|
|
| Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. (578118) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 11 |
||
|
| (578821) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 10:06:14 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 09:33:32 2008. "shortest-enduring radios"...What does that mean?Try finding a reliable supply of new, finished electronic products that have overtaken by newer technology. They simply do not exist because the newer stuff tends to be cheaper as well as better. Suppose the radio were an NTSC television receiver. You will not find new replacement stock in five years and there were hundreds of millions produced. There are far fewer special purpose radios produced. |
|
|
| (578823) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 10:09:18 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 10:06:14 2008. OK, the comment was strictly product cycle... |
|
|
| (578825) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 10:11:26 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 09:59:30 2008. you'd know.Urban Rail Transit Its Economics and Technology, Lang and Soberman, MIT Press, 1964. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (578826) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 10:13:22 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 10:11:26 2008. You have a chapter in that book? |
|
|
| (578828) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 10:19:21 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 09:22:33 2008. "So, where's the safety benefit for cab signals?"...resulting in an absolute stopAs Mr. Jeff H is quick to point out: a false alarm, i.e. an unwarranted stopping of a train, is not a safety hazard. Neither is having all trains at a standstill. Mr. H waxes poetic by declaring this to be a design feature. I did qualify the word "benefit" in my statement. |
|
|
| (578830) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 10:27:37 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 10:19:21 2008. Except that an obscured signal may be misinterpreted by an engineer, resulting in a hazrd. A can signal, out of the weather and always within view, emoves that hazard.That's why you don't work in railroading. |
|
|
| (578833) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Sat Mar 1 10:29:44 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 might have a point about the car bodies. Isn't is the lack of a true frame that doomed R143 #8277 (and rendered its mates superfluous)? |
|
|
| (578834) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Sat Mar 1 10:31:46 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. Are you a priest or a holy godly person!? |
|
|
| (578835) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Mar 1 10:35:53 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Sat Mar 1 00:32:07 2008. With the momenta involved in train collisions, even at low speeds, the potential for damage and destruction is very great. Thus, the importance of trying to design carbodies that will dissipate some of that amazing amounts of energy in relatively non-threatening ways; and even that's not possible at higher speeds, which is why the signal system is of huge importance. |
|
|
| (578836) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Sat Mar 1 10:36:51 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. This would be very bad for me. I'm very sensitive to chemical smells,like scented candles, "Swiffer" mops, Lysol table wipes, etc., so I'd really be in a pickle- deal with the BO, or be driven crazy by a can of Glade.If the BO was bad enough, I'd probably still deal with the Glade. |
|
|
| (578844) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 10:48:54 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 09:31:41 2008. not a long-term issue. While a redesigned component will increase the cost to somec extent, this is far from an insurmountable obstacle.I'd infer from the delay in coming up with additional receivers that the design incorporated components that are no longer manufactured. If the manufacturer is no longer in business, then getting new replacement parts is virtually impossible. Getting the manufacturing specs is also next to impossible. That means buying or making an "equivalent" component. This is an RF receiver. Designs can be very finicky. You do not know which characteristic of a particular component was critical, only the designer knew that. He's no longer available. A proprietary design was a critical factor in the design. They may have used proprietary IC's or potted some assemblies. If they used proprietary IC's, then it may mean setting up a fab for a production run of less than 100. That would put the receiver in the million dollar range. Given the time frame, the actual construction of the receivers might have been outsourced to Taiwan. They may have used the local electrolytics that were available then. Replacement is obviously a painful process. It would make sense not to repeat it every five years as replacements are needed. What's the design life of the signal system? 75 years? OK, buy a 75 year supply of replacements and float a bond issue to support this strategy. |
|
|
| (578849) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Sat Mar 1 10:54:48 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by MainR3664 on Sat Mar 1 10:36:51 2008. This would be very bad for me. I'm very sensitive to chemical smells,like scented candles, "Swiffer" mops, Lysol table wipes, etc., so I'd really be in a pickle- deal with the BO, or be driven crazy by a can of Glade.If the BO was bad enough, I'd probably still deal with the Glade. This is what i do use the Can-O-Good Smells, then open the window on both sides just a crack.. That clears everything up... |
|
|
| (578851) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 10:56:20 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 10:13:22 2008. You have a chapter in that book?I have all 8 of them. |
|
|
| (578852) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 10:57:22 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 10:56:20 2008. So who are Lang and Soberman? Editors? No other authors contributed material? |
|
|
| (578853) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Mar 1 10:58:40 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Feb 29 23:30:58 2008. It hasn't worked that way in the tunnels.That doesn't seem too surprising, though, does it? Isn't that the same result known from train crew radios? It seems perhaps to be the same result known to the consortium putting in the mobile telephone hookup underground, which would function in stations but not in tunnels, no? |
|
|
| (578855) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by BLE-NIMX on Sat Mar 1 11:05:47 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Railman718 on Sat Mar 1 08:58:27 2008. And that goes back to before you got hired when prototypes came out. Make sure you guys make Carpal Tunnel Syndrome a workmen's compensation issue. |
|
|
| (578856) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 11:06:23 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 10:57:22 2008. who are Lang and Soberman?
