SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

[itmaybeokay]

On 2/24/2018 at 12:31 PM, RailRunRob said:

The Bluetooth system is a stop gap. Being there not doing ISIM-B (ATS-B) the clocks could still be useful when CTBC start's coming online. The systems are incompatible the color displays would need to be switched over to the new system in segments. Queensborough Plaza would probably be a good place to see this. I would love to see if they could feed &   countdown information on one display with two systems. Being the old count down clocks are well saturated in stations you might be able to feed the beacon information into them and just convert the data feeds. The new displays are LCD they would need a the very least an HDMI connection not sure if the cable length is an issue or if you'd just have a CPU in different sections of the stations feeding the displays. Maybe the reason there only in certain spots and not all over the station. May just be easier to add the old ones for now the ducts and everything needed is in place already. As long the data is there most people will be good.

I'm reasonably certain the full-color LCD clocks integrate the CPU into the case of the display and the only required connections are network and power. The clocks are actually running a full-screen kiosked Chrome browser (I've seen them error out) - so they're loading a web page to display the countdown information. 

Cable Length would be an issue. HDMI needs a repeater every 100 feet tops - 50 feet ideally. The repeaters can get pricey. And also require power. So easier just to hang a cpu in the display cabinet. 

I get that the systems are incompatible - but this is so so easily remedied.

It takes a trivial amount of hardware and code to translate the GTFS feed provided by the current bluetooth system into a bicolor led matrix. There are people online who will happily sell you one for your apartment. (They're also jerks who haven't open-sourced their code otherwise I'd have one running on the hardware I have already. Jerks.)

The point is, the full-color LCD countdown clocks are ultimately fed by a web server which creates an HTML page from GTFS data. The same server could also serve the data as JSON strings - or whatever -  that one could parse with a raspberry pi and bitbang onto a LED matrix.  The hardware I suggest is a dodgy implementation - but my point is - from the JSON you could translate it into whatever data format the extant and new LED matrix displays savor the flavor of. 

[kosciusko]

14 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

And also not so damn deep... The whole line should have been at the same depth as 96th Street which was built with cut and cover...

Exactly, I think it's crazy that the  is going deep with all of the 21st century construction projects. ESA is slated to have a two-minute escalator ride between GCT and the new LIRR terminal. SAS is way deeper then it has any right being, and the depth causes problems and adds expenses (IE Ventilation, Soft ground that needs to be frozen before it is tunneled into, More difficult to drain IIRC). I think the  is afraid of doing cut and cover because of how disruptive it is to the neighborhood, but really it's the best way to build a subway. 

I think maybe a reason why they are going deep is because there is more room to build elaborate stations that far underground. Hudson Yards and SAS are Massive stations relative to many of the older ones, and we all know how much the  likes to build monuments. I'm curious to see how the new Penn and ESA terminal turns out, I'm sure it will be quite the marvel.  

Edited February 26, 2018 by kosciusko

[RailRunRob]

34 minutes ago, itmaybeokay said:

I'm reasonably certain the full-color LCD clocks integrate the CPU into the case of the display and the only required connections are network and power. The clocks are actually running a full-screen kiosked Chrome browser (I've seen them error out) - so they're loading a web page to display the countdown information. 

Cable Length would be an issue. HDMI needs a repeater every 100 feet tops - 50 feet ideally. The repeaters can get pricey. And also require power. So easier just to hang a cpu in the display cabinet. 

Make's sense!

34 minutes ago, itmaybeokay said:

The point is, the full-color LCD countdown clocks are ultimately fed by a web server which creates an HTML page from GTFS data. The same server could also serve the data as JSON strings - or whatever -  that one could parse with a raspberry pi and bitbang onto a LED matrix.  The hardware I suggest is a dodgy implementation - but my point is - from the JSON you could translate it into whatever data format the extant and new LED matrix displays savor the flavor of. 

This also makes sense so.. with General feed is the countdown the countdown based on the Train Activity Console and updated with via triggers when the train enters the station? Or are the stations along the line talking to each other via TCP/IP with the BLE tied in on the station level? And tracking that way..  That brings me to wondering to how reroute information is handled?  I know we're going deep in CPM territory interesting topic.

Edited February 26, 2018 by RailRunRob

[RailRunRob]

15 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

And also not so damn deep... The whole line should have been at the same depth as 96th Street which was built with cut and cover...

86th isn't to much of grade difference from 96th the elevation jumps up 50 feet in that 10 block stretch so that adds to it plus the bedrock layer and geology changes. 72nd on the other hand.. Would anything but deep level work with the number of highrises and foundations to worry about?  I heard someone talk about Jamaica-Van Wyck the skyline and vents at that station or on the Service road. How would you make that work within the density of the UES?

Edited February 26, 2018 by RailRunRob

[officiallyliam]

41 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

Exactly, I think it's crazy that the  is going deep with all of the 21st century construction projects. ESA is slated to have a two-minute escalator ride between GCT and the new LIRR terminal. SAS is way deeper then it has any right being, and the depth causes problems and adds expenses (IE Ventilation, Soft ground that needs to be frozen before it is tunneled into, More difficult to drain IIRC). I think the  is afraid of doing cut and cover because of how disruptive it is to the neighborhood, but really it's the best way to build a subway. 

