|
|
| Re: Canarsie CBTC (96616) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 8 |
||
|
| (97367) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Sat Jun 11 01:30:41 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jun 10 07:40:31 2005. No, I never read that paper. Maybe you could cut and pastethe relevant section> It would seem to me that a technology developed in a consumer mindset (i.e. if it doesn't really work, don't worry about, just reboot, or try it again later) to connect _stationary_ end users with access points would not be the smartest choice. |
|
|
| (97376) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by tracksionmotor on Sat Jun 11 02:07:02 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by Jeff H. on Sat Jun 11 01:27:16 2005. The only way to improve distance measurement accuracy withoutproprietary means is to SBCO one B car axle permanently and adjust software to use its readings as a reference ie. 0 brakes. |
|
|
| (97378) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by tracksionmotor on Sat Jun 11 02:20:55 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jun 10 07:40:31 2005. Gee whizzz on the third rail....you guyz are just picking up what I've been saying for months...NYCTA CBTC is a unlicensed secondaryuser subject to interference and system operators are required by law to request a clear channel. Link is a dud. May work in Hong Kong and Paris but NYC is quite radioactive, so Ossama Bin Loden dials up his Wi-Fi on the new phones. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (97406) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 11 07:28:18 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by Jeff H. on Sat Jun 11 01:27:16 2005. The more recent design philosophy of centralzing everything leads to a higher likelihood of catastrophic failure.One can design a centralized control system with great reliability and uptime. Tandem has been doing that for a quarter century. It is an expensive solution and there are now less expensive distributed alternatives. The philopsophy of distributed, localized control points tends to isolate the failures to specific places on the railroad. You are assuming that the railroad topology lends itself to isolating failures. This isn't very practical on the Canarsie Line during rush hour. Any single failure anywhere on the line is likely to propagate to its entire length. There are some pretty heavy failure modes in CBTC. What happens when a zone controller crashes, for example. Something akin to an AC power failure at 33rd St on the Lex. Much of the operating cost savings of CBTC amounts to transferring operating budget to capital budget, which, guess what, eventually comes back into the operating budget as debt service! A lot depends on how much the system costs. The recent contracts for retrofitting the Paris Metro are approximately 30% the cost of the Canarsie Line on a per track-mile basis. That places its cost at or below a conventional block system. Of course, there are many ways to reduce the cost of conventional block systems but we've gone down that path before. I'm sure TA CBTC will eventually work, but right now first base (being able to reliably measure train speed and position) is still 90 feet away. I thought the TA's problems were related to the RF-DCS, not to measuring position and speed. Did they require the vendor to get the speed reading off their mickey mouse speedometers instead of from the propulsion system tachometer? |
|
|
| (97407) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jun 11 07:33:18 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 11 07:28:18 2005. Wheels slip, wheels stop turning. Choppers go by rotation. "Count 'em up, rawhide." Your mileage may vary. :) |
|
|
| (97412) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 11 08:12:38 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jun 11 07:33:18 2005. Wheels slip, wheels stop turning. Choppers go by rotation. "Count 'em up, rawhide." Your mileage may vary.Yes, but any dead reckoning system needs to be recalibrated to be accurate. Place a recalibration beacon in every station. |
|
|
| (97413) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jun 11 08:18:34 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 11 08:12:38 2005. Heh. I *Knew* ya'd come out to play. :)Smells like a GREAT idea. Now question is ... did anybody THINK about that? Hmmm. EVERY railroader has crescent moons in the iron with their name on them as well as wheel flats. Happens. Anyone who worked the Brighton line or WPR or Jerome can tell ya what happens when the iron gets a bit juicy. But as far as I read the specs when I was howling to myself over them before 9/11 caused the data to vanish faster than you can say OSAMA, they were INTENDING to use the VERY same "counter circuits" which make those announcements so much fun. PROVEN reliable enough for route announcements, and EXPECTED to be JUST as accurate for CBTC. :( Ever wonder WHY us "railroaders" are snickering like we are? There's DOZENS of "realroad" variables that were NEVER considered. And I won't even BOTHER going off on the RF propagation, multipath and interference issues again. :( |
|
|
| (97414) | |||||||||||||
CBTC *DELIVERED!* |
|||||||||||||
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jun 11 08:45:25 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jun 11 08:18:34 2005.