|
|
|
| (578857) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 11:10:14 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 11:06:23 2008. Very nice.If you wrote 8 of the chapters, why did they not name you as an editor as well? When I was asked to author 9 chapters in a book and had already created substantial content for chapters I would not officially "author" (I was very well paid for that content, so my client was not obliged to give me authorship credit), I told the first editor I might as well be an editor too. He agreed. |
|
|
| (578859) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Sat Mar 1 11:13:28 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by BLE-NIMX on Sat Mar 1 11:05:47 2008. Make sure you guys make Carpal Tunnel Syndrome a workmen's compensation issue.You already got T/O's out on comp over just that.. |
|
|
| (578861) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 11:21:16 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 11:10:14 2008. You have a chapter in that book?I misinterpreted your remark. I have all 8 chapters, in the sense that I "have" a complete copy of the book. I do not claim authorship for any portion of the book. The book was cited because you challenged my assertion regarding the degree of service level improvement for CBTC and cab signaling over NYCT's current wayside system. The topic is covered in Appendix A: Some Consideration of Minimum Headway: A1 - Theoretical Minimum Headway; A2 - Minimum Headway with Wayside Signals; A3 - Speed Control and Cab Signalling; A4 - Minimum Headway with Automation; A5 - Summary of Headway Equations |
|
|
| (578864) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 11:27:58 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 11:21:16 2008. Thank you for clarifying that.The book is 7 years more advanced than your usual point of reference (1957). Unfortunately it's 44 years behind the times. |
|
|
| (578866) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Mar 1 11:30:21 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. However, the existing wayside system with "discrete" trippers permits service levels far in excess of what is currently operated.I don't know that in practice that's true. It seems like a lot of the benefit of 'station time' ('ST') signals is not given any effect because exactly where blocks are, for good reason, shorter - approaching and through stations - because the following train cannot close in behind a leading train until the rear of the leading train has cleared the starting (leaving) signal out from the station, so instead of the blocks being the shortest encounters, it seems that practically the block is the longest because the following train is stopped at the entering signal to the station not yet in the station, and the leading train is over a train length away by the time it clears the station's leaving signal. Based on this sort of observation, I'd hazard to guess that a lot of the benefit of shorter blocks exactly where they'd do the most help in moving things along at low speed is thereby eliminated, since the station seems to practically be treated as a long block longer than a train length. The reasons for this? Well, maybe they're worried about passengers trying to board the following train before it has fully platformed and actually opened its doors, but I think we can shoot this reason down very fast, since from our operating friend Robert, we know that this is done on the Canarsie Line, and there's nothing different between CBTC and the traditional signal system that would prevent cretinous behavior by passengers. The second reason that comes to mind, to borrow an expression of Jeff's, is that they're worried about 'suicides', and thus the procedure in effect, although I'm given some pause by this, since even under the procedure in place, the engineer hell-bent on collision could just pass by the station, gathering speed all the while, and plow into the train ahead of her, or at least giving the emergency braking abilities of her train some testing, something that I gather CBTC wouldn't allow the engineer to do. But then, CBTC is seemingly guarding against death wishes; maybe that's the goal, though? The theoretical service level improvement for CBTC will be less than 5% over the current system. At least on the Canarsie Line, unless there's automatic control of trains operating at higher speeds into and out of the terminals, I gather that we're agreed that while, say, CBTC will leave it theoretically possible to run in excess of 24 tph - I'll trust your numbers for terminal capacity, although from what I've been reading on here, possibly the Canarsie terminal wouldn't have permitted 24 tph in capacity, but on that end of the line, I suppose that one could maybe get out of it by saying that some trains would be short-turned at Myrtle Av (somehow, let's not bother with how, now) - the 8th Av terminal capacity would set the actual capacity limit. In that respect, it seems that part of improving capacity on the line would have to include construction of tail tracks at the terminals. UNLESS automatic control of trains would result in more actual terminal capacity. I suppose that will become clear if the line sees service in excess of 24 tph. |
|
|
