QM1to6Ave Posted March 9, 2010 Share #1 Posted March 9, 2010 Hi! This is my first post on this forum, and I must say I have learned a lot from reading these forums in the past. Anyway, I've always wondered why the R-46's were made with full length cabs for the T/O's and C/R's, while the Brightliners, R-40's, etc. all have half-width cabs. I remember reading an MTA flyer saying that the R-160's were given full-length cabs so the T/O can safely operate the doors while in ATO. Any ideas on the subject? I was also wondering what it must be like for all you motormen out there to have to sit in one of those tiny half-width cabs all day long. Looks quite claustrophobic (I think I spelled that wrong lol). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bveguy Posted March 9, 2010 Share #2 Posted March 9, 2010 The full width cabs are for C/Rs to open the doors on either side without having to cross over to the next car. Obviously, it is a safety concern for workers, so they just decided to make it a full width. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Railer Posted March 9, 2010 Share #3 Posted March 9, 2010 Hi! This is my first post on this forum, and I must say I have learned a lot from reading these forums in the past. Anyway, I've always wondered why the R-46's were made with full length cabs for the T/O's and C/R's, while the Brightliners, R-40's, etc. all have half-width cabs. I remember reading an MTA flyer saying that the R-160's were given full-length cabs so the T/O can safely operate the doors while in ATO. Any ideas on the subject? I was also wondering what it must be like for all you motormen out there to have to sit in one of those tiny half-width cabs all day long. Looks quite claustrophobic (I think I spelled that wrong lol). The 60 footers (R1-9, R10, R16, R27, R30, R32, R38, R40, R42) were built with half width cabs because passenger capacity was being considered, because the cars were linked in married pairs. Starting with the 75 footers (R44, R46, R68, R68A) were built with ATO capacity in mind (particularily the R44's and the 46's), and because they were 75 feet, capacity was not that much of an issue, as cars are linked in 4 car sets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QM1to6Ave Posted March 10, 2010 Author Share #4 Posted March 10, 2010 Cool-thanks for the info. Were any concrete plans ever created for ATO for the R46's? It's wierd to think that ATO was even a real possibility before the year 2000 without any really powerful computers/CBTC systems and the NTT's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted March 10, 2010 Share #5 Posted March 10, 2010 It's wierd to think that ATO was even a real possibility before the year 2000 without any really powerful computers/CBTC systems and the NTT's. Why? You don't need a fast processor or a lot of memory to interpret how far the train ahead of you is. The further you are from another train, the closer to MAS you can travel. The closer you are to another train, the slower you must go (to maintain a preset "safe distance"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KTrainExp Posted March 10, 2010 Share #6 Posted March 10, 2010 Cool-thanks for the info. Were any concrete plans ever created for ATO for the R46's? It's wierd to think that ATO was even a real possibility before the year 2000 without any really powerful computers/CBTC systems and the NTT's. There's an interesting article about ATO service pre-NTT era on nycsubway.org. took it into serious consideration and equipped it temporarily on the Grand Central Shuttle. However, plans were scrapped due to a fire and this raised a concern on a public hazard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted March 10, 2010 Share #7 Posted March 10, 2010 There's an interesting article about ATO service pre-NTT era on nycsubway.org. took it into serious consideration and equipped it temporarily on the Grand Central Shuttle. However, plans were scrapped due to a fire and this raised a concern on a public hazard. aka the experimental train burned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted March 11, 2010 Share #8 Posted March 11, 2010 The experimental train did not burn because of "ATO" equipment failure. It burned because a train on an adjacent track burned and the fire spread and destroyed some of the wayside signalling equipment on the track with the ATO train and it was decided not to be rebuilt. However, it was performing pretty well at the time the incident happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted March 11, 2010 Share #9 Posted March 11, 2010 The experimental train did not burn because of "ATO" equipment failure. It burned because a train on an adjacent track burned and the fire spread and destroyed some of the wayside signalling equipment on the track with the ATO train and it was decided not to be rebuilt. However, it was performing pretty well at the time the incident happened. Yeah, I know. Did I ever say it burned because of ATO issues? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melvin Posted March 11, 2010 Share #10 Posted March 11, 2010 Yeah, I know. Did I ever say it burned because of ATO issues? I don't think he was talking to you directly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted March 11, 2010 Share #11 Posted March 11, 2010 Yeah, I know. Did I ever say it burned because of ATO issues? Unless I quoted YOU don't ASSUME I was responding to YOU. Check again. My post responded to the last point in Ktrainexp's post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishmech Posted March 11, 2010 Share #12 Posted March 11, 2010 Why? You don't need a fast processor or a lot of memory to interpret how far the train ahead of you is. The further you are from another train, the closer to MAS you can travel. The closer you are to another train, the slower you must go (to maintain a preset "safe distance"). Yeah, Vancouver has had an all ATO system for 3 decades or more now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamen Rider Posted March 11, 2010 Share #13 Posted March 11, 2010 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QM1to6Ave Posted March 11, 2010 Author Share #14 Posted March 11, 2010 Why? You don't need a fast processor or a lot of memory to interpret how far the train ahead of you is. The further you are from another train, the closer to MAS you can travel. The closer you are to another train, the slower you must go (to maintain a preset "safe distance"). Sorry, I was not being completely clear- I was referring more to the ultra-modern, space-age look within the cars themselves, such as the advanced computers and screens installed in the cabs of the NTT's and the crisp, bright LED signs(although I know some people still find these cars boring), not the general principle of automatic train operation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EE Broadway Local Posted March 23, 2010 Share #15 Posted March 23, 2010 When the R32 Brightliners and R42s retire, the Rail Fan Window will become a memory. I think full width cabs are the way to go now. Even PATH has gone full width on the PA5s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Paniagua Posted March 24, 2010 Share #16 Posted March 24, 2010 Do the PA5s have a Railfan Wondow. And also we have the MBTA Boston's Red and Orange Line with pre-NTT pre-2000 ATO, but the trains are driven manually, it's used to control train MAS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.