking rates and dwell time. None of which has anything to do with the signal system.Thanks for making this crystal clear; I didn't sufficiently qualify my statements, and I should instead express what I was actually supposing. If CBTC enabled trains to operate more to the limit of the characteristics you mention - acceleration, braking rates and dwell time; and a shorter time to traverse the interlocking doesn't hurt either - then it would permit those characteristics to be more useful. Suppose - and I can't say whether this is true or not - that under the former signal system as last employed that in order to prevent a collision with the wall at 8th Av, NYCT in fact set the timers to clear at a speed lower than necessary given the emergency braking characteristic. (Many timed signals in NYCT seem to clear at LESS than the posted speed, anyway, so that really wouldn't be too surprising). In that sense, the full capacity that the train's characteristics would entitle it to aren't being used. Suppose further that with CBTC, trains are allowed to approach the wall at 8th Av up to (and in fact at) the speed limit that would enable an emergency stop short of the wall. In other words, what if CBTC enables more of the characteristic entitlement to be claimed? Of course, I think the objection to this goes something like: but couldn't we have cascading timed signals at decreasing speeds? So first signal approaching interlocking is set at interlocking safe speed, next signal after interlocking 5 mph less than that, next signal 5 mph less than that, etc., until the final signal before the bumper block enforcing the slowest speed/stop. Now maybe CBTC does this better since it can apply the brakes without applying the emergency brakes, but I suppose that, in principle, this could be done with the former system too. But if my thought is wrong, and CBTC doesn't allow any more of what I've called the characteristic entitlement to be used toward terminal capacity, then you're right that, short of strange turnarounds at Union Square pulled off in a way that would be positively miraculous, the effective terminal capacity would remain the terminal capacity. |
|
|
| (578638) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Feb 29 22:46:20 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 22:23:47 2008. why don't you read some background material. |
|
|
| (578639) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Fri Feb 29 22:50:49 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Feb 29 22:12:50 2008. Is that why some motorman operate with the door open?These days, BS repellant is not enough, you need RAID, because managment keeps multiplying, and cloging up the system with its BS. It has gotten to the point where it seems they have a Managment Creation Department, which is where the queen must be. By the way, who is the genius they hire to decide where timers go? Or is nobody accountable for anything anymore? By the way, speakeing of sealed cabs, do the Comet 5 cars on NJT allow the engineer to open his window? It looked sealed, as it also lacks a door. Do the designers of the car assume the Engineer is a maniac who may either: 1) open the door, and fall out? 2) Open the window, or door, during cold weather, and freeze to death? 3) Set the throttle, beat the deadman's and jump off. or set the throttle through the window, and run away? 4) Distract himself by looking right to try to open the window, and then forget to look ahead when the task of openning the window is complete? 5) Have the amount of common sense as managment does? If it is because of structural rigidity that the cars lack doors, thet is bull. There should be beams and bulkheads at the end of the car to prevent crushing during collisions - which most trains have, even the Low-Vs. So can someone explain the lack of a door? |
|
|
| (578641) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Fri Feb 29 22:57:23 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Fri Feb 29 20:54:54 2008. That's not an answer. |
|
|
| (578643) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Fri Feb 29 23:00:13 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Fri Feb 29 21:36:20 2008. How old are you? Do you currently work for the TA?Do you have to take an exam for track maintanence as well? I am surprised you are waiting for so long, i read that they NEED workers to do necessary work. There is a lack of such workers(blue collar, trade, specialized) for some reason, but no lack of TOOO cool for a job wangsters. Good luck, and stay safe when you start. |
|
|
| (578654) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Fri Feb 29 23:13:12 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 22:50:49 2008. These days, BS repellant is not enough, you need RAID, because managment keeps multiplying, and cloging up the system with its BS. It has gotten to the point where it seems they have a Management Creation Department, which is where the queen must be.ROFLMAO!!!!! |
|
|
| (578659) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 23:17:19 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Feb 29 22:46:20 2008. Very informative, and eye-opening.One general question: the inductive loop system seems to rely on loops continuous with each track of the line, and the 'lossy line' used by Bombardier also seems continuous in the same way. Have the discrete, i.e., non-continuous systems, been successful in being reliable? If so, has they achieved this state by using lots of radios, and given that NYCT's Siemens system uses the most expensive, least compatible, and apparently shortest-enduring radios, that would tend to drive up cost, wouldn't it? |
|
|
| (578661) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 23:21:19 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 22:50:49 2008. By the way, speakeing of sealed cabs, do the Comet 5 cars on NJT allow the engineer to open his window? It looked sealed, as it also lacks a door.I think that maybe lack of a door on the cab side of the car may be traced back to a fatal collision near Harmon Cove involving an Arrow II cab car. others can no doubt fill in the details, unless this is only speculation on my part. |
|
|
| (578675) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Feb 29 23:30:58 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 23:17:19 2008. One general question: the inductive loop system seems to rely on loops continuous with each track of the line, and the 'lossy line' used by Bombardier also seems continuous in the same way. Have the discrete, i.e., non-continuous systems, been successful in being reliable? If so, has they achieved this state by using lots of radios,The reason for going to an RF-DCS (as opposed to inductive loop or lossy transmission line) is reduced maintenance cost. The theory was that the RF-DCS wayside equipment would be located in stations and would cover area between stations. This is true for the open air. It hasn't worked that way in the tunnels. given that NYCT's Siemens system uses the most expensive, least compatible, and apparently shortest-enduring radios, that would tend to drive up cost, wouldn't it? A project manager's salary is directly related to the size of projects he manages. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 11 |
||
