|
|
| Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. (578118) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 7 of 11 |
||
|
| (579887) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Mon Mar 3 10:25:43 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Mon Mar 3 10:17:13 2008. Did I neglect to mention that it was also the day coinciding with the 60th total lunar eclipse since the 60th Pope started keeping count?Um yes you was definately joking... |
|
|
| (579889) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Mon Mar 3 10:28:41 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Mon Mar 3 10:16:10 2008. Cell Phones dont work in Tunnels,not to mention you arent supposed to be using them while operating..You want to the T/O to get more days in the street?? Bad enough he ran that Homeball, Tower isnt saying a word(and they KNOW he did it) your C/R is on the IC saying... "Partner whats going on up front?" Of course you better hope you have a train with a transverese cab with working IC... |
|
|
| (579892) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Mar 3 10:31:53 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Railman718 on Mon Mar 3 10:28:41 2008. Ha!What if your mother is operating a train too! Then she can call the Tower on the radio: "Pelham 1-2-3 to Tower, requesting alternate lineup, over. ZMy son is about to crash his train and I want to be there to watch it happen. I'm so proud of him." |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (579893) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Mar 3 10:34:12 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Railman718 on Mon Mar 3 10:14:16 2008. Guess what happens next?Better hope it miraculously clears, otherwise save some pee for the cup later, I imagine. It's detail-oriented stuff and demands lots of attention. WHich is fair enough, after all - it's responsibility for trainloads full of people and the system's reputation for safety. |
|
|
| (579894) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Mar 3 10:35:48 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Mon Mar 3 10:34:12 2008. Which goes back to what I saiud much earlier. Don't crowd the cab; don't do anything to distract the T/O and if the T/O asks you to back off the front window for whatever reason, just do it. |
|
|
| (579895) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Mon Mar 3 10:41:52 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Mon Mar 3 10:35:48 2008. Which goes back to what I saiud much earlier. Don't crowd the cab; don't do anything to distract the T/O and if the T/O asks you to back off the front window for whatever reason, just do it.If they arent bothering me let em look to their hearts content, takes a lot to distract me. |
|
|
| (579896) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Mon Mar 3 10:42:39 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Mon Mar 3 10:31:53 2008. What if your mother is operating a train too! Then she can call the Tower on the radioNow you just want to get this T/O fired huh? |
|
|
| (579907) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Mar 3 11:06:21 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Railman718 on Mon Mar 3 10:41:52 2008. You're a good man! |
|
|
| (579908) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Mar 3 11:07:19 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Railman718 on Mon Mar 3 10:42:39 2008. Cme on! You need somebody to video the crash and put it on YouTube! What's wrong with the mother T/O doing it? :0) |
|
|
| (579966) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Mar 3 12:39:59 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Railman718 on Mon Mar 3 10:15:24 2008. then why did you correct him? |
|
|
| (580057) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Mar 3 15:11:16 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Railman718 on Mon Mar 3 08:51:00 2008. Fortunately, there's a timeout after the homeball drops before the lever can be moved, so you'll blow right past it. Still don't wanna eat one of those though - no amount of mustard will make it taste good. :) |
|
|
| (580135) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Mar 3 18:54:03 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. I understand that's the reason CTA went back to the conventional cineston type handle on the 3400s. The new Philly cars on the M-F also have the older conventional style handle. |
|
|
| (580136) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Mar 3 18:57:18 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Mr Mabstoa on Sun Mar 2 02:03:24 2008. The R-28 thru R-30 WH controllers had an extremely heavy spring which required quite a bit of effort to hold down especially on a long line like the former QJ from 168/Jamaica to Stl. The problem seems to have been corrected by the time the R-32s arrived. |
|
|
| (580138) | |
Re:(Handles) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Mar 3 19:00:13 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 02:23:50 2008. I found the original R-44/46 slide controller more difficult to handle than the contollers on an arc like the CTA equipment which I had an opportunity to operate. On ce on an R-46, I went for a full service application and ended up BIE instead. |
|
|
| (580146) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Mon Mar 3 19:19:42 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Mon Mar 3 09:55:44 2008. The analogy is the skilled limousine driver ...Have you ever driven an auto in NYC? The limo drivers are worse than yellow cabs! |
