|
|
| Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. (578118) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 11 |
||
|
| (578970) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 16:30:48 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. "You are sympathizing with managment"As opposed to sympathizing with foamers who couldn't take care of themselves without help, never mind fixing a subway station? Having said that, escalator and elevator repairs do take too long. |
|
|
| (578971) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 16:32:29 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by WillD on Sat Mar 1 14:56:26 2008. A lot, I imagine.When I use water for drinking or cooking I run cold water for a few seconds before using it. I do not use hot water from the tap except for washing, because more lead is likely to be dissolved in it. |
|
|
| (578980) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Sat Mar 1 16:51:16 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 16:26:01 2008. i read on a russian site(russian text) that there is a sort of radio system, but i am not that good with russian. It had a few settings like 40, 60, 80 kmph, like on the HBLR. I assume it works with their new bullshit "yauza" light metro cars. Bureacracy at work in russia too. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (578985) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by mr_brian on Sat Mar 1 16:59:54 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. Sounds like you want to go back into the past.This may help. 
|
|
|
| (578989) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by BLE-NIMX on Sat Mar 1 17:03:02 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 13:54:18 2008. There are complainers in every group, and claims within. I actually liked the Westcodes when they worked right because they were retained like GEs by a secondary pilot spring. Trouble was they weren't set with enough give so the pilot would attempt a deadman application with a hairs worth of movement on the handle on some of them, thus the term "Pop-O-Matic". R32-R68 type newer WH controllers have heavier springs which needed more pressure or the pilot valves are set so they leak if you take bumps. GE from the R10-R30s you could hold down with a pinky once you snapped them down. R27-30s sucked if you had to put upper body weight onto them |
|
|
| (578990) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Alex L. on Sat Mar 1 17:05:45 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 08:47:18 2008. But the lack of compatible trains problem is more like knowing you need 40' of copper pipe, but only ordering 30' and making of the remaining distance with the existing galvanized steel pipe. |
|
|
| (578991) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Sat Mar 1 17:05:58 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by BLE-NIMX on Sat Mar 1 17:03:02 2008. "R32-R68 type newer WH controllers have heavier springs which needed more pressure or the pilot valves are set so they leak if you take bumps."A friend motorman had an R32 like that, if he would lift the controller just as little as 1/16", you would hear air leaking from it. But most of these controllers have some play in them. |
|
|
| (578993) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Forest Glen on Sat Mar 1 17:09:27 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. Thank you. The NYC subway has the potential for greatness. It is the 2nd largest system in the world. Some of the 1 line stations in upper Manhattan resemble the London tubes. New cars, CBTC, line extensions, and the renovation of several stations will enable the subway to reach the same plateau as the DC Metro, London Underground, and BART. |
|
|
| (578995) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Alex L. on Sat Mar 1 17:11:00 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 00:39:18 2008. They wisely pay TrainDude every two weeks. |
|
|
| (579002) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 17:42:54 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Sat Mar 1 16:17:51 2008. 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 upCBTC might squeeze 5% more trains through non-terminal stations than the present wayside system. That's the limit of its capability. Current maximum service levels are around 66% the capacity of the existing system's capacity. That leaves a lot of squeezing capability for the current system before CBTC's benefits kick in. The train management side would be akin to preventing the drain from becoming overwhelmed in the first place, Do a little thought experiment. How close to schedule does 30 tph operation have to be to avoid bunching (red and yellow signals)? We know the signal system will handle 90 second headways. All we need is a criterion to prevent a 120 second headway from becoming less than 90 seconds. Suppose the leader is running more than 15 seconds late and the follower more than 15 seconds early. The initial 120 second headway is now less than 90 seconds. A sufficient condition, to guarantee that headways do not become less than 30 seconds, is that both the leader and the follower remain within 15 seconds of their schedule at all times. The TA's schedules are drawn up with a precision of 30 seconds. Command, we have a problem! |
