Ethan777

This idea of not broaching platform is an inherent cbtc behaviour within Product. Its not NYCT specific This is an ATS feature that is enforced thru ZC not issuing LMA until it knows front train has cleared platform track circuit.

I'm from Singapore and our 2 oldest lines have been running on Thales SelTrac CBTC for 2 years since. However, our system is a GOA3 version. Our Train Captains are totally handsfree in Automatic Mode (AM) and only intervene when necesssary. A daily shift right now is mostly to monitor their train and watch the tracks ahead. For your IRT Flushing Line, do you guys also have the ATS wet rail command feature available in your iteration of Thales CBTC? Its a ATS Operator command from OCC where you can apply it to a platform and the brake rates of controlled trains will either be reduced by 25% (Type I) or 50% (Type II) when arriving into platform - dependent on how severe the wet tracks are. In Singapore, we administer Type I or II based on weather forecast - how light/heavy the rain is. I also read in earlier pages of forums that your dwell time is rather padded even under CBTC and this is affecting headway. Over in Singapore we are adopting similar practice by adding a couple of seconds per elevated station stop to cater to this wet rail profile - just in case sometime in the day, we need to apply it. But I understand we recently removed it for one of the lines in a recent timetable change. So far, Thales on our end has stabilised very well, quite unlike initial months. We are pulling off 110s headway (32tph) for 1 of our lines during peak hours for ard 30mins - our dwells are quite long too (~40-50s) - comparable to what I saw on a string-line graph in earlier posts. But we are actually handling quite fine despite the long dwell time. Trains still can be punctual.

Hello. to clarify about wheel rotation, yes, u can say that in a way, wheel rotation is used to mark the distance between stations. The trains shld be equipped with tachogenerators which are the sensors to track distance travelled by wheel rotation. Typical tachos are basically optical light sensors , partitioned with many fine divisions of slits that rotate w the wheel motion. 2 sensing heads are in each tacho to track the rate of change of the light intensity received by the sensor and output the corresponding square waveform function of light intensity against time is obtained. The phase difference of the waveforms obtained by either sensing head establishes train direction (fwd or reverse); the frequency of the square waveforms can then tell you the period and thus the speed, by taking into account the full arc length 1 wheel rotation is. MTA just needs to pre define the "distance" between any 2 stations such that when a train is otw to the next stop. They will also need define the distance point as your announcement trigger. During operation with all this parameters in place, the PA program will reset the distance to the correct value and progressively step down this distance based on the tacho signals received (a measure of speed - which is the rate of change of distance) THis is the tricky part coming in regarding this way of triggering PA. Becoz your pre-defined distance is fixed, deviating off the original route in which yr distance was defined as will cause abnormal/incorrect triggering of your PA since u are not travelling on the by-right path. Thats how u can get PA programs to mess up if for eg (train goes to local track / vice versa) From a rolling stock perspective, do also note that wheels wear down in diameter overtime due to the natural phenomenen of friction and heat at the wheel-rail interaction point on the tracks everyday. When trains are running on smaller wheel diameter, the wheel is going to rotate at faster angular velocity for that same linear velocity - this is gg mess up your tacho signal as well - false positive that train is travelling faster than normal and thus causing the distance countdown to happen faster than normal - PA trigger early.