|
|
| (580154) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Mon Mar 3 19:30:47 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by randyo on Mon Mar 3 18:54:03 2008. The TRUTH. As does the BSS stock, though that is older, they didn't opt for the defective junk that the TA ordered with the R44s or R46s.What about the PATH PA5s? I hope they have a throttle and brake handle. Having two controls, throttle and air brake is better than single hand, also simpler, cheaper, and easier to maintain ad fix. The TA doesn't understand anything. Maybe they just pretend to be idiots, but whatever it is, they keep doing it, and will continue to do so, because it benefits them. They think a "joystick" is modern, and don't give a damn about the workers. All they care about is shiny BS. there is probably a department that does "research" on controller handles, and simply looks for the shiniest, newest, and most expensive type of handle, so they can get pats on the head, shoulders, and ass from their bosses. Just like how they abuse the Manny bridge, they'll keep doing it, Until it buckles, or finally starts to fatigue and torque out of shape after a few sets of hippos go over it. That torque tube is bull. the manny b is simply underbuilt, and needs major fortification. Kudos to the CTA and SEPTA for buying cars with a comfortable controller. Despite the design being over 100 years old, it is still the best. it gets the job done well, and comfortably. |
|
|
| (580156) | |
Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Mon Mar 3 19:36:13 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Mar 3 08:46:02 2008. See around curves? I'd do it with mirrors (or an occasional repeater).Mirros? That's a new one! Anyway, the advantages of a cab signal display were argued and won 70 years ago. Besides curves (both horizontal and vertical), there is glare, snow/rain/fog, etc. Not to mention lamps being out (and before you even say it, LED lights blow out too). Of course there is a standard for Lamp Out detection and downgrading the previous signal, but it is not used in transit applications because of the relatively low speeds and short stopping distances. You mean a tower operator can throw a switch open, while a train is barreling towards it? Just what was the design spec for that interlocking? Uh oh. You might want to read a primer on interlockings, because you seem to have a common misconception. Simmons Boardman has a few books available which you can order online. Some are pretty technical with actual circuits, others are more from a railfan perspective. Let me explain this in terms of electro-mechanical interlocking because that is most intuitive. Say we're on a GRS pistol grip machine (model 2 or 5). In order to move a switch lever, all of the signal levers which protect that switch must be pushed in, ALL the way. If any such signal lever is out, it mechanically prevents the switch lever from being moved in either direction. When a signal lever is pulled all the way out, it allows the signal to clear in the field if all other conditions are met (track occupancy, stop arm has driven down, all switches in the route are over, locked and in correspondence with their associated levers) NOTHING locks the signal lever from being pushed in. The tower operator can drop a signal at any time, including when the train is 3 feet in front of it. However, it would clearly be a bad design if, in such a case, one could immediately unlock the protected switch lever, because the train would be unable to stop in time and you would throw the switch under the train. Therefore, the signal lever has a locking detent when you push it in. It stops just short of the fully-in position. If there is no train approaching the signal (based on track circuit occupancy) then the lever goes right in and you can change the lineup. But if there is a train approaching, there is a timer which starts to run when the lever has been pushed partly in. The time value depends on the length of the approach track circuit and the assumed maximum speed of the train, plus a margin. When that timer finishes, the lever is unlocked and can be pushed fully in, thus allowing the route to be changed. The switch lever is also electrically locked from moving when the short track circuit which covers the switch area is occupied. This is known as "detector locking". There is a manual bypass procedure in case the track circuit has failed. |
|
|
| (580160) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Mar 3 19:41:03 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 19:30:47 2008. "Just like how they abuse the Manny bridge, they'll keep doing it, "They'll keep doing it because it's holding up very well. NYCDOT engineers did a great job this time around. "or finally starts to fatigue and torque out of shape after a few sets of hippos go over it." Thousands of hippo trips have already gone over it, and Brightliners and Slants, jammed full of people. Nothing wrong with the bridge at all. Have you finished school yet? |
|
|
