Mechanical problems procedure

[Abba]

There was a thread here about sick passenger procedure.I know there are Many mechanical problems.However the most common ones what's the procedure?

[Fresh Pond]

>Call it in

>RCI comes

>Rectify problem (if able to)

>Train sent on its merry way (in or out of service)

 

...that's more or less the gist of it without going in depth about it

[Abba]

There is one in Rockaway now going on .I Belive Trains are there since 23:00!

 

If we can go in depth about a sick passenger why can't we go

Into depth about this? There have been a lot of mechanical problems as of late

[Lance]

A lot of it depends on the nature of the mechanical problem.

 

By the way, the problem affecting the Rockaways isn't a mechanical problem. Damaged power cables at Howard Beach are currently disrupting service along the A-line.

[Abba]

In the very beginning they called it "Mechanical Problems"

[Lance]

In the very beginning they called it "Mechanical Problems"

They weren't wrong. A loss of power could be considered a mechanical problem.

[Q113 LTD]

6 months ago, I was on the train going to Far Rockaway and the train was held at JFK-Howard Beach and the conductor announced that there was a disable train over Broad Channel. So everyone had to take the train back to Rockaway Blvd and take either the Q52 LTD or Q53 LTD to the Rockaways. 3 or 4 months ago, on the to Far Rockaway, just left Euclid Av and the train was held between Euclid Av and Grant Av due to a Lefferts bound train at Grant Av with door problems. I was in the first car and listened to the radio. Over the radio, I heard the train in front of us was having problems closing the left doors. A minute later, I heard the radio saying all Queens bound to remain where they are..... Then 5 minutes later, train resumes with delays.

[Bill from Maspeth]

It was originally was called a mechanical problem because part of the train operators job is not to troubleshoot missing signal cables.  All he knew was that his train had a problem and he deals with his train. 

[YankeesPwnMets]

"Mechanical problems" is pretty vague. Once, a faulty signal trip (the arm was raised while the lights were green) tripped up the train I was on while approaching Grand Central and activated the emergency brakes. We sat there for a few minutes while the brakes reset and continued along. When I checked my phone at Grand Central, the MTA site said that due to a train with mechanical problems, are running local between 14 and 42, even though in reality, it was a faulty signal which caused the issue.

 

Same exact thing happened last week in almost the same exact spot again. We were tripped by a faulty signal, T/O got the brakes reset, we moved 10 feet and then the signals tripped the brakes again. This time, the MTA called it a signal problem. It's pretty hard to say there is one standard procedure for "mechanical problems" because it could essentially mean anything when it comes to the MTA.

[Abba]

And that another thing,I think many times the train doesn't really have mechanical problems,Many times the MTA says Mechanical Problems.Then service resumes.Then about 15 min later delays again in the same spot due to signal problems.

[QM1to6Ave]

Most passengers are not especially interested in the details of the mechanical/signal/power/whatever problems, and it is not in the (MTA)'s interest to publicly get into details about problems plaguing the trains, so it is not surprising that the alerts and emails remain vague

[itmaybeokay]

And that another thing,I think many times the train doesn't really have mechanical problems,Many times the MTA says Mechanical Problems.Then service resumes.Then about 15 min later delays again in the same spot due to signal problems.

 

That actually checks out. If a train goes BIE, that might first be put up as a train with mechanical problems - but then later another train gets tripped in the same spot because it turns out the signal is malfunctioning. 

 

Heard this happen on tuesday morning actually, around 10:40 am on the Downtown Local track of the BMT Broadway line at the 49th St station. Which is an interesting segue to detailing the approximate procedure followed in this case:

 

• Second train to get tripped in the same spot by the Automatic signal mid-platform, radios control saying they went BIE after seeing the signal "flash" from green to red.
• Control notes that this is the second train stopped there and sends TSS to station.
• T/O goes down to roadbed to see if stop-arm is still up. 
• Control wants to send trains down the express track, but there's equipment laid up south of 57/7 due to the Q short turning there because of GO in Astoria, asks City Hall yard if there's room to move trains there. 
• T/O notes stop arm is down, control sends him back to position to re-charge train.
• Control "gaps" or holds downtown R train at 14th street due to the delay in downtown service. Better to have 2 moderate gaps than one huge gap. (but you all know THAT already)  
• TSS gets to station, and is instructed to hook-down stop arm and flag trains through until signal problem is repaired.
• 10-12 minutes after the first car, tripped train reports wheels turning and service resumes (with residual delays)

Anyway, my scanner records and I have this whole exchange saved. I'm trying to figure out if it's legal for me to upload it, but if it is I will if anyone wants to hear...

[Abba]

So the first trains to experience the problem are delayed by about 20 min it seems

[itmaybeokay]

So the first trains to experience the problem are delayed by about 20 min it seems

 

Depends on the issue. I've also heard the T/O see a signal flash and go BIE themselves, and usually if they didn't get tripped RCC will give them the go-ahead to proceed once the train is charged and warn the trains behind to enter the area with extreme caution and report any signal irregularities. Not sure if these even make the alerts. 

