|
|
| Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. (578118) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 9 of 11 |
||
|
| (581197) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Mar 5 14:34:48 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Wed Mar 5 09:58:56 2008. Creepy to me is Chambers on the J/M/Z. Maybe that's why it was chosen for scenes in The Equalizer.205 is kind of creepy though. It looks like a station that is neglected. Graffitti, peeling paint, and stained walls. |
|
|
| (581199) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Mar 5 14:37:13 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Mar 5 08:20:34 2008. The 3 line might have the most seniority these days. |
|
|
| (581200) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Mar 5 14:41:02 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Mar 5 07:08:38 2008. Are other factors to be considered when determining emergency braking distance?Grade? Number of cars? Passenger loads? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (581202) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Mar 5 14:46:51 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by LuchAAA on Wed Mar 5 14:34:48 2008. It needs an overhaul, like many stations do. I'm all for it. |
|
|
| (581203) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Mar 5 14:48:57 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by LuchAAA on Wed Mar 5 14:41:02 2008. A B Division car is what, 75,000 pounds? If you put, say, 200 people on it weighing an average of 180 pounds you get another 36,000 pounds for a total of 121,000 pounds. |
|
|
| (581204) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Mar 5 14:49:33 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Wed Mar 5 14:48:57 2008. 111,000 pounds, not 121,000 pounds. |
|
|
| (581205) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Mar 5 14:50:46 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by LuchAAA on Wed Mar 5 14:34:48 2008. No more graffiti than any other concourse station. |
|
|
| (581209) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Mar 5 14:58:34 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by LuchAAA on Wed Mar 5 14:41:02 2008. Are other factors to be considered when determining emergency braking distance?Whose asking the question: a reporter or an NTSB investigation panel? Grade? Number of cars? Passenger loads? The braking system is supposed to vary the force applied to the brakes so that train will stop in a consistent manner regardless of grade, number of cars, live load, lunar phases, sunspot cycle or coriolis force. Perhaps the railroad men on the board will further elaborate. |
|
|
| (581214) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Mar 5 15:30:09 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Wed Mar 5 14:48:57 2008. Depends on the car--If youre referring to a 75 footer or a new tech car, a lot more. Otherwise, not too far off. Either way, your point is valid, Passengers are not insignificant with regards to total weight when considering braking. |
|
|
| (581217) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Mar 5 15:34:57 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Mar 5 14:58:34 2008. Not sure if you saw my response regarding speed on the express track on the 7 line between Woodside and Junction. Were you of the opinion that the speeds don't exceed 35mph in that area? |
|
|
| (581241) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Mar 5 16:39:04 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Mon Mar 3 20:32:03 2008. On a BIE with SMEE or RT-2 equipment the emergency contactor disables the dynamic so there is only an electro pneumatic appliction of the brakes. All electric brake equipment such as on CTA's rolling stock does apply full dynamic and tread brakes and if the cineston controller is used for the emergency application, track brakes as well. |
|
|
| (581255) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Mar 5 17:33:37 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by R30A on Wed Mar 5 15:30:09 2008. No to get off the point..but I still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that the subway car weight went up so much with the new cars..Why? Especially during these "lean times" when weight should be an issue! |
|
|
| (581258) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 17:37:52 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Edwards! on Wed Mar 5 17:33:37 2008. My guess is its the same reason why automobile weights are going up. Safety features, as well as lots of new features in general. |
|
|
| (581260) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Mar 5 17:40:14 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Wed Mar 5 14:46:51 2008. And it couldn't come soon enough..205TH ST should NOT look so bad.... |
|
|
| (581261) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Wed Mar 5 17:41:21 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Railman718 on Wed Mar 5 07:19:53 2008. I understand everything. I was merely asking you to speculate about how often you think those rules are flouted, even by management. |
|
|