| (580162) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Mon Mar 3 19:42:55 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Mon Mar 3 09:14:30 2008. Maybe they're meaning to put in an'idiot-proof' system That's correct. It is a business decision. Depending on how you work the numbers, it is more cost-effective to put your reliance into the mechanism and use less trained/skilled people than to use simple mechanism and expensive people. Machines are easier to control and if you get tired of them they are easier to replace. NYCT train apparently unintentionally keyed by a red signal Yes, that was a fluke...basically amounted to not seeing the signal. But much more clear-cut cases of misunderstanding "RESTRICTED SPEED" have happened in the past few years, thankfully none resulting in passenger fatality. I wonder if LIRR is an oddball; I seem to recall that their '75' codes something like 25-35 mph, at least in EMUs. The LIRR follows typical railroad ASC practice. Their 0 code is restricting (15) and 75 code is medium (30). Not that the code rate is something the engineer needs to worry about. |
|
|
| (580163) | |
Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Mar 3 19:47:37 2008, in response to Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Mon Mar 3 19:36:13 2008. When are you and Mike Brotzman (Jersey Mike) getting together to do a signals book? |
|
|
| (580165) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Mar 3 19:48:58 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Mon Mar 3 19:19:42 2008. I should have qualified my remark as in Not NYC and Not Buffalo! |
|
|
| (580168) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Mar 3 19:50:58 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Mon Mar 3 19:42:55 2008. "The LIRR follows typical railroad ASC practice. Their 0 code isrestricting (15) and 75 code is medium (30). Not that the code rate is something the engineer needs to worry about." Frequency-coded pulses can be used to control lots of other things in theory, couldn't they? Such as telling a heating system which vents to open and close, or telling a remote control airplane to fly left instead of right and at what heading... |
|
|
| (580169) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Mon Mar 3 19:52:17 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Mar 3 09:38:24 2008. First off, the average distance between signals on the system is350 feet (from one of the TA's presentation slides before the start of CBTC). Secondly, empirical inspections indicate that signals in and around stations are generally 300 feet apart or less. Don't know what is meant by "average" block length. It is based on speed and grade. Those shorter signal spacings around stations _require_ time control. You can't have the stop arm 300 feet back of the leader unless you can prove that the followed is approaching at less than a certain speed. The way station time is laid out the signals have a "long" block length (if that block is clear they are unconditionally clear) and a "short" length which is "enabled" when they are approached under time control. I'd assume those BOT design documents date from the 1920's. Reducing the variations to insignificance requires time standard and clocks throughout the system that are synchronized to that standard time. That technology wasn't available back then. It probably would have been possible using clocks driven by synchronous motors off a common main with another wire used to advance them all rapidly to a fixed resynchronization point periodically. But I'm not sure that's the point. Are you trying to slow down fast operators or get delayed trains back on schedule? |
|
|
| (580171) | |
Re: Master-slave clocks explained |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Mar 3 19:56:39 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Mon Mar 3 19:52:17 2008. A long while back, Jersey Mike asked about synchronized clocks and "Mark" answered:There were a few different schemes, but most of them (built by International/IBM/Simplex or Standard Electric) sent out a single pulse to all slave clocks in the system once a minute. Most systems used 24V DC pulses, but anything else could have been used. The pulse triggered a solenoid in each slave clock that "unlocked" the minute hand, when the pulse ended and the solenoid released, the minute hand would advance to the next stop at the next minute position. This keeps all of the clocks moving in step, but not necessarily indicating the same time. To handle this, a correction pulse was delivered by the master clock once every hour, at the beginning of the hour, instead of a normal per-minute pulse. The correction pulse can be anything distinct from the normal pulses: for example, delivered on a separate wire, or inverted polarity. On simpler systems, the correction pulse would actuate an electromagnet that would draw the minute hand to the :00 position. This system, which would pull the minute hand forward or backward as much as 20 minutes or so, was used on Standard clocks. A more complex (and reliable?) system used by International had the slave clocks stop responding to per-minute pulses when they hit :59 and instead respond only to the correction pulse. During the 59th minute of an hour, the master clock transmits 59 normal (per-minute) pulses, to advance any clock that had fallen behind during the hour. At the last possible moment in the hour, all clocks (including those that had fallen behind) should be indicating :59 and will not be responding to the rapid pulses; when the correction pulse is delivered at the top of the hour, all clocks will advance to :00 in unison. Similarly, a clock that somehow ends up running fast will hit :59 early and stop, awaiting the correction pulse to push