|
|||||||||||||
|
| (97415) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 11 08:51:13 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by Jeff H. on Sat Jun 11 01:30:41 2005. No, I never read that paper. Maybe you could cut and paste the relevant sectionThe entire article is worth reading. You have cast aspersions on applying less expensive technology from other fields in a railroad/subway environment for many years. This article describes such applications. It is also written by somebody with NYCT credentials. You may have seen it without knowing it. It's "Draft Version of Article published in Railway Age's 2005 C&S Buyer's Guide". It would seem to me that a technology developed in a consumer mindset (i.e. if it doesn't really work, don't worry about, just reboot, or try it again later) to connect _stationary_ end users with access points would not be the smartest choice. Not all consumer products follow Microsoft's product development strategy. Besides, 802.11 is not a "consumer" technology. It's a specification for providing robust communications. It was implemented in silicon and consumer products embraced it, rather than trying to invent their own. I don't know whether your "reboot or try it again later" is a sneer at IP-style virtual connections, as opposed to dedicated links. However, after more than 5 years of experience with millions of installations the verdict is that they are just as good as dedicated links. |
|
|
| (97416) | |
Re: CBTC *DELIVERED!* |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 11 09:11:25 2005, in response to CBTC *DELIVERED!*, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jun 11 08:45:25 2005. Glad you found that one. I tried looking for it, when it was mentioned earlier.This is more a specification problem than anything else. The TA's CBTC contract has plenty of problems from the TA's perspective. You may recall a discussion I had on the subject with Mr. David from the TA, when the contract was first published around five years ago. |
|
|
| (97418) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 11 09:22:00 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jun 11 08:18:34 2005. they were INTENDING to use the VERY same "counter circuits" which make those announcements so much fun. PROVEN reliable enough for route announcements, and EXPECTED to be JUST as accurate for CBTC.AFAIK, there is only 1 calibration point for the announcements - at the beginning of the run. That's quite a bit different than one in every station. Ever set up a network time protocol server on a network? The Linux version nptd recalibrates to a secondary NISC source every 20 minutes. The rest of the time it's dead reckoning. Ever wonder WHY us "railroaders" are snickering like we are? The perils of inbreeding. You've tried to shut out all post 1930's technology and listened only to your high priests. :-) |
|
|
| (97420) | |
Re: CBTC *DELIVERED!* |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jun 11 09:30:47 2005, in response to Re: CBTC *DELIVERED!*, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 11 09:11:25 2005. Yep ... and glad to please for a change. That cartoon, in Jules Feiffer's ORIGINAL form was always my own guidance as an engineering manager. But can you IMAGINE that nobody considered "slip-slide" of train wheels in the specifications, or throughout the design? I won't even go IN to the part 15 issues."While this may APPEAR to be 33rd street to the untrained ear, you're REALLY in the Bronx ... watch the closing doors, there really IS another train right behind this one." :( I'm a PROFESSIONAL cynic ... spent almost ALL of my life dealing with things that went sideways right into the cement ... kids, don't try this at home. =) |
|
|
| (97422) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jun 11 09:33:24 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 11 09:22:00 2005. Heh. Nah ... don't be wagging that finger in MY face, or I'll tell you about 0/0/1900 in NNTP which can go on for DAYS ... "calibrated, my ass." :) |
|
|
| (97431) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jun 11 10:17:57 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by Jeff H. on Sat Jun 11 01:27:16 2005. "Much of the operating cost savings of CBTC amounts to transferringoperating budget to capital budget, which, guess what, eventually comes back into the operating budget as debt service!" So does ordering replacement relays at $60 million per room. Stephen Baumann did a great job of answering your mostly bogus objections. Much better than I would have, and I tip my hat to him (and his talent for elegant explanation of physical phenomena is once again in evidence). "CBTC will eventually work, but right now first base (being able to reliably measure train speed and position) is still 90 feet away. " Only to somebody like you who puts cardboard covers over your lenses. It's not the TA's responsibility to tell you to open your eyes (and your mind) and look at what CBTC actually does. You are responsible for your own education. |
|
|
| (97436) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 11 10:22:54 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jun 11 09:33:24 2005. I'll tell you about 0/0/1900 in NNTPnntp is a news server not a time server. |
|
|