| (578869) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 11:35:43 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 11:27:58 2008. The book is 7 years more advanced than your usual point of reference (1957). Unfortunately it's 44 years behind the times.I certainly would not cite the cost projections in the book. I suppose you are also suspicious of Newtonian mechanics inasmuch as Principia Mathematica was published in 1687. |
|
|
| (578872) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by BLE-NIMX on Sat Mar 1 11:40:46 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Railman718 on Sat Mar 1 11:13:28 2008. Are they all new IODS related to lines running NTTs or are there others that trickled through the controller days that you can compare if you need to? |
|
|
| (578876) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Mar 1 11:48:23 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Railman718 on Sat Mar 1 11:13:28 2008. Wow.And you'd think that ergonomics would be a big issue in design nowadays. Kinda funny that they replace the armrests in M7s for tearing clothing from people who never learned how to sit down correctly in all their years of living, but is there any hope of getting a more ergonomic replacement on this? |
|
|
| (578880) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 12:16:46 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 11:35:43 2008. Physics doesn't change - but electronics do."I suppose you are also suspicious of Newtonian mechanics inasmuch as Principia Mathematica was published in 1687. " I am indeed - and Einstein proved my point! |
|
|
| (578884) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 12:45:53 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Sat Mar 1 11:30:21 2008. However, the existing wayside system with "discrete" trippers permits service levels far in excess of what is currently operated.I don't know that in practice that's true. I have not taken measurements at every station. However, I have taken enough to be extremely confident in that assessment. There are two things you want to measure. The first is the acceleration of a train leaving a station. This is the time interval from when a train starts to move until the signal at the entrance for an incoming train turns green. The second is the braking rate. This is the time interval from when a train passes that green signal at the station entrance until it opens its doors. If the sum of both these time intervals is less than 60 seconds, then 90 second headways (40 tph) with 30 second dwell times are possible. These measurements are designed to test the capability of the signal system. These measurements are taken during off peak hours to insure that train supervision (or lack thereof) does not play a factor. At least on the Canarsie Line, unless there's automatic control of trains operating at higher speeds into and out of the terminals, I gather that we're agreed that while, say, CBTC will leave it theoretically possible to run in excess of 24 tph - I'll trust your numbers for terminal capacity, Yes. I was referring to intermediate station capacity. Terminal capacity is not usually an issue because trunk lines will have branches to different terminals. from what I've been reading on here, possibly the Canarsie terminal wouldn't have permitted 24 tph in capacity, One item on my to-do list is to get out to Canarsie and measure the terminal's capacity. Canarsie's capacity wasn't an issue in the old days because they ran trains to both Canarsie and Lefferts, as well as short turning at both Myrtle and Atlantic. |
|
|
| (578886) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 12:51:53 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 12:16:46 2008. Physics doesn't change - but electronics do.You should consult the assumptions and equations for headways with wayside, cab and automated systems before expressing an opinion on their validity. |
|
|
| (578888) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Sat Mar 1 12:53:02 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by BLE-NIMX on Sat Mar 1 11:40:46 2008. I'll assume that they're related to the older trains, although the proliferation of NTT started around 2002, when they began to saturated the IRT. I wonder how long it takes the effects of repetitive stress or carpal tunnel injuries to manifest?I don't recall people complaining about the R142 controller handle, or for that matter, the old R44/46 handle. The 142 handle seems to be more comfortable to use. The old 44/46 definitely was. |
|
|
| (578895) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Sat Mar 1 13:10:13 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, that's a great post. Thanks. You've given this information before, and it's led me to post, also before, that we don't really know how good CBTC is untill all cars on the L are compatible with it.It's a terrible waste not to fully exploit its capabilities. Do you know of any solid plans to equip some R160s with the CBTC gear? |
|
|
| (578896) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Sat Mar 1 13:15:03 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 09:15:19 2008. i thought galvinized steel was better than copper piping. The zinc coat doesn't rust. Copper, however does oxidize when impurities enter the water.By the way, why doesn't copper pipe oxidize on the inside often? Is it the lack of oxygen? |
|
|