Hello, I am a train enthusiast from Singapore where currently our 2 oldest lines from 1987 are being installed the exact same CBTC system as with what the and QBL is receiving Thales SelTrac CBTC. I personally came to NYC in 2013 and rode your Subways ( from what I rmb) . It has been 5 years. I understand everyone here is reluctant to hand our operations over to a computer. But you need to understand that CBTC isn't meant to replace humans but here to greatly compliment humans in our rail operations. This should be the line of thinking any good transit authority leader should have. CBTC has lots of cool and interesting advanced features that have helped the transit personnel in my country run our rail system well (both on train and in Control Centre). Have good faith that the CBTC system can detect the railbreak and respond accordingly. Would like to share some insights from my country. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In response to your worry "if a rail breaks on lets say the between 1st Avenue and Bedford Avenue, and CBTC can't detect it, it will continue to go at the posted speed and the consequence can be deadly." "In Singapore for our 2 oldest lines, we also use Track Circuits to detect our trains. Our Thales SelTrac CBTC was ordered by our Land Transport Authority (equivalent of ) to interface with our Track Circuits. Whenever we encounter a Track Circuit Failure - which has a slight chance of it being a rail break, our CBTC ATS based on block occupancy logic will pick out that such sudden occupancy is indeed a Track Circuit Failure. The ATS will then automatically demand the interlocking to impose a 18kph (~11.25 mph) Temporary Speed Restriction (TSR) on that track section until the Track Circuit can be attended to by field staff. The Vehicle On-Board Controller in all incoming trains will immediately receive this information via the Radio Communication and the VOBC will recalculate based on current train position, a suitable braking profile to get the train to 18kph before the start of TSR. The train is able to proceed through the TSR in Automatic Mode before accelerating back to normal speed once past the area. Through the entire process, the Train Attendant (formerly Train Operators) at our Cab Console still doesn't need to intervene and do manual driving. But based on our procedures, he would still be expected to observe the track as the train passes. This degraded mode of operations in CBTC has delivered immense improvements for us. Under the older fixed block signalling, such a track circuit failure causes 10mins delay to service. Today, almost none. Under the older fixed block signalling, our Train Operators are to switch to a Restricted Manual mode and personally drive the train at 18kph over the failed track circuit. But because they must stop their train, get authorisation to proceed through. This wasted crucial time in train service. But today, the train automatically slows down and it can still stay in Automatic Mode. Nothing else. except observing the track, needs to be done" For NYCT, You definitely will have a similar safety case like mine. Do not worry too much. With CBTC, we must cover more ground. I'm not sure how much everyone here understands about CBTC. But I can tell you - from a country where now all our lines are CBTC (our first new CBTC line in 2003) - the art of having CBTC isn't simply about just making train operation automatic and moving block system. For the increased degree of automation and possibly "unattended" operation - we must compensate & account for many safety cases for our CBTC system to respond accordingly should any safety-critical failure or defect occur in the operating railway because now, we are now relying less on humans to enforce safety-related actions. The Thales Seltrac "computer" is now going to do the exact same thing for us. This "computer" would collectively refer to ALL CBTC sub-systems. They must interact well with each other and react correctly to the failure and put the railway in a fail safe state in response to the failure/defect. This is definitely something and Thales will work on hand-in-hand, very closely, whilst the SelTrac product is being designed to fit NYCT's operating requirements just like how we have done it in Singapore. Before Thales is able to install and commission the working CBTC system on your subway, these safety cases on every aspect of operations: Train, Tracks, Interlocking Software (this will be very complex for you all), ATS, Maintenance, Training Equipment must be approved/understood by all parties and all stakeholders ; satisfied that all potential risks arising from automatic operations in CBTC are either mitigated to a ALARP or completely eliminated. CBTC safety critical equipment like especially CBI/Train Borne VOBC must be of Safety Integrity Level 4 (SIL) standard where the likelihood of processing error is 1 in many many millions. You can go search it up. The equipment MUST WORK and ALWAYS WORK and if NOT, it must FAIL TO THE SAFER SIDE. If some major accident/disaster is going to happen in future during CBTC operations, then Yes! You might want to question the MTA on how they managed the project and considered the safety cases - rather than blaming it on CBTC. CBTC systems intention is to deliver automatic, high-capacity and safe operations, not buggy or flawed software. But a stunning project delivery cannot be achieved with proper/sound project collaboration in the years leading up to CBTC commission. It must be managed properly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In response to your worry "This is why I prefer motorman. ", Articles I read from Institution Of Railway Signal Engineers (IRSE) also talked about such worry. But the general consensus is that, we should NEVER EVER REMOVE THE HUMAN from the train. In Singapore, the newest 4 rail lines are running CBTC at Unattended Train Operation level (GOA4). The trains in these lines lack a driving cab - instead the cab is embedded in a removable console cover. They can technically run without even needing Human Attendants on-board. It is just a "Supplier Talk" to proclaim that their signalling product is so spectacular such that its trains can run without a human onboard. But as end-users like MTA or the local rail operator, we need to think more down to Earth and be pragmatic on our safety requirements. We should not be so blinded/complacent with "Supplier Promises/Proclaiments". This is why today in Singapore, we still have the "Motorman" job in those 4 lines today. Its branded as "Customer Service Officer". The 4th line is opening next year and currently there are openings for this role in preparation. Their job on an 8-hour shift is to Board their assigned train based on roster (can be from Depot/Station/Siding) and sit on it up and down until time to rotate to another train. When onboard the train, these people are 90% of the time just sitting/standing around like any other passenger. They do not drive the trains but instead act as "Train Attendants" whilst the train itself moves automatically. During their stay on the train, they instead are to render assistance to any passenger incidents onboard, look out for suspicious activities/articles and just be general caregivers to passengers during service. Only during a signal/train failure/whatever railway system failure, do they need to head front, open up the driving console and do manual driving. The control center will instruct accordingly. In any fire/chemical/terrorist attack emergency, they are to be quick thinking and assist in evacuating the passengers to track via the Detrainment Ramp. But most of the time, they literally do nothing. They are mainly monitoring/supervising. These lines are so reliable that there are minimal incidents/failures to attend to. But yet, we can't do away with the role. We do not rest on our laurels that just because our rail lines are so reliable, we devote our stakes completely to computer. This CSO role is clearly not just about driving. In fact, it covers greatly on passenger service and crisis management. In future, motorman are expected to know even more than what they are knowing today. With advent of technologically advanced systems like CBTC, it may be no surprise that the educational qualification for motorman eventually gets higher too because the job scope won't just be knowing how to drive a train - but more knowing how a train has a relationship with the system and responses to emergencies. Expect better pay for motorman too. Don't worry. Don't expect NYCT to do away with motorman either. They should not. In fact, expect NYCT to REVOLUTIONISE the role of a motor man in decades to come when more of NYCT becomes automatic with CBTC like mine. The classic job of motorman will tend towards being more of Monitoring/Supervising rather than Operating. Whoever heading MTA/governor should not tend towards the line of removing Motorman completely in view of saving money. It would be a very foolish thing to do.