|
|
| (579009) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 17:52:20 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 17:42:54 2008. "A sufficient condition, to guarantee that headways do not become less than 30 seconds, is that both the leader and the follower remain within 15 seconds of their schedule at all times."Which works in your living room's Lionel set very well. The geese are very cooperative there. They don't even honk if you don't want them to. "The TA's schedules are drawn up with a precision of 30 seconds." The TA plans for the real world. |
|
|
| (579013) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Sat Mar 1 18:05:58 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 17:52:20 2008. Ron, i don't want to insult you. You have a bad attitude. Always so negative. Always negative. You seem to support the TA in its ignorance like there is no tomorrow. When a person comes up with a reasonable suggestion, you try to put it down. When the TA is noted as being inefficient, and trying to destroy everything in their search for "efficiency", you come in and back them. Can you not accept the fact that managment CAN be wrong, and idiotic? You talk about "fantasies", and how things are unrealistic. That is a shame on your part. You must free yourself from your barriers. Anything is possible. Even the Brightliners being rebuilt as fast subway cars with strengthened bulkheads. Even them running on the A line from 207 to lefferts in less than 55 minutes. Free your soul, live.Then again, maybe you are a bad guy. |
|
|
| (579014) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 18:09:23 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 18:05:58 2008. You haven't been postying here long enough to know Stephen very well. You'll get to know him a lot better.I don't think the TA's perfect by any means. The agency has a lot which could be improved, but if you're going to help improve it you have to have a reasonable point rom which to start. Your posts are fantasies. When you show that you know something, I'll take you seriously. Until then it's all good clean fun. |
|
|
| (579017) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 18:16:03 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Forest Glen on Sat Mar 1 17:09:27 2008. "It is the 2nd largest system in the world"By route miles. It is #1 in number of stations, number of express services, and, I believe #5 in the world in ridership (maybe it has climbed to #4 by now, I don't know). "The NYC subway has the potential for greatness" The NYC subway already far outperforms the DC Metro on most measures of reliability, route flexibility, safety and service. What NYC lacks are ADA compliant stations and cellphone capability in the tunnels (the latter is somewhat controversial in that some New Yorkers think it's a bad idea). On many lines, the DC Metro's train speeds do not exceed New York'sm and when they do, it doesn't matter much (escept to foamers like you) because there are no lengthy express stretches to take advantage of it. |
|
|
| (579019) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Sat Mar 1 18:24:14 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 18:09:23 2008. I DO know something. I still don't get what is such a fantasy about it. Obviously, if i ever get enough resources, i will build my own subway or elevated, and run it my way, which is the best way for everyone. BUT, what i need is the RESOURCES. Or i can become a powerful member of TA managment, streamline managment, and run the system the best possible way. At first, it may seem like unreal fantasies, but look at HISTORY, subways and ELs were to be actually BUILT by investors. THINK about it. History proves it IS possible, and NOT far fetched. all you have to do is look into the past. Teddy Roosevelt publicly believed in this as well, so was he also fantasizing?I don't know Stephen, and that doesn't matter, he seems like a reasonable being with facts. Like i said, you have a negative attitude. |
|
|
| (579022) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 18:31:26 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 18:24:14 2008. "Or i can become a powerful member of TA managment, streamline managment, and run the system the best possible way."1) Finish school - university, preferably 2) Get a job at the TA or a transportation related business 3) Work very hard and learn as much as you can about both the subject matter and how politics works in the public transportation business - you need both technical and social/political skills 4) Develop your idea and find allies to help champion them 5) Be patient and persistent If you do this, you will make a contribution. Only time will tell how this will occur. Be open to the opportunities. I wish you success. |
|
|