| (97439) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jun 11 10:26:39 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jun 11 10:17:57 2005. Isn't that a bit harsh? I'm an electronics engineer by background and I tend to agree with Jeff. ESPECIALLY on these angles. What we have ehre is the technological equivalent to flying a jetplane with a Commodore64 joystick. Sure it works now, but for how long?From a TECHNICAL standpoint, there are numerous elemental issues that I mentioned in my own comments this morning. I would compare it to doing anthroscopic surgery with a McDonalds coffee stirrer spoon. It'll DO the job, so long as you don't know what a PROPER tool looks like. Or more accurately, like running the Lex off a Lionel ZW transformer. Sure it's the "best of the best" ... but is it REALLY up to the particular task? After all, the SAME technology carborne which is to be used to keep trains apart is the micrometer by which the PROPER station announcements are maintained on "new tech" trains. The *SAME* ... Dunno about you, but as this crap gets rolled out, I'll PAY for a cab thank you. :( |
|
|
| (97440) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jun 11 10:28:48 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 11 10:22:54 2005. I wanted to take the opportunity to thank youfor your posts describing the various aspects of CBTC components and operation. They have been very helpful.It remains my contention that you should write and publish textbooks on math and electronics, as you have a special gift, evident on Subtalk and Subchat for many years now, for clearly explaining a topic and helping the rest of us understand it better. |
|
|
| (97441) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jun 11 10:30:22 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 11 10:22:54 2005. Sorry ... I handled 967 viruses in one "night" in the lab for a total of 46 straight hours awake ... please, cut me some slack here bro. You *KNOW* what I mean, and you've HAD to have dealt with "0/0/1900" at least ONCE in your life, no? I tend to see it every time my routers die here when the lights go out. And despite one HELL of a table that gets reloaded, them time servers ain't reachable more often than not.Logger keeps sending me 0/0/1900 errors. :( YOU do the hours I do, and let's see how many brain cells are left to pass the indication. :) |
|
|
| (97448) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jun 11 10:35:18 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jun 11 10:28:48 2005. He's DEFINITELY very good at the math, the application and all of the other "not working THIS job" data. And I have to bow in his honor too. HOWEVER, the NYC subway system is NOT the "textbook engineering example" I've been reading about. And ANYONE who actually DOES this for a living in the REAL tunnels can attest that this is going to be, as the Japanese so often flip off those who know everything, "Interesting times ahead."But I'm older now and have more insurance. I can wait a few years to do the "told you so." Spent most of my life doing that unfortunately. Jobs are now in China and India. :) |
|
|
| (97450) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jun 11 10:41:36 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jun 11 10:35:18 2005. You know I have my differences with Stephen. And he still hasn't really explained why he doesn't like Siemebs current implementation (so it's impossible for me to judge how much salt to shake on his objection)...But I'm impressed with his open-mindedness about harnessing this technology. It's quite a change from his posts of two years ago. By the way, somebody else's posts have changed too. If you look at Morris' posts (that's American Pig) on various subjects from 2-3 years ago and look what he's posting now, you can't help but be impressed with the increase in sophistication of analysis and how he takes in information. At the risk of sounding like I'm patronizing him (I'm not) I'd say his communication and analysis have matured a great deal. All that raw talent is turning into something good. |
|
|
| (97453) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jun 11 10:52:51 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jun 11 10:41:36 2005. All part of growing older and seeing straight up what chit our politicos are full of, along with suddenly realizing WE got stuck with the bill. Heh.And as far as Siemens goes, "sole source" ... so who ya gonna call? :) Lemme put it to you THIS way ... there's 99% uptime, and then there's 99.9999% uptime. Choose. |
|
|
| (97458) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 11 11:36:58 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jun 11 10:41:36 2005. But I'm impressed with his open-mindedness about harnessing this technology. It's quite a change from his posts of two years ago.This thread has been about the rationale behind the Canarsie CBTC. I can certainly understand and explain the arguments. That has still not altered my opinion that CBTC in not appropriate for retrofitting a system with NYCT's topology. There have been many red herrings suggested for CBTC's benefits. The biggest one being increased service capacity. Simply not true. CBTC's only potential retrofit benefit is reduced maintenance costs. Now, when one annularizes the capital costs and overpays by $200 million out of a $288 million contract, those reduced maintenance costs are an illusion. |
|
|
| (97460) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 11 12:16:55 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by H.S.Relay on Fri Jun 10 18:26:05 2005. The TA did the right thing by allowing copious time to test the system, but Siemens wasted the time - for example by having the design engineers remain in Paris.The TA's only way to come out of this project with some credibility is to declare Siemens in default and recover the entire $288 million plus their own expenses. They've already overpaid by around $200 million based on the latest Paris retrofit contracts. Canarsie's technology isn't going to be used on the Flushing Line or any other system in the world. The only problem is I have not seen any default criteria in the contract the TA wrote. |