it to :00. (These slave clocks can be fun to watch when they're "stuck," they seemingly work very hard at the top of the hour but make no progress. A lot of noise, though.) Generally speaking, these systems synchronize the minute hand only, once per hour. If it's 3:05 when you install a clock, and you set it to 5:00, when 4:00 rolls around it'll wind up displaying 6:00. More advanced systems would also synchronize the hour hand, using a 12:00 correction pulse, similar to the :00 correction pulse. However, this degree of synchronization wasn't the huge problem it might seem to be: if a clock somehow managed to lose 60 consecutive pulses, then something else was probably wrong and the clock needed to be looked at anyway. Master clocks and repeaters often included features like "pulse counters," which would "save up" the pulses from the master clock in a power failure and deliver them to the slaves when the power returned. I don't know that any systems allowed clocks to be stepped backwards, but I'm sure it's been done. Even when the clocks would only move forward, it was easy enough to stop the system for an hour, or to set the master clock 11 hours ahead to effectively drop an hour back, to handle the fall equivalent of the dance we all should have done last night. Make the correction once at the master clock, and let it worry about sending out all those pulses. Where slave units have second hands, they're usually driven locally by the slave clock itself without any synchronization. The second hand stops when it hits :00, and restarts when the clock receives a pulse. It's not too difficult to remain accurate to a fraction of a second if you only have to do it for 60 of them before being resynchronized, even if the time base is line frequency. Even so, synchronized systems with second hands are much rarer than those without. Remarkably, just about anyone reading this, regardless of age, who attended a school with a synchronized clock system relied on time delivered by a system like the ones described. Fully digital installations are a newer phenomenon, so taking retrofits and new construction into account, this is only just now beginning to change. IBM has some information on IBM clock systems. You can also find a wealth of information on these systems from people who collect them. Here's one for Standard Electric clocks. This is a function of the master clock. On the oldest systems, the master clocks were mechanical (pendulum-and-spring movement) with an electric motor connected to wind the spring daily. In the event of a power failure, the master clock would continue to run, but the electrically operated slave clocks obviously would stop. These systems could be fitted with the "pulse counters" I described to mechanically "save" pulses that the master clock generated but could not be delivered to the slaves. Even when pulse counters were not installed, these master clocks were always equipped with a means to advance all slaves in the system. This was usually a button or switch that would send pulses to the system rapidly, rather than once per minute. On newer, fully-digital masters (yes, master clocks are still being made for pulse-driven analog systems, there's still a huge installed base), the difference between the "new" time (entered on a keypad or synchronized with an external source) and the "old" time is computed and the master sends out the proper number of pulses to catch a slow system up to time, or stops sending pulses until time has caught up with a fast system. The master, when equipped with a battery backup, can also incorporate a pulse counter, except now they're electronic instead of mechanical. And there's still a means by which the system can be advanced manually. Slave clocks are indicating instruments only. To the slaves, pulses are just pulses. They don't care if they show up on time or not, or if they're generated by a master clock or some prankster with a fistful of 9V batteries. Incidentally, it's simple to improvise a master if you want to get a few slave clocks of your own, especially if you'd be happy with a straight pulse generator and forego some of the self-correcting stuff. If you're good with some combination of electronics, computers, and embedded controllers, it shouldn't be a problem for you to put together a fancy master clock, either. Also, how do these systems support second hand operation? The systems I described usually had second-hand operation retrofitted by adding an extra wire (or two) to carry unswitched AC at line frequency (but not necessary line voltage). This drove a synchronous motor to push the second hand. Depending on the system design, the second hand would stop in place either when it hit the :00 position (once per minute) or when it hit :00 and the minute hand was parked at :59 (once per hour). It would not be restarted until unlocked by a solenoid actuated by the rising edge of a per-minute or correction (per-hour) pulse. Sometimes, the motor and gearing were designed so that it took the second hand slightly less than 60 seconds to make one full rotation; this way, there was a better guarantee that the second hand would be parked at :00 when pulse to restart it came along, and less of a need for an electromagnet to draw it into position if it were running slightly behind. This was possible because commercial power was stable enough (at least in this country) by the time these clocks appeared that, as I mentioned in my last