| (579027) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Mar 1 18:58:17 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 17:42:54 2008. CBTC might squeeze 5% more trains through non-terminal stations than the present wayside system.Can you show how you computed/estimated that? I'm not sure that the specific empirical method you used to compute the current signal system's capacity would work. Plus, if your 5% figure is correct, how is it supposed to solve capacity problems? that's an improvement of only 1 tph working off a base of 30 tph; ok, it's actually 1.5 tph, but this is a case where I guess it's fine to round down. Also, I recall PATH promising that their use of CBTC would improve capacity by more than 5%, although I forget how much. That leaves a lot of squeezing capability for the current system before CBTC's benefits kick in. I'm not as sure that the current system fares as well with bunching problems requiring what we've called 'squeezing', partly because the station time signals aren't used to full effect. But the far easier solution to THAT problem is likely to try to reduce bunching as much as possible. Command, we have a problem! Indeed. This would be a plausible explanation for the hit-or-miss that is 30 tph operation on the Queens Blvd express tracks. Will the CBTC solution to try to improve capacity on the Queens Blvd Line (and elsewhere) involve lots of 'squeezing'? At a certain limit, 'squeezing' starts to resemble the conveyor belt, one must even guess; I doubt it would get to that point, but we shall see. |
|
|
| (579084) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Mar 1 21:21:58 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 16:51:16 2008. What Stephen was saying about Paris and Moscow is called "programed departures". It doesn't need CBTC and the system is more like a clock at each station to remind operators to stay within the schedule.The Paris one was first introduced on a non-ATO line in 1969 and was expanded to more lines until they got ATO and is still in use during non-ATO hours on ATO lines (except the ZPTO line 14) and on the few non-ATO lines. |
|
|
| (579218) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Sun Mar 2 01:18:48 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Sat Mar 1 18:58:17 2008. I think what you are missing is that SB is comparing actual CBTCperformance to conventional signal performance in a different time period. Several things have happened since the peak service levels of the 1950s which have cut into the ability of the fixed wayside system. Most of them have to do with trusting, or rather NOT trusting the person in the cab. 1) Automatics were designed to be s/p (stop and proceed) signals. The key-by mechanism of briding the IJ at low speed forced the motorman to come to a complete stop short of the signal, and THEN proceed at RESTRICTED SPEED. Thus closing-in was always possible, regardless of signal spacing. Rules changes 30 rules ago put an end to this practice "officially"...now you needed to call on the radio to key-by. But before the days of event recorders and blame-oriented supervision, experienced motormen often did it anyway to stay on schedule. 2) TA was caught with its pants down in 1995 when the NTSB investigation into the WB accident concluded that emergency braking distances had been allowed to increase substantially beyond the original design assumptions. As a result the overall fleet speed was reduced (doesn't affect tph but schedule speed, and thus trainsets required to meet a given tph) 3) After WB, signal design philosophy became very paranoid. In certain areas (mostly around stations), reduced braking distance margins were allowed based on certain assumptions again centering around motorman competence and willingness to live. These had to be upped resulting in lower throughput. 4) Evidently current rule doesn't permit an in-service train to come 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. 5) Precious dwell time seconds consumed by extra precautions which should not be necessary, e.g. door enablers and pointing at the board. Unfortunately these effects are cummulative over many decades and represent a long-term direction, not the mismanagement of any one particular administration. The TA managed itself into a corner where it needs new signals to survive. You could do the math a certain way and the TA comes out ahead with this approach. An entire generation of operating personnel has been trained to do things a certain way, which is essentially to transfer responsibility from the field personnel to managment. If one were to try to roll back the clock and simply liberalize the practices above, there would be a wreck every week and probably a fatal every year. |
|
|
| (579225) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Mar 2 01:53:06 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. Interesting.By the way, why do your posts always have narrower margins (your lines print out shorter)? |
|
|