 

It usually takes at least a 10 minute delay before the alert gets posted. 

[Fresh Pond]

That actually checks out. If a train goes BIE, that might first be put up as a train with mechanical problems - but then later another train gets tripped in the same spot because it turns out the signal is malfunctioning.

 

Heard this happen on tuesday morning actually, around 10:40 am on the Downtown Local track of the BMT Broadway line at the 49th St station. Which is an interesting segue to detailing the approximate procedure followed in this case:

 

• Second train to get tripped in the same spot by the Automatic signal mid-platform, radios control saying they went BIE after seeing the signal "flash" from green to red.
• Control notes that this is the second train stopped there and sends TSS to station.
• T/O goes down to roadbed to see if stop-arm is still up.
• Control wants to send trains down the express track, but there's equipment laid up south of 57/7 due to the Q short turning there because of GO in Astoria, asks City Hall yard if there's room to move trains there.
• T/O notes stop arm is down, control sends him back to position to re-charge train.
• Control "gaps" or holds downtown R train at 14th street due to the delay in downtown service. Better to have 2 moderate gaps than one huge gap. (but you all know THAT already)
• TSS gets to station, and is instructed to hook-down stop arm and flag trains through until signal problem is repaired.
• 10-12 minutes after the first car, tripped train reports wheels turning and service resumes (with residual delays)

Anyway, my scanner records and I have this whole exchange saved. I'm trying to figure out if it's legal for me to upload it, but if it is I will if anyone wants to hear...

Nope, illegal to broadcast what you heard on the radio

[itmaybeokay]

Nope, illegal to broadcast what you heard on the radio

 

Off topic but it's not that cut-and-dried. While "divulgence or publication" is prohibited under FCC rules, there's a 2001 supreme court ruling which may reverse that via case law, where the court affirmed the permissibility of publishing legally obtained recordings. 

 

Quote:

"The Supreme Court’s 2001 decision in Bartnicki v. Vopper, however, casts significant doubt on the constitutionality of Section 705’s prohibition on divulgence or publication."

 

Anyway. I'm not posting the link here, mostly because it's hard to follow the conversation,  but PM me if you want to hear. 

[CenSin]

Off topic but it's not that cut-and-dried. While "divulgence or publication" is prohibited under FCC rules, there's a 2001 supreme court ruling which may reverse that via case law, where the court affirmed the permissibility of publishing legally obtained recordings. 

 

Quote:

"The Supreme Court’s 2001 decision in Bartnicki v. Vopper, however, casts significant doubt on the constitutionality of Section 705’s prohibition on divulgence or publication."

 

Anyway. I'm not posting the link here, mostly because it's hard to follow the conversation,  but PM me if you want to hear. 

Some questions I’d like to raise here:

• If it’s obviously constitutionally protected, would the law itself be illegal, and thus invalid?
• If it’s not obviously constitutionally protected, but there is a strong case for overturning the law, where do you stand in regards to civil disobedience? In China, for example, the use of VPNs by citizens and expats enable access to sites that would be otherwise blocked (like Google). The United States government, in fact, casually develops and distributes software to countries with repressive regimes, encouraging citizens to break the law for a taste of freedom. The Chinaman is obviously breaking his country’s laws, but we’re rooting for him.
• What about a listener who reports what he hears to a journalist? It’s illegal to compel the journalist to divulge sources (or to spy on the journalist to do so), effectively shielding the source from any legal action. One could report on something and attribute the information to some "unknown" source.

I take the stance that all information is free. Leak everything anonymously. And if it were that important to keep under wraps, the MTA would get off the proverbial couch and encrypt their communications—or send agents from three-letter agencies to investigate.

[itmaybeokay]

Some questions I’d like to raise here:

• If it’s obviously constitutionally protected, would the law itself be illegal, and thus invalid?
• If it’s not obviously constitutionally protected, but there is a strong case for overturning the law, where do you stand in regards to civil disobedience? In China, for example, the use of VPNs by citizens and expats enable access to sites that would be otherwise blocked (like Google). The United States government, in fact, casually develops and distributes software to countries with repressive regimes, encouraging citizens to break the law for a taste of freedom. The Chinaman is obviously breaking his country’s laws, but we’re rooting for him.
• What about a listener who reports what he hears to a journalist? It’s illegal to compel the journalist to divulge sources (or to spy on the journalist to do so), effectively shielding the source from any legal action. One could report on something and attribute the information to some "unknown" source.

I take the stance that all information is free. Leak everything anonymously. And if it were that important to keep under wraps, the MTA would get off the proverbial couch and encrypt their communications—or send agents from three-letter agencies to investigate.

 

Interesting reading on the subject: 

 

http://www.rtdna.org/content/scanners#.VWx2bVxViko

 

Yes, section 705 of the communications act is likely unconstitutional. 

 

I'm comfortable with the legality of uploading the audio - I didn't post it here because it's hard to follow, and I didn't catch the beginning. If you really want to hear it look under the soundcloud user NYCDX.