message, it could be trusted as an "accurate enough" timebase for 60 (or 3600) seconds, as long as the second hand would be resynchronized each minute (or hour). When I say "retrofitted," I mean that, for example, IBM added clocks with sweep second hands to their catalog, not that it was common for people to replace their perfectly good 2- and 3-wire systems. You can spot these systems by looking for a minute hand that jumps in 1-minute increments. (On "normal" independent clocks, the minute hand sweeps very slowly, and when a second hand is present, it's geared directly to the second hand at the obvious ratio.) What I've described is the basic design used in most master clock systems, specifically, those manufactured by IBM/Simplex or Standard Electric Time. As usual, there were variations, but they're mostly minor details. Some systems gave hourly correction pulses at some point other than :59/:00, or they used two minutes (or more) as the correction interval instead of one. Some played twice-a-day catch-up at 6: or some other time than 12:, so as to not disrupt the workday. Some ran as plain independent clocks synchronous with line frequency for an hour, and received only hourly correction pulses to pull both the minute and second hands into position. Some played funny gimmicky games with polarity. There are probably at least as many variations as there were manufacturers. Railroads were big customers of master clock systems for more than just in-station needs. Entire roads were driven by these systems, with slave dials in every station, tower, and office, synchronized timeclocks, and more. As the first real consumers of accurate time, railroads have probably done more for timekeeping than anything before, anything since, or anything to come. Mark |
|
|
| (580172) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Mon Mar 3 19:57:56 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Mon Mar 3 19:50:58 2008. Well, yes, they can and are. Although, microprocessors and DSPbeing what they are, most of the newer stuff is a bit more complicated than that. |
|
|
| (580176) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Mar 3 19:59:30 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Mon Mar 3 19:57:56 2008. Thank you. |
|
|
| (580177) | |
Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Mon Mar 3 19:59:51 2008, in response to Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Mon Mar 3 19:47:37 2008. I haven't written anything which isn't already available indozens of signal books. |
|
|
| (580179) | |
Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Mar 3 20:02:49 2008, in response to Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Mon Mar 3 19:59:51 2008. I like your explanations a lot. Very clear and understandable to the non-EE.Even if I don't like some of your CBTC stuff, I still like how you relate technical info. I've actually applied some of your technique to my own consulting work (ie the manner in which you ptresent technical information for the non-techie). Anyway, I appreciate it. |
|
|
| (580195) | |
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, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Railman718 on Mon Mar 3 10:14:16 2008. Hmm, i am interested.Though i noticed some T/Os treat S signals differently, but could never find what exactly was the reason. Most T/Os wait for it to go green though. I know some you seem to be able to pass as yellow and S, and the red ahead will clear to green soon enough. Others you have to slow down to a crawl until the red clears, if you accidentally pass that particular Yellow and S. You know what i am talking about? PATH has the same system, but it utilizes Yellow over Bottom Yellow to indicate it is automatic, or timed. no "S". Oh, and CHOW happens next. But will it CHOW if you put it in full service and pop the controller? I have never been on a NYC subway train that went BIE from a high speed, but it must be VIOLENT. correct me if i am wrong. I was on a PATH that went BIE in the river tubes, and it was VIOLENT. The train ROARED, and groweled to a stop, and shook back and forth while stopping. It stopped rather quickly however, not at all dramaticized like in the movies with the screeching, and slow deceleration. It was like plowing through dick cheney's highly constipated ass. I am not sure if the wheels slipped, or the brake pads just pounded onto the wheels hard enough to cause a roar. Maybe the dynamics kicked in, which you rarely hear, but sometimes can hear on the PATH. That is at least how i remembered it. kind of like in french connection. |
|
|
| (580200) | |
Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Mar 3 20:39:27 2008, in response to Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Mon Mar 3 19:59:51 2008. lol! |
|
|
| (580203) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Mar 3 20:42:11 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. Oh, and CHOW happens next. But will it CHOW if you put it in full service and pop the controller?I have never been on a NYC subway train that went BIE from a high speed, but it must be VIOLENT. correct me if i am wrong. Last time I was on a train and it happened, it was a northbound A train headed to 34th St on the express track; we had ok speed, and aside from the initial jolt and bad feeling at the squeal of air, I've had far worse station stops than that, and I was standing up this particular time. The time before that that it happened, we were going quite slow, but accelerating out of a station - maybe it was Hunterspoint Av - I forget - but the jerk rate - change in acceleration - must have been great so that one packed a bigger wallop. Both times, I assume it wasn't anything serious. We were under way in under 3-5 minutes. |