| (579226) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Sun Mar 2 01:54:40 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 09:16:28 2008. I respectfully disagree with regard to cab signals.You are quite correct that the "sensing" of the train's position is discrete and delimited by the IJs. The tranmission of the speed "command" to the train is continuous. Let's say you have just passed a wayside signal point in an ASC cab signal system. The indication of that signal is Approach (proceed not exceeding medium speed prepared to stop at next signal) and when you pass the signal your cab signal displays 30 MPH. That "command" is being sent to you by the next track circuit boundary in front of your train, because the track transformer which is feeding track circuit energy into the rails is "coding" it (100% AM) at a certain rate, typically 75 pulses per minute. Whereas the signal you just passed had been the termination of that track circuit, now that you have occupied it, your front axles terminate the circuit. A modulated AC current is thus flowing through the rails and through your axles, which an inductive loop on your lead truck picks up and decodes using logic which is so straightforward it was possible to do this in the 1920s with relays and tuned transformers. Now, I say it is continuous for two reasons. With ASC, your speed is continuously monitored and compared with the command. With wayside trips, your speed is based on X/T between two points, and could thus go far above the limit during part of your traversal. The other aspect of continuity is that when conditions change, the command changes instantly. You don't have to wait until the next signal for reception and enforcement. This works both ways. When your leader pulls away, you get an upgrade mid-block. Likewise, if a controlled signal is dropped in front of you, you can get a downgrade. As for CBTC, I'll have to look up what the sampling rate is. |
|
|
| (579227) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Mar 2 02:01:53 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Sun Mar 2 01:54:40 2008. Thanks for that explanation. |
|
|
| (579228) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Mar 2 02:02:59 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Forest Glen on Sat Mar 1 17:09:27 2008. hahahahahahahahahahaahahahhaahahahhaahahyou're wrong. NYC is better than all. ahahahaahhaahahahahhaahahahahahahhaahahah |
|
|
| (579229) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Mr Mabstoa on Sun Mar 2 02:03:24 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Sat Mar 1 17:05:58 2008. I remember in the 80's when I was railfanning on the 6 line in the Bronx a motorman who had a a small army camo ammunition bag that must have been filled with some type of wieghts holding down his controller while he was in operation, this with his cab door wide open.At 14 I thought this was really cool. |
|
|
| (579230) | |
Re:(Handles) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Sun Mar 2 02:03:30 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. IMHO, the R46 handles were the most comfortable deadman-equippedcontroller I've ever used (can't beat a straight-K though!) They also had a real solid feel to them, not toy-like. When we were in prototyping and then in production with the 110A/B, the feedback about the forced right-handed controllers on the "B" cars was received from operating personnel....and ignored, evidently. The "A" division T-handle is almost as good as the old R44/46 slide handles, but something about the size of the handle and the way it pivots from the center makes it harder to hold. It also has a video arcade quality to it. |
|
|
| (579233) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Mr Mabstoa on Sun Mar 2 02:09:46 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Mar 2 02:02:59 2008. I thought you said that "cars rule" when you went to buy your new car several weeks ago.What kind of car did you buy anyway? |
|
|
| (579234) | |
Re:(Handles) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Mr Mabstoa on Sun Mar 2 02:11:28 2008, in response to Re:(Handles) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Sun Mar 2 02:03:30 2008. And I remember the 44-46 handle was placed somewhat in the middle of the console, more towards the right so either hand could use it. |
|
|
| (579236) | |
Re:(Handles) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Sun Mar 2 02:23:50 2008, in response to Re:(Handles) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Mr Mabstoa on Sun Mar 2 02:11:28 2008. Yes, it was either hand, or both. Because it slid in a planeinstead of in an arc, it was possible to steady the controller with the other hand and to rest one's wrist on the console. |
|
|
| (579237) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Sun Mar 2 02:26:05 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Sun Mar 2 01:53:06 2008. :) I guess it's my signature. Has to do with web browserinterfaces and the fact that I have never been able to get used to soft carriage returns. When I get near the end of the line of type, I still hear that little bell go "ding". |
|
|