|
|
| (97482) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jun 11 13:51:47 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 11 11:36:58 2005. THANKS for this one - you just earned my RESPECT ... you really ARE about this fropma reasonable angle, just needed to say that. I *still* disagree over how *POORLY* this has been implemented (best "bad news" is yet to come, I genuinely HATE to be prepared for "OK genius" mode once it's up and not quite running safely ... but engineers in "life critical" applications (thank HEAVENS I've only RARELY had to write "nuclear core control level" software, but so far none of what I ever wrote caused a busted pipe) tend to be INSANE about "what if" ... that's what "LIFE critical" is all about ...But this whole project COULD have been done a WHOLE lot smarter, and a WHOLE lot saner if ONLY they'd talked to REAL engineers and not salescritters before proceding with this mess. :( And it *IS* a mess ... let them cut it in ... YOU'LL SEE. :( |
|
|
| (97535) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jun 11 17:02:52 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 11 11:36:58 2005. Well, we've been over this, and I've shown you that your objections to using CBTC per se in NYC have no foundation. But you're entitled to your opinion.But I am curious: What type of topology, ideally, would you look for when installing RF CBTC? |
|
|
| (97536) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jun 11 17:04:45 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 11 12:16:55 2005. You have not demonstrated that you were privy to the contract at all. You pretend to know exactly what the contract says - unless, thast is, you can post the contract here. |
|
|
| (97552) | |
Re: CBTC *DELIVERED!* |
|
|
Posted by Alex L. on Sat Jun 11 17:48:48 2005, in response to CBTC *DELIVERED!*, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jun 11 08:45:25 2005. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I lost my copy of this many years ago, along with "How Shit Happens". |
|
|
| (97555) | |
Re: CBTC *DELIVERED!* |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jun 11 18:05:47 2005, in response to Re: CBTC *DELIVERED!*, posted by Alex L. on Sat Jun 11 17:48:48 2005. Heh. Those of us responsible for PROPERLY extinguishing watts for tots without benefit of agua pura ... well ... heh. It's in the JEANS! Moo, buddy! :) |
|
|
| (97573) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 11 19:33:53 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jun 11 17:04:45 2005. You have not demonstrated that you were privy to the contract at all.I wasn't privy to anything. The RFQ was published on the NYCT bulletin board. I read it. No performance criteria, no milestones, no acceptance criteria. What a sweetheart deal. BTW, the SF Muni RFQ was published at or about the same time. The difference between them was striking. |
|
|
| (97579) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 11 19:57:11 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jun 11 17:02:52 2005. What type of topology, ideally, would you look for when installing RF CBTC?First off, understand that RF CBTC is required for the necessary maintenance savings. The maintenance for Inductive Loop or Leaky Coax are likely to be as high as those for maintaining insulated joints. The real question is retrofitting CBTC onto a system that has evolved over 50+ years. Remember, CBTC and conventional equipment cannot exist over the same track at the same time. The reason was stated earlier, but to reiterate foreign equipment on CBTC track results in operating at the service level of the AWS - 4 tph. Similarly, if OPTO is implemented for CBTC trains, then these trains cannot operate over non-CBTC track in revenue service. They used to operate Canarsie trains over the WB, when there was a block between Myrtle and Broadway Junction. That flexibility will be lost when ATO-OPTO comes to the Canarsie Line. The TA has started reversing trains at Bway-Jct rather than providing direct service to Manhattan for such blockages, just so the unwashed masses don't notice this slight of hand. Think of NYCT's topology, trunks and branches. You will be hard pressed to find isolated lines to retrofit. It's an all or nothing proposition - regardless of whether the existing signal system needs replacement. BTW, the signal system on the Flushing Line was replaced in the early 1950's. It's a lot newer than most mainline systems. It has less need for replacement than most of NYCT'S signals. The retrofit cannot be phased in on an as needed basis. This significantly increases the up front costs for a system as vast as NYCT. Will the savings justify the extra cost of junking serviceable signal systems? Not likely until the cost for CBTC is an order of magnitude less than that for a conventional system. |
|
|
| (97587) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Sat Jun 11 20:27:16 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Jun 10 17:35:49 2005. Great for hangovers when Br Elias and his colleagues spend too much time in the wine cellar… |
|
|
| (97600) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jun 11 21:28:58 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 11 19:33:53 2005. "I wasn't privy to anything. The RFQ was published on the NYCT bulletin board. I read it."Therefore you don't know what you are talking about. An RFP is not a contract, and there are agreement details which show up on a contract but notthe RFP. You lied to support your point in this thread, because having come from aerospace, you know the difference between an RFP and a contract. Therefore your post was dishonest. |