Idk how the Flushing CBTC is different from our CBTC installation in Singapore because apparently my country's 2 oldest metro lines are getting a CBTC upgrade to Thales SelTrac just like here for Flushing Line. As far as the Singapore side is concerned, we do sometimes see our train cabs's CBTC screen or in fact what Thales calls it the "Train Operator Display" TOD - switched on. But the screen is switched on with a black background. This is supposedly known as Shadow Mode in our Singapore system so I wonder if its still the same here for IRT Flushing where you also see the TOD on but CBTC isn't LIVE. For brownfield re-signalling projects like here and in Singapore, there would be quite a focus on making sure the legacy signalling can integrate well with the new signalling during this transition period of installation, commissioning and system acceptance. What Shadow Mode does is that the CBTC equipment (what we know as Vehicle On-Board Controller VOBC) on-board the relevant trains are passively working. They are passively communicating with way-side equipment - the Wayside Radio Units but have no actual control and governance of a train's movement authority. This is iirc, 1 way of testing the CBTC equipment without the need to dedicate track and train time to really do full scale testing. Resignalling existing networks aren't easy as you can't impede train ops so thats why such a Shadow or CBTC Bypass mode is the way to go for testing purposes. But of course eventually, there will be full-scale testing. Btw When is the CBTC going to be commissioned? Do correct me if I'm wrong with my post stuff here. Thanks~

Who else has downloaded this NYC signalling simulator? As a Singapore rail enthusiast, is this worth a download and try to get a feel of those MTA people working in the local tower or RCC? It looks like it was developed back at the start of the 2000s. is there any updated version elsewhere? http://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/NXSYS,_Signalling_and_Interlocking_Simulator#Download.2C_Version_1_for_Microsoft_Windows

Taken from the Singapore National Library's archives of the Trackline Publications which were published by the then Mass Rapid Transit Corporation (MRTC) in the 1980s and sent to residential homes near MRT construction sites when our initial MRT system (consisting of North South & East West Lines) was still under construction. These bi-monthly publications served to update residents on the MRT construction progress. Back then in the 1980s, we were very serious about our upcoming rapid transit system as it was our first and we wanted to make sure it was built and publicised well. Here's a picture of Singapore's MRTC board members sitting in front of the then newly built R62/A for NYCT at the Kawasaki plant in Japan. Our MRTC people flew to Japan back then to take a look at what Kawasaki had to offer as this company had won Contract 151 to build and deliver 66 trains of 6 cars each to run in our Singapore MRT system which was scheduled to fully open by 1990. The 66 trains received a interior refurbishment in 2007 are still alive and kicking as of this year 2015 with no upcoming plans to retire them from service. In fact, we have big plans now to upgrade their propulsions to those used in Tokyo Metro - PMSM as part of their Mid-Life Upgrade, similar to your SMS. Newer trains have since been brought in over the past decades to complement these 66 trains. Thus NSEWL currently has 141 trains in service with 122 of them by Kawasaki. In 2016, we're getting 45 more Kawasaki built trains for NSEWL as part of Contract 151B. Singapore has been quite loyal to Kawasaki all these years since they were the rolling stock manufacturers for our first trains. It does mean a lot to us.

Basically only the A cars have the conductors cab right? Or is the conductors cab on the R188 actually the cab the TO uses if that end of the train was the front motor instead?

Besides the numbering, How else would I be able to tell an R44, R46 and R68/A apart? They all look the same Is it true that from R44 onwards then the RFWs use the diffuse-light glass panel?

I guess the swapping is done during late night with lesser trains on the lines.. So does this mean all the R32s will spend their final years on the Eastern Division?

I see. What does HV stand for? This swap isn't some seasonal every year thing right? Its not like when its winter again the trains as swapped back? Its a permanent swap operation? Any idea how these trains get from to the and vice versa? I'm sure its a lot of switching

Although the has that one and only connection to the rest of the subway via the BMT, do R62As still use that connection to go to the when an R188 comes to replace it? Isn't it quite a troublesome move to get these trains to the Lexington Ave Line? Does the have their own internal set of trailers that can fit individual cars on them and transport to Westchester by road? So what is the exact route these trains would take during the switching?

Hi I'm new here. Is it okay if I can get things straight here? So far what I understand is that: Every summer, there is an R32-NTT fleet swap between the and the . Which trains go to where and why is this swap done?