| (579266) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Mar 2 05:58:59 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Sun Mar 2 01:54:40 2008. Now, I say it is continuous for two reasons. With ASC, your speed is continuously monitored and compared with the command. With wayside trips, your speed is based on X/T between two points, and could thus go far above the limit during part of your traversal.There is a track of length d. A train enters it going at speed v. Given that train has an acceleration of a, what is the maximum speed the train can attain on this length of track? Assume it takes time t to traverse this length of track. Then if the train is constantly accelerating, it will have an average velocity of: v + at/2 The distance traveled is: d = vt + ½at2 (1) or ½at2 + vt - d = 0 (2) solving for t we get: t = (-v ± √(v2 + 2ad))/a (3) The maximum speed is: vm = v + at (4) Substituting the value of t from (3) into (4) we get: vm = v + (-v ± √(v2 + 2ad)) or vm = √(v2 + 2ad) (5) Now, suppose we have a length of track that is D = nd long. Further suppose that d is the stopping distance for a train in emergency from speed vm and there are n timers at the beginning of each of the sections. Clearly, if the timers are set for a v = √(vm2 - 2ad) (6) then the velocity for the entire length D of the track will never exceed vm, from equation (5). That's what I meant by there being an analogy to the Nyquist Sampling Theorem with acceleration taking the place of frequency. I'm clearly viewing the wayside signals and block system as a sampled data system. I'd rather not get into a more detailed explanation involving z-transforms. I try to limit myself to high school math in my posts and quite frankly my z-transform knowledge is a bit rusty after 40 years. The other aspect of continuity is that when conditions change, the command changes instantly. You don't have to wait until the next signal for reception and enforcement. Let's separate reception and enforcement. Reception is easy. Operators are permitted to look ahead to the next wayside signal. I believe it is encouraged. Let's look at enforcement. When your leader pulls away, you get an upgrade mid-block. That's not a safety issue. Likewise, if a controlled signal is dropped in front of you, you can get a downgrade. Just how does that happen with the follower in mid-block after the follower has entered the block? A downgrade can occur at the next block boundary. A downgrade on the current block after the follower has entered it suggests that the leader has crossed an IJ in the direction going towards the follower. If that is the case and the leader has changed direction, no amount of speed control will help the follower. |
|
|
| (579303) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Mar 2 08:51:25 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. I think you're right that with respect to items 1-5, although the capabilities of the traditional signal system remain the same - Stephen's measured it, after all - that signal system isn't being used to full effect, to the point where NYCT now believes that operations require items 1-5 almost as a matter of physical reality.But if you're right, then the future doesn't bode well for CBTC, either. Somewhere along the line, things working as they do, there will be a failure resulting in a collision or derailment. And then new items, on the mode of operation you've described, would be put into effect which hamper CBTC's proclaimed advantage. What then? Look for the next-generation signal system and then start the vicious cycle again? Or, train crew as nannies for a fully automated system? That seems to be the logical stopping point for mistrust of crew competence. Is it paranoia, do you think? Railroads in our area, after all, use stop-and-proceed signals. Is it lack of picking out the right people most of the time for crews, or lack of training? It seems like for each item, there was another way to go. As to key-by, there's trying to ensure competent discretion; the solution actually arrived at seems to be no key-by without authorization. The solution to Robert Ray could have been conductors reining in an engineer who had too many problems instead of wheel detectors. Etc. In the end, it seems like the direction was picked to head toward a 'continuous' system like ASC or CBTC, and away from the 'discrete' system we have. Although I think it's interesting that Stephen is attacking this whole distinction that I think I've created here between continuous and discrete by trying to show that all systems under consideration are simply more or less discrete depending on how many points along the line, and 'continuous' is simply my term for 'less discrete', especially since low-end acceleration on NYCT trains is a constant (at least barring faulty motors, etc.). |
|
|
| (579304) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Mar 2 09:02:32 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Sun Mar 2 02:26:05 2008. OK. |
|
|
| (579315) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Mar 2 09:23:59 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Sun Mar 2 08:51:25 2008. If CBTC were so problematic, you wouldf have seen collisions already. BART and Muni use it. In fact, CBTC works, it's reliable and there's no reason New York can't use it. |
|
|
| (579320) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Mar 2 09:28:04 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Sun Mar 2 09:23:59 2008. If half the R143's operate in CBTC by-pass mode and the R160's don't even have it, how do we know it really works since every train on the line doesn't have it functioning at the same time? |
|
|