|
|
| (580205) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Mon Mar 3 20:44:06 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Railman718 on Mon Mar 3 10:06:49 2008. What does the "automatic flashes" mean?BTW, i was on an R32 R train that hit about 60 miles down there, but shee took brake because of a r46 in front... It always seems like those Brightliner 32s always catch up to the 44s and 46s. After the low point, you hit that crazy steep-rollercoaster up grade, and the train struggles to hold 21 miles. 42s, and 40s are fast too. even with a dead car or two, it seems they will always outrun a healthy set of hippos. |
|
|
| (580211) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Mar 3 20:54:38 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 20:44:06 2008. BTW, i was on an R32 R train that hit about 60 miles down there, but shee took brake because of a r46 in front...R trains have to take a switch, and there are timed signals enforcing lower speed through the turnout; the R46 leading train was very likely another R train, which had to slow down, and judging by how your train was bunching with the interval ahead of it, something was off with sticking to schedule. Your R32 R train would have to slow down anyway to take the same turnout. 42s, and 40s are fast too. even with a dead car or two, it seems they will always outrun a healthy set of hippos. From a stop, I think they seem the quickest around, at least to about 10 mph. Above that, I think they drop off quickly in terms of maintaining that acceleration rate. By contrast, I think the 'hippos' are relatively worse from a stop to about 10 mph, but accelerate maybe slightly better than other cars at higher speeds. Fastest rides I ever had through the 60th St Tunnel were in an R68A descending from Astoria. |
|
|
| (580216) | |
Re: Master-slave clocks explained |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Mar 3 20:59:52 2008, in response to Re: Master-slave clocks explained, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Mar 3 19:56:39 2008. As the first real consumers of accurate time, railroads have probably done more for timekeeping than anything beforeShips' navigation by sextant was the first consumer. |
|
|
| (580222) | |
Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Mar 3 21:07:29 2008, in response to Re: (interlocking) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Mon Mar 3 20:02:49 2008. Told yez he knows his stuff. And he knows CBTC every bit as well ... as well. :) |
|
|
| (580223) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Mar 3 21:08:57 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Mon Mar 3 19:52:17 2008. Don't know what is meant by "average" block length...I assume that somebody at the TA counted up the number of signals and divided it by the number of track miles. I brought this up because I believe that a 1200 foot minimum distance between trains should be sufficient to guarantee all green signals ahead. It means that when the leader clears the station the follower is still 600 feet from the station entrance. Furthermore, this minimum distance occurs only when the follower is approaching the station. This distance increases to 3969 feet before the follower leaves the station (assuming a 90 second headway). Are you trying to slow down fast operators or get delayed trains back on schedule? Both. I also want them to know by how much they are off schedule - down to the second. |
|
|
| (580226) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Mon Mar 3 21:19:50 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Mon Mar 3 19:41:03 2008. no, still in school.I know that hippos go over it on a daily basis, but it seems flimzy. It actually is, and that is what caused them to install the torque tube thing. Kind of reminds me of the trademark TATRA truck frame design. It is a unique, czech truck manufacturer, and the only company that uses torque tube and independent suspension on all road trucks. But, they are not underbuilt. When Roebling was designing and engineering the Brooklyn bridge, he ordered thicker than necessary cables, because he knew corrupt politicians would "skim" some money by providing thinner cables, which are still enough and more than enough to support the bridge. The Manny B is almost like a oxidized tin bridge. Obviously the engineer was either making a disposable bridge, or politicos "skimmed" the materials for money. heh, nowdays, instead of skimming money from materials, they waste money into "researching" line options that never get built at all(SAS). We need a banker like Belmont, Mcadoo, or Dahl to do it the old way. Put money into it, and actually BUILD it the right way. plus customer service. the IND is good, but was built out of contempt torwards the private companies. Politicos gained a lot of power from it. I remember a quote by Mike Dahl from the old www.bmtlines.com. "Will subways be built... or will cheap politics get in the way?" note that the BMT turned a profit until the city took over. Makes you wonder whats wrong with the city's managment. cheap politics are getting in the way as of the moment... |
|
|