| (581272) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Mar 5 18:00:52 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by LuchAAA on Wed Mar 5 15:34:57 2008. I asked to see the calibration sticker. That's a polite way of my questioning the accuracy of the speedometer reading.I have a couple of reasons to be skeptical, not the least being that I have made my own measurements. First, the reading, the T/O sees, has been "processed" to eliminate jitter. So, even if the sensor were providing an accurate measurement there is the question of what the TA is doing with these readings. There's also the accuracy of the sensor itself. Doppler speedometers compare the frequency of a transmitted frequency with that of its echo. The Doppler receiver detectors have a lot of problems, if there are multiple echoes. Doppler speedometers measure Doppler's velocity not the vehicle's velocity. The Doppler's velocity is the vehicle's velocity multiplied by the cosine of the between the Doppler path and the train's velocity. If the train were heading into a wall, and the Doppler were aimed directly at the wall, then the two would coincide. They aim the Doppler onto the ground, to make them useful for more applications. Thus, there is a fixed angle between train's horizontal motion and the point on the ground that defines the Doppler path. They then divide by the cosine of this angle to display the vehicle's velocity. What happens if the angle changes? The bracket can become bent. Also the ground can "become bent", i.e. undergoes a vertical curve like the bottom in a tunnel. How much of an angle is required to throw the reading off by 10%? Suppose the desired angle were 45°. Then a change of 6° is enough to throw the reading off by 10%. It's my understanding from reading this forum that these mountings are maintained men noted for their brawn and not by men in white coats, equipped with shims and levels. |
|
|
| (581276) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Wed Mar 5 18:15:15 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. Nonsense. MTA diudn't order enough trainsets to go along with the electronics. An oversight, but hardly a disaster.I was under the impression that it was the other way around. Even now, with R160s on the property, there are still NTTs that operate in Bypass. On top of that, wasn't it mentioned that CBTC was tested with older technology successfully? (namely, an R68 set) |
|
|
| (581287) | |
Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Wed Mar 5 19:16:16 2008, in response to Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by randyo on Wed Mar 5 05:09:19 2008. With these modified model 2 machines, what were the screw releaseboxes at the side of the machine then used for? |
|
|
| (581289) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Wed Mar 5 19:23:05 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Mar 5 18:00:52 2008. Suppose the desired angle were 45°. Then a change of 6° is enough to throw the reading off by 10%.Agreed radar is not accurate to laboratory standards, but 10% sounds like a high number. If the nominal angle is 45 degrees, then the target is as far away as the radar unit is high, i.e. about 3 feet. I can't imagine that vertical curvature would have much of an effect over such a short horizontal distance...extreme VC radii are on the order of 500'. |
|
|
| (581291) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Wed Mar 5 19:27:17 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by LuchAAA on Wed Mar 5 14:41:02 2008. Load weight does not change EBD, because the weight is sensed andthe brake cylinder pressure is proportioned accordingly. Number of cars should not have any measurable effect because each car brakes equally, and the speed of transmission of the emergency application is very rapid owing to the emergency brake valve circuit. Grade absolutely affects EBD and is not compensated for by car equipment. The grade over a given stretch of track is a crucial element of wayside signal and trip design. |
|
|
| (581293) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Mar 5 19:37:34 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Wed Mar 5 19:23:05 2008. Agreed radar is not accurate to laboratory standards, but 10% sounds like a high number.Take out your CRC. cos 39° = 0.77715, cos 45° = 0.70711, cos 51° = 0.62932. I can't imagine that vertical curvature would have much of an effect over such a short horizontal distance...extreme VC radii are on the order of 500'. I agree. However, I don't know where they are aiming the Doppler. If it's close to the vertical distance, then angular alignment is a problem. If it's far out ahead, then vertical curvature becomes a distinct problem. Agreed radar is not accurate to laboratory standards Was running a tachometer off a rotating shaft ever considered? You calibrate it to a full wheel width. As the wheel wears the speed reading increases, so it's still safe. If there's an accident, then measure the wheel diameter. |
|
|
| (581294) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Mar 5 19:40:14 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Wed Mar 5 19:27:17 2008. How does the load sensor work? Does it measure the force pressing down on the suspension system? |
|
|