| (579326) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Mar 2 09:39:08 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Mar 2 09:28:04 2008. Did you not read "BART and Muni" in my post?The R160 will accept CBTC out of the box. It just hasn't been installed yet. Yes, the Canarsie installation is taking too long. Yes, it will cost more than it should perhaps. Bt this is not experimental stuff, any more than a hospital installing a computer to keep patient records or your bank giving you an ATM card. Unless you've been reading TWU's bullshit, of course... |
|
|
| (579331) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Mar 2 09:53:00 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Mar 2 05:58:59 2008. Just how does that happen with the follower in mid-block after the follower has entered the block? A downgrade can occur at the next block boundary.What would a speed control system do in this kind of situation: train B is following behind train A, which is very short, maybe even a single car or locomotive. While the rear of train A is still occupying part of block 1, the front of train B enters block 1 under a 'stop and proceed' signal, meaning that train B has to stop at the signal and proceed at restricted speed prepared to stop. Let's say that at this point train A stops just inside the next block, block 2. Train B's engineer is proceeding at restricted speed prepared to stop well within her field of sight. But let's say that she nods and the train continues at or below restricted speed (which let's stipulate that under the rules of this railroad is 10 mph - still more than enough to cause a bad collision). If train B's engineer doesn't receive the 'ringer' downgrade until the block boundary, it seems perhaps too late to prevent a collision with train A, unless train B can receive a downgrade before train B has crossed the block boundary between blocks 1 and 2. Am I reading you right that suggest that downgrades can only be given to a train once per block, at the block boundaries? A downgrade on the current block after the follower has entered it suggests that the leader has crossed an IJ in the direction going towards the follower. The leader - more like follower in the wrong way, now! - shouldn't be able to do that, no? Wasn't THAT among the things that went wrong here? |
|
|
| (579342) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Mar 2 10:15:03 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Sun Mar 2 09:23:59 2008. It isn't that CBTC is 'so problematic', it's that problems, often unforeseen, can develop as to any system, even one thought quite safe.Look, e.g., at the WMATA incident at Woodley Park - WMATA had a system with speed control that one would think quite safe, but a train ended up going backward when it was supposed to be going forward, the train engineer apparently didn't notice that his train was going backward for about a half mile and accelerating at that, and the train's engineer didn't engage the brakes or emergency brakes. There's always a way for something to go wrong, even in safe systems. The comparison to BART and MUNI may be inapposite; neither uses the CBTC system that NYCT will be using. That's part of the problem in any comparison; the NYCT CBTC system seems to be sui generis in many respects. And even there, the systems are probably not infallible. Accidents happen, and you try to make corrections. That's how life works. MUNI's system uses a different type of technology - we might as well term it IL-CBTC to contrast it with the RF-CBTC being installed elsewhere nowadays, and is BART's RF-CBTC signal system ('AATC') even fully implemented yet? The last I read about AATC on BART, there were many problems, actually. Any updates? |
|
|
| (579343) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Sun Mar 2 10:16:42 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Sun Mar 2 09:39:08 2008. Yes, the Canarsie installation is taking too long. Yes, it will cost more than it should perhaps.Thats the right answer everything else what was said wasnt needed. But this is not experimental stuff Really?? ATS is still in its "testing stages" in the A Div, but with live people on the trains... Maybe you need to get to NYC more and see for yourself. |
|
|
| (579347) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Sun Mar 2 10:24:12 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Sun Mar 2 09:39:08 2008. It's experimental for the people at NYCT. This is first generation stuff for them. |
|
|
| (579348) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Mar 2 10:24:20 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Sun Mar 2 10:15:03 2008. I didn't say it was perfect. Also, the article's use of trerminology makes it difficult to understand exactly what went wrong with what. Did BART try to upgrade CBTC and the new installation doesn't work? Ids this the original CBTC? Unfortunately, the reporter assigned to the story doesn't know anything about technology. In order to reach any conclusion we'd need a more reliable source (the newspaper didn't lie - it merely assigned a tech-ignorant reporter to the story).CBTC is also in use in Europe. BART isn't the only user. |