| (578897) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by BLE-NIMX on Sat Mar 1 13:21:36 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by MJF on Sat Mar 1 12:53:02 2008. IIRC there was a rash of occurances working with R46 cinestrons in the late 90s. TA didn't do anything to lessen the spring tension or even study the issue. For some people it may take years, if not decades to take hold, others never get it. Not being able to switch hands increases exposure levels equivalent to those who get it from computer terminals and video games. The P-wire handles were ergonomically comfortable (probably not designed that way either for the times), could switch hands and except for the rubber handled replacements and ungreased slides, were durable and didn't seem to cause for injuries and formed to an oversized grip, sort of like using Kuryakin motorcycle grips, still comfortable none the less. Had more complaints to myself about the non swivelling captains chairs. |
|
|
| (578898) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Mar 1 13:24:38 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 12:45:53 2008. There are two things you want to measure. The first is the acceleration of a train leaving a station. This is the time interval from when a train starts to move until the signal at the entrance for an incoming train turns green. The second is the braking rate. This is the time interval from when a train passes that green signal at the station entrance until it opens its doors. If the sum of both these time intervals is less than 60 seconds, then 90 second headways (40 tph) with 30 second dwell times are possible....These measurements are taken during off peak hours... I suppose that I might be comparing apples to oranges, in a way, then since I'm probably referring to peak or quasi-peak pressure, the sort of thing that happens when, say, you have three trains coming through 60th St Tunnel headed southbound. The R train becomes the leader by crossing over ahead and proceeding through the tunnel first. An N train from Astoria follows quickly behind it, and behind that N train comes the second following train, working the W route. The leading R train throws up station time signals behind it, so the N train is closing on Lexington Av station at reduced speed. It isn't (always - depending on the number of signals in the station itself) the case that the first trailing N train will enter Lexington Av station to further close in behind the departing R train, even if the entering signal displays green, because the trailing N train will wait for the rear of the R train to clear the station before the N train enters the station. In some cases, the entering signal will be green for quite a few seconds while the rear of the leading train clears the departing signal. Effectively, this would stand, I think, to lower the acceleration rate term. (The second trailing W train will act behind the N train as did the N train behind the R train). Now, I suppose the easy answer is to say: 'Well, don't run the trains like that - that's a timetable issue, not a signal system issue. The signals are supposed to deal with regular headways, not one train leading two others trailing right behind it that aren't going to use the station time signals, either. (trailer)--G-.........Y..........R.......R...........R.---(leader) moving that way ------> ---- = tunnel ..... = station (Y) or (R) = signal that only displays yellow/red aspects So in this very crude schematic, the entering signal displays green, the following signal gives yellow, followed by reds. The trailer won't advance at restricted speed to close in on the nearest red signal, it will remain at the entering signal until, roughly, since this is me keyboard-drawing: (trailer)--G-.........G..........(Y).......Y........R.----(leader) Only when this latter state occurs will the engineer will then accelerate his train and at some point begin braking to platform, and the cycle goes on. (All signals except the rightmost one are on station time speed). One item on my to-do list is to get out to Canarsie and measure the terminal's capacity. Not balmy enough for you, yet? :) |
|
|
| (578906) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Sat Mar 1 13:49:46 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Mar 1 00:40:11 2008. I don't want to pretend i know more than you, but i doubt that is a 3mph collision. I understand that you have the weight of the train behind you, but 3 miles doesn't seem like enough to do that amount of damage to an arnine. Unless they lacked the reinforced end bulkhead beams. The couplers would damp the collision. Maybe 7-9MPH? I just have doubts about that being a 3mph collision.I've seen coupling action at speeds above that, and it is surprising to see the trains stop during coupling, albeit with a BANG. Though the best way to couple is at a crawl, so you can "hear the pin drop". I read that that is your train, but what hapenned? Did you key by? Was the set acting up before hand? Did it happen during the dark ages when trains recieved no maintanence? Was it your last? |
|
|
| (578911) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 13:53:49 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 12:51:53 2008. Non-sequiter answer on your part |
|
|