| (581296) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Wed Mar 5 19:41:33 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Mar 5 07:08:38 2008. At 40 mph and an average emergency braking rate of 3.2 mph/sec it will take40/3.2 = 12.5 sec to stop. OK, there is part of the source of error. You are using an average EB rate of 3.2 mph/sec, but the signal system was designed around a 3.0 spec. And to be more precise, the design was never, ever based on a single number! In determining safe stopping distances, a graph based on actual test results of stopping distances at various speeds and grades is used as the basis, with interpolation. Those graphs call out a distance of 437 feet at 40 MPH on level grade. To arrive at a similar number using the average brake rate method: It takes 40/3.0=13.3 seconds to stop from 40 MPH. In order to factor in the response time of the brake system, it is assumed that the train experiences no braking for 1 second after the trip cock is struck, and then full braking begins. The train travels 40*1.47=59 feet during this second. Then then stopping distance is 389+59=448 feet, which is pretty closed to the observed value of 437 feet. Service levels in excess of 30 tph can be achieved without station timers and with the T/O seeing only green signal 30 tph, generally yes, 40 tph very challenging without station time. But the argument is somewhat academic, because in most areas of the system where close headways are needed, station time is provided. |
|
|
| (581298) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Wed Mar 5 19:45:28 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Mar 5 19:37:34 2008. Tach based speed sensors are used on the 75' cars, and IIRCthe new tech cars too. |
|
|
| (581304) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Mar 5 20:07:14 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Wed Mar 5 19:41:33 2008. 30 tph, generally yes, 40 tph very challenging without station time. But the argument is somewhat academic, because in most areas of the system where close headways are needed, station time is provided.It's also academic because the system is not being operated at 30 tph (except the Queens Blvd Express). If it were, most of the items on the wish list would be unnecessary. |
|
|
| (581308) | |
Re: Determining braking distance |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Mar 5 20:13:25 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Wed Mar 5 19:41:33 2008. "In order to factor in the response time of the brake system, it isassumed that the train experiences no braking for 1 second after the trip cock is struck, and then full braking begins. The train travels 40*1.47=59 feet during this second." Thanks, Jeff. So it takes aa full second for the dump valve to open and release the air, and for the pressure to drop sufficiently so the brake shoe engages? |
|
|
| (581315) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Mar 5 20:25:57 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Wed Mar 5 09:55:16 2008. Rapid acceleration beyond 3 mph/s is mnot wanted by the public because it is uncomfortable when you have to stand.I think it has more to do with the jerk - the rate of change of acceleration with respect to time, or the third derivative with respect to time of the position-time function. Some train operators on older trains - especially R40/42 sets, which have good acceleration out of a stop to begin with up to at least 10 mph at least - create a lot of jerk by pulling back the controller all the way before the train has even closed up the doors, and the brakes are already released - a lot of faith to put into the door circuits, I guess - which makes it an uncomfortable, and probably unsafe, start. |
|
|
| (581318) | |
Re: Determining braking distance |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Wed Mar 5 20:28:57 2008, in response to Re: Determining braking distance, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Mar 5 20:13:25 2008. It takes less than that. 1 second is a design assumption, butas I said from a signals standpoint the braking distances are based on a graph or lookup table, not calculated. The much tossed-about number of 3.0 or 3.2 is just a way of reducing a non-linear graph to a single number which managers can quote. Think about it: during an emergency application, all braking effort is due to the brake cylinders (since dynamics are disabled). Cylinder pressure is held constant. If the relationship between cylinder pressure and braking rate were constant for all speeds, then one could use a single emergency brake rate number and plug it into the equation and accurately predict distance for any speed. But, in fact, the relationship is not constant. Brake rates increase as speed decreases. This effect was more pronounced with cast iron shoes than with the modern composition shoes. Also, there are secondary effects such as heating of the shoe which changes the friction coefficient. Therefore it is not correct to plug into the equation for constant acceleration. |
|
|
| (581336) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Mar 5 20:56:42 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Wed Mar 5 20:25:57 2008. That sounds reasonable. |
|
|
| (581337) | |
Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Wed Mar 5 20:57:27 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Wed Mar 5 09:55:16 2008. Ron, the public might not like the sensation of hard acceleration,but they do like the indirect benefits. Quicker acceleration rates mean improved headways. Higher acceleration and higher running speeds means improved schedule speed. Although you could argue that it really doesn't matter if your trip is shortened by 5 minutes (although trying having that argument with a real new yorker and see what happens), reducing schedule speeds means that in order to move the same number of people, you need more rolling stock and more crews. Guess what, there is a cost associated with increased equipment and increased labor. The public does not want to pay more for service. What the Electric Railway Presidents' Conference Committee discovered in the early 1930s is still valid today: The highest acceleration, braking and speeds consistent with safety and comfort are desirable in transit service. Incidentally, especially with microprocessor control, acceleration rates of 4.0 or even 5.0 are possible without sacrificing comfort. The ERPCC also found, through extensive testing, that it is the rate of change of acceleration (the so-called "jerk" rate) which contributes to discomfort or injury. |
|
|
| (581339) | |
Re: Determining braking distance |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Mar 5 20:58:36 2008, in response to Re: Determining braking distance, posted by Jeff H. on Wed Mar 5 20:28:57 2008. Agreed.So if you were to model this in a computer, you would use a lookup table rather than a set of equations. At least that would be the efficient way to do it. |
|
|
| (581342) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Mar 5 20:59:42 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Railman718 on Wed Mar 5 07:28:39 2008. Going back a few years, I could've sworn I saw some higher speed limit signs, but I haven't checked in a while.I know that the slowest tunnels where you probably shouldn't even get to 35 mph, especially northbound, are the Steinway Tunnels. |
|
|
| (581346) | |
Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 21:04:16 2008, in response to Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Wed Mar 5 20:57:27 2008. Yes, faster acceleration would be great. But first, I'd rather the current acceleration rate continue past 30 MPH, where it seems to drop off. |
|
|
| (581349) | |
Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Mar 5 21:07:02 2008, in response to Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Wed Mar 5 20:57:27 2008. "Incidentally, especially with microprocessor control, accelerationrates of 4.0 or even 5.0 are possible without sacrificing comfort. The ERPCC also found, through extensive testing, that it is the rate of change of acceleration (the so-called "jerk" rate) which contributes to discomfort or injury. " Your notes about jerk are much appreciated. As to the public liking a 5 mph/s acceleration rate, seated, maybe; I'm skeptical in standing situations where you might not be firmly attached to a pole, or you are weighted down with a heavy bag, or with kids... With the short distance between stations in New York, it really doesn't make much difference. If an express only saves 30 seconds per skipped stop, what do you really expect to save accelerating say 25% faster than you do now? I agree that running the express 50-60 mph on most lines would help compared with 30 mph. But you can even improve operations at 30-35 mph, by reducing the number of events that interrupt the run. Make sure the train sees green lights between stops; reduce the number of times trains get bunched together; smooth out merge events; reduce delays due to unexpected events. (I got the chance to help once: I helped get a sick passenger off a 5 train at Grand Central a lot faster than it would have happened otherwise. We got the passenger up to an ambulance; the train departed and service resumed. |
|
|
| (581350) | |
Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Mar 5 21:09:12 2008, in response to Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Wed Mar 5 20:57:27 2008. Incidentally, especially with microprocessor control, accelerationrates of 4.0 or even 5.0 are possible without sacrificing comfort. The ERPCC also found, through extensive testing, that it is the rate of change of acceleration (the so-called "jerk" rate) which contributes to discomfort or injury. Thanks for the corroboration. That's exactly what I just thought. Do you know of any - probably EMUs - trains in which this is actually put to use at those acceleration rates? |
|
|
| (581355) | |
Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 21:17:52 2008, in response to Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Wed Mar 5 21:09:12 2008. I would have said JFK AirTrain, but those cars are 3.0 mphps. |
|
|
| (581357) | |
Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Mar 5 21:21:34 2008, in response to Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Wed Mar 5 21:07:02 2008. Your notes about jerk are much appreciated. As to the public liking a 5 mph/s acceleration rate, seated, maybe; I'm skeptical in standing situations where you might not be firmly attached to a pole, or you are weighted down with a heavy bag, or with kids...Even at half that acceleration rate, trust me as someone with quite above-average balance sense, if it's poured on immediately, it's uncomfortable. The key is to make it a smooth acceleration. With the short distance between stations in New York, it really doesn't make much difference. If an express only saves 30 seconds per skipped stop, what do you really expect to save accelerating say 25% faster than you do now? Well, at the 2.5 mphps taken as a constant, it'll take 12 seconds to hit 30 mph, which a train will usually hit in between stations. At twice that rate of acceleration, it takes six seconds less - half the time - to hit the same 30 mph, and on the other end, let's say there's another six seconds saved. 12 seconds saved per station on a route. On a route like the R, which eyeballing it, say, has 50 stops, that's 10 minutes less running time. Figure how many trains run on the R route, multiply that out, etc., and the numbers add up to a huge cumulative effect. Each leaky faucet does little damage on its own, but over many sinks, that's a ton of money and water down the drain. Note that this hypothetical didn't even increase the top speeds used. |
|
|
| (581358) | |
Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Mar 5 21:22:44 2008, in response to Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 21:17:52 2008. Yeah, plus that's linear induction, so a different tech from what we usually see on trains too. |
|
|
| (581361) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Wed Mar 5 21:28:55 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by J trainloco on Wed Mar 5 17:41:21 2008. I was merely asking you to speculate about how often you think those rules are flouted, even by management.Oh ok got you i understand as well, but... That gets a no comment from me on that one.. Some things are best not said here... |
|
|
| (581363) | |
Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 21:32:42 2008, in response to Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Wed Mar 5 21:22:44 2008. I didn't know LM wasn't allowed to be used as an example... |
|
|
| (581365) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 21:34:17 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Railman718 on Wed Mar 5 21:28:55 2008. So every time we ride a train at 50+ MPH through the 60th St tubes...? |
|
|
| (581366) | |
Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Mar 5 21:37:50 2008, in response to Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 21:32:42 2008. No, you can use linear induction as an example - just that it would be nice to have another example too that used motors more like the ones used in our area is all. |
|
|
| (581367) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Mar 5 21:39:56 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 21:34:17 2008. I seem to recall speed signage there a while back, but I haven't even thought to look more recently. The grade timed signals are certainly set for v > 35 mph, but I don't know that there's a sign authorizing such speed. |
|
|
| (581368) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Wed Mar 5 21:41:00 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 21:34:17 2008. So every time we ride a train at 50+ MPH through the 60th St tubes...?Dont mean a thing to me not my train, i dont comment on anybodys else's operation. |
|
|
| (581372) | |
Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Mar 5 21:53:25 2008, in response to Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Wed Mar 5 21:09:12 2008. I read the BMT's BUDD Zephyr had 5 mph/s acceleration. Probably topped out at 50 or so miles. a lot faster than the current neutered equiptment.One way run on the whole Canarsie in 27 minutes or less anyone? |
|
|
| (581373) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Mar 5 21:53:50 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Railman718 on Wed Mar 5 21:41:00 2008. 50 is fast. I know people do it all the time, and run up on the timers, but it's foolish to do that. But you do have to be going faster than 35 to have momentum to make it up the hill into Lexington Ave. |
|
|
| (581374) | |
Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Mar 5 21:57:45 2008, in response to Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 21:04:16 2008. It really drops off after 18, maybe 20 miles, then creeps up to thirty, and then you'r running on gravity to get you going faster in some cases. All i know is that going up most grades, the cars top out at 25 miles- at BEST, even after building up speed.Southbound CPW express has a small, unnoticeable grade but the cars struggle to hold 35, IF they reach that. |
|
|
| (581376) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 22:03:03 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Railman718 on Wed Mar 5 21:41:00 2008. It should mean something to you. I want to know what it is. Is it 100% against the rules? |
|
|
| (581380) | |
Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 22:08:38 2008, in response to Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Mar 5 21:57:45 2008. No, you can be doing 27MPH+ before the last car leaves the platform. But maybe that's on a downgrade. |
|
|
| (581381) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Mar 5 22:08:54 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Mar 5 22:03:03 2008. As you know, employees have to be careful what they say. If he says that it's a 35 mph limit unless otherwise provided in a river tunnel, I think that gives us what we need to know. |
|
|
|
Page 9 of 11 |
||