|
|
| (97605) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jun 11 21:43:19 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jun 11 21:28:58 2005. "An RFP is not a contract, and there are agreement details which show up on a contract but notthe RFP."And what's more an RFQ is not an RFP. |
|
|
| (97615) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jun 11 21:52:57 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 11 19:57:11 2005. You didn't directly answer my question, though I think you implied that RF CBTC is suitable only for single routes with no merges. Please tell me if that was not your intention.If it is,I would say it is nonsense on its face, though I acknoweledge that installing and testingCBTC on a system like NYC's will be challenging, certainly more so than any other system in the world. So good places to start are the L and 7; the G portion (minus Queens Blvd and its merger with the F, the former of which applies on weekends only anyway) the Franklin Shuttle (is there more than one consist actually working the Shuttle?)... There are portions of the system which are one level up from single route track. The J/M/Z service from Manhattan to Queens (leave aside the Montague tunnel bound side for a moment, please) can be evaluated for CBTC. There is one main service from Jamaica Center's lower-level to Broad street, Manhattan. Then there is a diverging service, the M, headed to Metropolitan Av. Also, howabout the A line's Rockaway branch... |
|
|
| (97617) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jun 11 21:55:16 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by AlM on Sat Jun 11 21:43:19 2005. You're right. It's still not the contract itself. So whether you read an RFP, RFQ, or RF(whatever), you cannot quote from it as if you are reading from the contract. You are not, as the specific contract conditions can change prior to inking the deal. |
|
|
| (97638) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 11 22:54:24 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jun 11 21:55:16 2005. I gather you never got past the RFP stage during your aerospace experience. :-)A bid submission to an RFQ is a contractural obligation if accepted. I would not advise anybody to submit frivolous bids to any RFQ. If the TA were to materially alter the contract terms from the RFQ, they open up a can of worms with regard to the competitive bidding process. If the contract terms are tougher on the bidder, then that bid can be withdrawn without penalty. If the contract terms are easier on the bidder, then the losing bidders (and even non-bidders) can stop the contract award and force the TA to start the entire bidding process from scratch. (BTW, this has happened on occasion.) |
|
|
| (97644) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jun 11 23:05:50 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 11 22:54:24 2005. "I gather you never got past the RFP stage during your aerospace experience. :-)"You'd be wrong. I was partly responsible for many a pricing run that Hughes submitted for a variety of projects. "A bid submission to an RFQ is a contractural obligation if accepted" And if the contract is then signed. "If the TA were to materially alter the contract terms from the RFQ, they open up a can of worms with regard to the competitive bidding process." Tere are lots of changes you can make to a contract without "materially" affecting it. If you want to do business with the government, you interpret that flexibly, so you get invited back to the table again. " If the contract terms are tougher on the bidder, then that bid can be withdrawn without penalty." Sure - but then you wasted all that time on the bid, and you may have a harder time returning to the table. You are talking nonsense here. You lied in your ptrevious post, and now you want to compound it with this foolishness. |
|
|
| (97656) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Sat Jun 11 23:42:23 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 11 07:28:18 2005. Something akin to an AC power failure at 33rd St on the Lex.That sounds like a very wise barb, but on further analysis it falls apart. The power failure had nothing to do with the choice of communications-based vs track-circuit based, or relay- versus solid-state based, etc. signal technology. The exact same failure is equally likely to happen with a CBTC system. I'll bet CBTC doesn't work in a blackout either. I thought the TA's problems were related to the RF-DCS, not to measuring position and speed. Did they require the vendor to get the speed reading off their mickey mouse speedometers instead of from the propulsion system tachometer? My lips are sealed. Let's just say that the vendor's concept of speed measurement (using a proprietary optical technology) didn't work out and now the mad scramble is on for alternatives. |
|
|
| (97660) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Sat Jun 11 23:50:43 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 11 09:22:00 2005. NTP works best when the client has several higher strata serversfrom which to receive updates. In this way, the actual drift of the local clock can be accurately estimated. With regard to determining speed and position based on axle rotation, I happen to agree with you. By utilizing sensor diversity, it is possible to overcome the basic unreliability of taking the data from a single axle which is subject to locking up. |
|
|