| (580229) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Mon Mar 3 21:22:29 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by trainsarefun on Mon Mar 3 20:54:38 2008. the R train was manhattan bound, not queens bound, so no switch. |
|
|
| (580256) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Mon Mar 3 22:04:07 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 18:16:03 2008. About Washington metro: The stations are spaced FURTHER apart, and the trains are ALWAYS faster. NYC trains tend to top out at 25-35 miles on the average run. Have you ever seen one of those washington trains accelerate? it must be going 45 mph + as it leaves the station. The same with moscow metro, though it still uses DC propulsion.:) PATCO, and Market Frankford EL also have FAST stock. Ride them before you say the NYC subway is topped out.NYC balancing speed IS 45 miles. 55 on new trains. 65 or so on old trains before neutering.Question: why order 55 mile an hour cars when you cut the old cars from 65 miles down to 45 miles for "safety"? a contradiction in operation here? Cellphone use has become annoying bull. People ought to get a break from their bull smalltalk and texting for a while. It is healthy separation. Read the paper, take in the underground sights, or enjoy the ride. THINK. WONDER. PLAN. |
|
|
| (580270) | |
Re: Master-slave clocks explained |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Mar 3 22:23:40 2008, in response to Re: Master-slave clocks explained, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Mar 3 20:59:52 2008. Yes, that's true. |
|
|
| (580272) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Mar 3 22:25:41 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 21:19:50 2008. "heh, nowdays, instead of skimming money from materials, they waste money into "researching" line options that never get built at all(SAS). "Decades ago that was true. The SAS is being built now, a section at a time. |
|
|
| (580278) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Mar 3 22:33:39 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 22:04:07 2008. "The stations are spaced FURTHER apart, and the trains are ALWAYS faster."Not always true in downtown. The spacing varies. Stations are further apart in the suburbs, outside of DC. "Market Frankford EL also have FAST stock" Which doesn't help much except in a couple of places. The Market Frankford stations are actually very close together, so they don't run all that fast. The exception is 15-30th St, and the stretch of track approaching Spring Garden. The difference in performance is cool for foamers, but the impact on the typical passenger is nil. "Cellphone use has become annoying bull. People ought to get a break from their bull smalltalk and texting for a while." That is a controversial topic. |
|
|
| (580303) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Mon Mar 3 23:00:05 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Mar 3 21:08:57 2008. I brought this up because I believe that a 1200 foot minimum distance between trains should be sufficient toguarantee all green signals ahead. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want schedule speed and you want trains to reach balancing speed or nearly so between stations, it implies longer than 1200' between the rear of the leader and the first _green_ signal behind it. As I said earlier, it is 1800' In order to get closer train spacing near stations, time control is needed. Likewise, on downgrades one needs to use grade time control, otherwise one would have to increase block lengths to compensate for the higher attained speed. Both. I also want them to know by how much they are off schedule - down to the second. If they are running hot, they can kill some time. But if they are behind schedule, it is very difficult to make up time. Keying-by allowed the follower of a delayed train to get back into his time slot by getting closer to his leader than would normally be possible. Obviously this doesn't help the lead delayed train, but that train can skip stops or run express. |
|
|
| (580315) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Mar 3 23:24:17 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Mon Mar 3 23:00:05 2008. Another factor not permitted anymore to "make time" was VERY aggressive braking, and wrapping it where possible. One thing I learned in motors was that if you were a long-braker, you could lose more time "taking it easy" then you ever would with door-holders. You could always make up for lost time with a few brick wall stops - that was my own trick. |
|
|
| (580357) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Tue Mar 4 03:03:16 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. MostT/Os wait for it to go green though. You are supposed to see the Y/S clear to green, ideally just in front of you. If you pass it Y/S, then you have "missed" the first shot of the timer and you better start slowing down because the next signal has been reduced effectively to a single-shot timer (like a R/LW) But will it CHOW if you put it in full service and pop the controller? Of course! When the trip cock dangling from the train hits the yellow stop arm, it opens a valve which dumps the brake pipe to exhaust. Nearly instant emergency brake application. Same thing happens when the emergency cord is pulled (except on new tech trains, where it is merely a "polite request" to stop the train) |
|
|