| (578912) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Sat Mar 1 13:54:18 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by BLE-NIMX on Sat Mar 1 13:21:36 2008. The beauty behind the original controllers is that you don't always need to "grip" them like the new ones. I've seen motormen simply rest their hands on them without strain, because all you need to do is hold it down.Were there any carpel cases with the old controllers? or complaints? |
|
|
| (578914) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 13:56:52 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Sat Mar 1 13:15:03 2008. Copper is the standard now in all new housing. Galvanized steel corrodes over time despite the zinc coating. Copper holds up much better over the long haul. |
|
|
| (578918) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Pelham Bay Dave on Sat Mar 1 14:01:16 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by MJF on Sat Mar 1 12:53:02 2008. On the R142's the T/O can switch hands because the control is in the middle but on R143/160 you have to use your right hand since its located with the Arm rest on the right side. Its kills me every night on the L line in the tubes going 8MPH because of the Work zone on the TOD holding it for 15 Minutes. My hand is in so much pain when I get to 14-8 its hard to write out my OT slip. Other T/O's on the L Line that work the late PM's complain about the same thing. We all pray we get a train in Bypass. |
|
|
| (578920) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Sat Mar 1 14:18:36 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Grand concourse on Sat Mar 1 04:39:25 2008. PATH is 24-7.You are sympathizing with managment, and giving them excuses (24 hour system, "no" funds) You are a fool for doing that, are you managment or something? I doubt anybody here "hates" The Subway. What people hate is incompetent managment that puts such a great system with great potential to waste over beaurocratic BS. I'd rather have a clean, reliable system with trip arms rather than a system with flaky CBTC, and bullchicklet/piss puree and smell on the platforms. I am sure the general public wouldn't mind seeing the meat-eating NYC bunnies gone either. You have to fix one station at a time, one line at a time. Not fix half of a station, and leave to fix another half somewhere else. It takes them longer to "renovate" than it did to build. |
|
|
| (578925) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Mar 1 14:30:38 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. 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?I recall Siemens was trying to sell RATP a similar system by using NYCT CBTC (which in turn was based on the CBTC on Paris' line 14) test line as a showcase. Current ATO in Paris including line 14 is all induction loop based but they are planning to go RF. Unlike NYCT, RATP insists that CBTC from various suppliers be interoperable. Siemens will also be part of the project. |
|
|
| (578927) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Mar 1 14:31:57 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Sat Mar 1 14:18:36 2008. PATH is 24-7.For the most part, yes, but a qualification is nonetheless required: 9th and Christopher St stations are closed two overnights per month each. Then again, NYCT's Broad St station is closed every overnight, so there's another qualification, although Broad St (together with the Nassau St Line's Fulton St station in that complex) are a smaller part of the system than are two of PATH's stations. It takes them longer to "renovate" Escalator and elevator renovations especially take a very long time. |
|
|
| (578933) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Mar 1 14:56:26 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 13:56:52 2008. And if those galvanized steel pipes were the same age as your house then you have to wonder how much lead was used in the solder to assemble them. |
|
|
| (578940) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 15:39:44 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Sat Mar 1 13:24:38 2008. I suppose that I might be comparing apples to oranges,I believe you are. The signal system is designed to avoid collisions. My measurements indicated that the follower will always have a green aspect even with 90 second headways and 30 second dwell times. If a follower leaves 90 seconds after the leader and follows the exact same speed profile, then the follower will arrive at any point along the route exactly 90 seconds after the leader. It's the function of train supervision to insure that both leader and follower maintain the same speed profile and departing headway not the signal system. NYCT hasn't had much train supervision. Holding lights are not really up to the task. Both Paris and Moscow have pioneered the use of elegant and inexpensive train supervision systems that track and correct trains down to the second. |
|
|
| (578944) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Sat Mar 1 15:52:21 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 15:39:44 2008. what systems does moscow use? inductive loop? or radio? it is speed controll, right? |
|
|
| (578945) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Sat Mar 1 15:55:25 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Pelham Bay Dave on Sat Mar 1 14:01:16 2008. The controller located next to the window is precisely why I don't like the 143/160. The ammenities of the cab are in good repair now now. Good netilation, comfortable seat, sun visor, etc. But when they are not maintained and turn to shit, then what?The controller handle will ALWAYS be located next to the window. Your right hand will ALWAYS be sore. |