| (97720) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Jun 12 08:01:54 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by Jeff H. on Sat Jun 11 23:42:23 2005. My lips are sealed. Let's just say that the vendor's concept of speed measurement (using a proprietary optical technology) didn't work out and now the mad scramble is on for alternatives.That sounds like FUD spread by a "followup" contractor who was awarded two weeks in Philadelphia or a TA project manager trying to avoid the Punishment of the Innocent Phase. Reliable optical and magnetic speedometer/tachometer techniques have been around for decades. Siemens is in the business of building transit vehicles that have installed speedometers. I doubt if they outsourced the Canarsie CBTC design to some outfit in Eastern Europe. That sounds like a very wise barb, but on further analysis it falls apart....I'll bet CBTC doesn't work in a blackout either. I guess I hit a raw nerve there. I don't think your knee jerk reaction of scope is justified. I interpreted your challenge of comparing the impact a zone controller failure in a CBTC system with a localized failure in a track circuit based system. The failure's cause was never mentioned. I simply chose an incident that showed that big elms can grow from small acorns or rather a small water leak that is allowed to proceed for several years. |
|
|
| (97724) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Jun 12 08:19:10 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by Jeff H. on Sat Jun 11 23:50:43 2005. By utilizing sensor diversity, it is possible to overcome the basic unreliability of taking the data from a single axle which is subject to locking up.That's true and I appreciate your analogy with ntp. However, how good do the position estimates have to be. They must be accurate enough so that the trains are guaranteed to be within the station, when the doors are supposed to open. I think this is the tightest requirement. Fortuantely for the Canarsie Line the platforms are the 536 foot BMT standard length. The trains are only 480 feet long and cannot get any longer. There's quite a large margin for error built in there. I'd think that a single sensor with a recalibration at every station would be sufficient to maintain that accuracy. Indeed, if it isn't because of wheel slip, I'd think those wheels would be very flat before long. |
|
|
| (97728) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jun 12 08:41:28 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 11 22:54:24 2005. "If the TA were to materially alter the contract terms from the RFQ, they open up a can of worms with regard to the competitive bidding process."When I worked for NYNEX I was aware of a contract bid that my colleague was managing that definitely involved material changes from the RFP. All the bids came in too expensive, so in the negotiation process the end contract got significantly changed from the RFP. |
|
|
| (97734) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by H.S.Relay on Sun Jun 12 09:14:01 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 11 12:16:55 2005. Canarsie's technology isn't going to be used on the Flushing Line or any other system in the world.Like it or not, I think we're kinda stuck with it. Crappy though it may be. What the TA really needs here is a Skonk Works to birth the technology, but TA culture dictates that everything must be designed by committee so it will unfortuneately never happen. |
|
|
| (97735) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by H.S.Relay on Sun Jun 12 09:16:43 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jun 11 21:28:58 2005. Dude-man, chill.Do you need a visit to the argument clinic? (..."No I don't!" ) |
|
|
| (97736) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by H.S.Relay on Sun Jun 12 09:22:00 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 11 07:28:18 2005. AC power failures don't count for a CBTC/other type argument. You could install UPSs anywhere. |
|
|
| (97747) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Jun 12 10:17:46 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by H.S.Relay on Sun Jun 12 09:14:01 2005. The only way the Siemens proprietary CBTC will be replicated on the Flushing and other lines is if the cost comes down to be competitive with competing systems. That's not likely to happen.What the TA really needs here is a Skonk Works to birth the technology CBTC was hatched in some form of a TA Skunk Works, as I read its long history. The big hurdle appears the procurement process, that's where the money is. |
|
|
| (97792) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jun 12 13:40:02 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Jun 12 08:19:10 2005. At the airport and on London's Jubilee Extension, the trains must line up with the door openings, preferably plus or minus half a foot or less.I would think by now you could achieve that kind of accuracy with an intelligent design (not the Kansas variety, though). |
|
|
| (97801) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Sun Jun 12 14:50:31 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jun 12 13:40:02 2005. Does anyone know how the automatic stopping is achieved in the Jubliee Line extension? |
|
|
| (97885) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by Alex L. on Sun Jun 12 19:57:38 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jun 11 21:52:57 2005. the Franklin Shuttle (is there more than one consist actually working the Shuttle?)...On good day there are three active shuttles. |
|
|
| (97918) | |
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jun 12 22:06:09 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by Alex L. on Sun Jun 12 19:57:38 2005. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 8 |
||