|
|
| (579349) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Mar 2 10:24:50 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by MJF on Sun Mar 2 10:24:12 2008. Agreed from that point of view. |
|
|
| (579360) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Mar 2 10:36:15 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Sun Mar 2 10:24:20 2008. Ids this the original CBTC?What original CBTC? So far as I know, BART had ATO, but not CBTC, akin to WMATA presently has as well, if I understand the terms correctly. Someone can feel free to correct me if I've got it mixed up. |
|
|
| (579363) | |
ATS Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Mar 2 10:40:36 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Railman718 on Sun Mar 2 10:16:42 2008. ATS is still in its "testing stages" in the A Div, but with live people on the trains...OK, I'm trying to get clear in my head what NYCT's ATS is and how it works. Can you, or anyone else, offer a brief intro? So far as I can tell based on hints here and there, it seems like the signal system is being used as holding lights, but that's probably not right, and I think it's a good topic, since it's apparent that lots of us - even the newspapers, apparently - are running ATS together with CBTC, and as I understand it, they're separate systems. |
|
|
| (579365) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Mar 2 10:42:28 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Railman718 on Sun Mar 2 10:16:42 2008. Actually, I would enjoy seeing it. |
|
|
| (579367) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Mar 2 10:47:26 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Sun Mar 2 10:36:15 2008. According to Wikipedia, BART started with ATO, so you would be correct if Wikipedia is accurate.Wikipedia also says Vancouver and Toronto have CBTC systems based on loop systems. |
|
|
| (579379) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Mar 2 10:56:05 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Sun Mar 2 10:47:26 2008. I see ATO used interchangeably with ATC - I don't know whether that's correct or not; I suppose that I use them interchangeably too, but I don't know whether that's correct. |
|
|
| (579382) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Mar 2 10:58:01 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Sun Mar 2 10:56:05 2008. I have to punt on that question. |
|
|
| (579411) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Mar 2 11:37:04 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Sun Mar 2 10:24:20 2008. Did BART try to upgrade CBTC and the new installation doesn't work?That seems to be the case, although the reasons for this are unclear. I notice that BART hasn't simply gone ahead with another party to implement their AATC, which is an RF-CBTC system, from what I understand. BART statement on Advanced Automatic Train Control lawsuit 06.16.2006 Regrettably, after nearly four years of protracted negotiations, General Electric Transportation Systems Global Signaling (GETS GS), a business unit of General Electric, has left BART with no option but to sue it for breach and termination of its 1998 contract with BART in which GETS GS promised to design and deliver a technological improvement to the BART transit system. Over the course of the last nine years, BART made a very substantial investment in the development and implementation of a next-generation, communications based train control technology called Advanced Automatic Train Control, or AATC. If perfected, AATC would allow BART to run trains closer together and at greater average speeds, thereby significantly increasing the ridership capacity of the BART system at a cost far less than the cost of physically expanding the system by building another Transbay Tube or more trackway. Unfortunately, GETS GS has refused to honor its contractual commitment to develop a safe and functional AATC system for BART, and GETS GS has abandoned the project. BART will not let GETS GS just walk away from its contractual responsibilities. We will fight vigorously to protect the investment the taxpayers and riders have made in this critically important technology. |
|
|
| (579424) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Mar 2 12:26:44 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Sun Mar 2 11:37:04 2008. That's BART's view (and may well be true; I am not taking sides). GE's view will be different. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. |
|
|
| (579445) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Fine, Howard, and Fine on Sun Mar 2 13:05:57 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Sun Mar 2 10:56:05 2008. To confuse matters more, there's also ATP (Automatic Train Protection) and ATS (Automatic Train Supervision) in addition to the ATC (C = "control") and ATO (O = "operation") you already mentioned.At some properties trains can be run manually, or can only be run manually, but with ATP enforced. Perhaps this is more universally and meaningfully conveyed by "cab codes". All the systems piggyback off each other whether using old-fashioned cab codes or CBTC. |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 11 |
||