| (580434) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Mar 4 08:58:57 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Tue Mar 4 03:03:16 2008. "Same thing happens when the emergency cord is pulled (excepton new tech trains, where it is merely a "polite request" to stop the train) " Speaking of emegency requests and politeness on technology, there was once, years ago, a parody of programming languages published in a journal for programmers (it was one of those magazines read by COBOL jockeys), Among other comedic items, the author proposed new high-level commands for a programming language. In addition to the If/then/Else/Or/And commands, he proposed an "Or Else!" command, as in: If Condition = A Then Do; Else if condition - B then Do; Or Else! 8-) |
|
|
| (580488) | |
Re: Master-slave clocks explained |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Mar 4 10:56:53 2008, in response to Re: Master-slave clocks explained, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Mar 3 19:56:39 2008. This is a function of the master clock. On the oldest systems, the master clocks were mechanical (pendulum-and-spring movement) with an electric motor connected to wind the spring daily. In the event of a power failure, the master clock would continue to run, but the electrically operated slave clocks obviously would stop. These systems could be fitted with the "pulse counters" I described to mechanically "save" pulses that the master clock generated but could not be delivered to the slaves. Even when pulse counters were not installed, these master clocks were always equipped with a means to advance all slaves in the system. This was usually a button or switch that would send pulses to the system rapidly, rather than once per minute.This is the kind of clock we have. Made by Holtzer-Cabot. It might not be the correct time, but it is the official time. The clock would also ring the bells, left over from the days when we actually ran a school here. A long paper tape would feed trough the machine, and someone would punch holes at the minute mark where the bell was supposed to ring. ROARING |
|
|
| (580600) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Mar 4 15:39:17 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Jeff H. on Mon Mar 3 23:00:05 2008. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want schedule speed and you want trains to reach balancing speed or nearly so between stations,Trains seldom reach balancing speed; they seldom exceed 35 mph even on express runs. They used to have half mile markers and one of my pastimes was to time express routes. The Flushing Line between 61st and Junction drag strip made it to 37.5 mph on a good day with R12/14/15's. The sole exception: a friend of mine did time the Rockaway line at 52 mph. The minimum block length should be greater than the emergency stopping distance. These distances are: Emergency braking stopping distance with 35% safety factor: @25 mph - 193.1 ft; @30 mph - 279.1; @35 mph - 379.8; @40 mph - 496.1; @45 mph - 627.9. I concluded that a 400 foot block length was not unreasonable and that would insure that a follower 1200 feet back would see only green lights. However, if you remain unconvinced, I'll eat the extra 13.3 seconds that an 1800 foot spacing would add to the minimum headway. But if they are behind schedule, it is very difficult to make up time. That depends on two items: amount of time to be made up and the sources of variation. The reason for feedback at each station is to keep deviations from schedule to under 15 seconds. Variations in dwell time, caused by passengers holding doors, is cited as the principal component. There are other sources that are well within the TA's ability to control. Mr. Selkirk did not exaggerate, when he stated that he could make up time by braking and accelerating hard. I've measured stopping and starting times for successive trains at the same station. These measurements were taken when all the signals were green. These measurements showed that difference between min and max stop/start times was at least 10 seconds. Moreover, timidity on the brakes was a fairly good predictor of timidity on the throttle. Thus, the total variation on stopping and starting at stations was around 20 seconds. The second place to make up time is reducing dwell time. Dwell time is composed of three components: doors open/passengers crossing the door threshold; doors open/no people crossing the threshold and doors closed/train stationary. Clearly there is some margin for reducing the last two items without injuring passengers. I have not measured what I speculate to be the greatest source of operator variability: travel time between stations. In short, I think there are areas where time can be made up - provided it is not an excessive amount. |
|
|
| (580612) | |
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Mar 4 16:24:10 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Mar 4 15:39:17 2008. Express trains between Woodside and Junction can get up to about 42mph according to the speedometers in the cabs. That may no longer be the case due to unnecessary timers being added to the line. |
|
|
| (580617) | |
Re:(Handles) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by bklynsubwaybob on Tue Mar 4 16:34:44 2008, in response to Re:(Handles) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by randyo on Mon Mar 3 19:00:13 2008. I found I had to guide the controller with my right hand to prevent an undesired BIE.Bob |
|
|
|
Page 7 of 11 |
||