|
|
| (578946) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 15:57:15 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 13:53:49 2008. Physics doesn't change - but electronics do...Non-sequiter answer on your partI tried to ascribe some intelligence to your remark that evidently didn't exist. You objected to my citing a reference regarding how much improvement in service levels might be ascribed to automation on the basis of the age of that reference. My rejoinder was that Newtonian mechanics should be even more suspect by your criterion. I interpreted your subsequent reply "physics doesn't change - but electronics do," to indicate that the changes in electronics between the publication of that reference and the present might make the analysis obsolete. I merely suggested that you read the reference before passing such a judgment. The reason for this suggestion is that I have read the reference that I cited and find such an objection irrelevant. |
|
|
| (578949) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Mar 1 16:01:57 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by MJF on Sat Mar 1 15:55:25 2008. And carpal tunnel syndrone (sp?) cases will soar! |
|
|
| (578959) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 16:15:47 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Pelham Bay Dave on Sat Mar 1 14:01:16 2008. I wonder if a force sensor arrangement would be better.The F-16 jet's joystick senses force you apply to it. Early on it had no "give" but the Air Force added an artificial movement to it so pilots wouldn't find it too un-natural. What would you think of that? |
|
|
| (578960) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Mar 1 16:17:51 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 15:39:44 2008. It's the function of train supervision to insure that both leader and follower maintain the same speed profile and departing headway not the signal system.NYCT hasn't had much train supervision. Holding lights are not really up to the task. I've been running together the functional explanation for the signal system as has NYCT, in a way, I think. It seems that the shorter blocks on CBTC would be used to allow congested trains to move more closely behind each other, as in my example of the R, N, and W trains through 60th St Tunnel going into Lexington Av. (This functional explanation would also handle, if I'm not mistaken, thoughts about why short blocks were being used). In that way, perhaps NYCT will be using CBTC signals to squeeze more trains through non-terminal stations on the trunk line at irregular intervals, when trains bunch up? The train management side would be akin to preventing the drain from becoming overwhelmed in the first place, but on the CBTC signal side is it a better plunger, as it were, given that might be the use for trying to move more fluid down the drain, regardless of whether that fluid should have built up in the first place? Holding lights are not really up to the task. This is true. If applied at the right points, they can put an early train back on the timetable slot it's supposed to occupy, and it can hold two trains for a connection, but it's not likely to aid the train that's falling 30 seconds off pace, then 50 seconds, then 95, then 145, then.... Catch the delay when it's less than a a significant fraction of the frequency - and at 30 tph, that's 2 minutes - and maybe reducing dwell time at a few stations by 5 seconds at each can potentially get it back on track. It still won't work for catastrophic delays, but it's hard to find any good solution for those. E.g., on the Canarsie Line, a northbound train breaks down at Union Square - that's not pretty under any view of things; sure you can try to single-track around it, but at other than overnight frequencies of service, it wouldn't work out too well. But back to your point about train supervision, yes, it's used in other systems, it's used in video games (to good effect, don't laugh!), etc., so why not try something on the delay preventative side on NYCT? Yes, I'm agreed with that. |
|
|
| (578966) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 16:26:01 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Sat Mar 1 15:52:21 2008. what systems does moscow use? inductive loop? or radio? it is speed controll, right?I have not kept up with the latest developments in Moscow. The material that I've seen on the web is circa the 1990's. At that time the answer to your question would be none of the above. They used a signal system that appeared to be identical to that installed by Comrade N. S. Khrushchev in the 1930's. It was also very similar to NYCT's wayside system. The train supervision system was not copied from NYCT. I do not know when it originated. However, there is no secret about it; it's in plain sight. There's a resettable seconds timer display at each station. It gets reset every time a train leaves the station. All the operating crew has to remember is what its headway is supposed to be and to match each station departure to the their scheduled headway and the timer display. |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 11 |
||