I think maybe a reason why they are going deep is because there is more room to build elaborate stations that far underground. Hudson Yards and SAS are Massive stations relative to many of the older ones, and we all know how much the  likes to build monuments. I'm curious to see how the new Penn and ESA terminal turns out, I'm sure it will be quite the marvel.  

The MTA got scared off from cut and cover after the PR disaster that ensued when they cut the Broadway - 63rd Street line through Central Park. The combination of an angry affluent public and the advancement of TBM technology made the MTA just give up entirely on cut and cover. 

Provided you have wide, straight roads (as we do in NYC) cut and cover is far and away the best subway construction method. But bringing in back now is politically infeasible.

[RailRunRob]

1 minute ago, officiallyliam said:

The MTA got scared off from cut and cover after the PR disaster that ensued when they cut the Broadway - 63rd Street line through Central Park. The combination of an angry affluent public and the advancement of TBM technology made the MTA just give up entirely on cut and cover. 

Provided you have wide, straight roads (as we do in NYC) cut and cover is far and away the best subway construction method. But bringing in back now is politically infeasible.

You think Cut and Cover even feasible at this level of density in Manhattan. The Golden age of cut cover was 1900-40 tho dense is nowhere near the obstacles of today would cause so much disruption to a City that needs to keep moving 7/24/365. The last time this was tried was 40-45 years ago. I don't think it's an option in Manhattan at this point bar maybe lower density East Harlem.

 

You really think this could fly for 7-10 years?  Bearly made it with the muck stations on SAS this go around.🚇

[officiallyliam]

17 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

You think Cut and Cover even feasible at this level of density in Manhattan. The Golden age of cut cover was 1900-40 tho dense is nowhere near the obstacles of today would cause so much disruption to a City that needs to keep moving 7/24/365. The last time this was tried was 40-45 years ago. I don't think it's an option in Manhattan at this point bar maybe lower density East Harlem.

 

You really think this could fly for 7-10 years?  Bearly made it with the muck stations on SAS this go around.🚇

Nobody said these things have to take seven to ten years. If anything, cut and cover would speed up the process by removing the complexities associated with working several stories under the ground. And we should be working to speed up capital construction across the board; there’s no reason we have to except the status quo as inevitable.

Is cut and cover feasible tomorrow? No, people would rightfully be skeptical and they’d have to be sold on it. But New York was a 24/7 city back when the original subways were being built using cut and cover - it’s definitely doable. Except in instances where tunnels have to cut across the street grid, we should be promoting the use of cut and cover. As an added bonus, cut and cover subway construction can be doubled with utility modernization, likely making it easier for residents and businesses to accept.

The unfortunate reality is that future SAS phases, Utica, Nostrand, Third Avenue - subway extensions we all think should be built - just aren’t possible if everything is built like SAS phase 1 and Hudson Yards. Cut and cover is a proven alternative that works well in New York’s road layout. Why aren’t we using it, considering the TBM and deep station method simply isn’t sustainable?

As for the Jamaica Van Wyck skylights thing, I was simply saying that the MTA should incorporate more natural light into future station designs, not necessarily that Van Wyck’s example is directly able to copied to other stations.

[RailRunRob]

1 hour ago, officiallyliam said:

Nobody said these things have to take seven to ten years. If anything, cut and cover would speed up the process by removing the complexities associated with working several stories under the ground. And we should be working to speed up capital construction across the board; there’s no reason we have to except the status quo as inevitable.

1

Okay,here's your path south how do you make sure these buildings are shored up? Digging at the basement or sub-basement level? What about there Water, power and Sewage how long would you say it'll take for Utility relocation? Sure you don't want to just dig under in bedrock?

1 hour ago, officiallyliam said:

The unfortunate reality is that future SAS phases, Utica, Nostrand, Third Avenue - subway extensions we all think should be built - just aren’t possible if everything is built like SAS phase 1 and Hudson Yards. Cut and cover is a proven alternative that works well in New York’s road layout. Why aren’t we using it, considering the TBM and deep station method simply isn’t sustainable?

Brooklyn and The Bronx I'm not counting. I don't think you're looking at the holistic picture IMO at least. Hudson's Yard do you understand the logic behind why it's so deep? How could you build using C & C when your clearing 3 levels of rail traffic above plus the foundations to Skyscrapers with 7 or more floors plus Pylons below ground?  Same with Second Ave Especially in East Midtown what am I missing? Your talking about lines that were built mostly before 1940. And the Sixth Ave line barely made it.. That was an engineering marvel unto itself that's window is done. It's to the order of magnitude more Obstacles underground Power, Steam, Fiber , foundations other tunnels.. plus disruptions.. What am I missing?

Edited February 26, 2018 by RailRunRob

[RailRunRob]

1 hour ago, officiallyliam said:

As for the Jamaica Van Wyck skylights thing, I was simply saying that the MTA should incorporate more natural light into future station designs, not necessarily that Van Wyck’s example is directly able to copied to other stations.

Understood.

[The MTA]

Why were  trains running via second avenue this morning? Saw a R68a and r160 at 86th st. 

[officiallyliam]

45 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

Okay,here's your path south how do you make sure these buildings are shored up? Digging at the basement or sub-basement level? What about there Water, power and Sewage how long would you say it'll take for Utility relocation? Sure you don't want to just dig under in bedrock?

Brooklyn and The Bronx I'm not counting. I don't think you're looking at the holistic picture IMO at least. Hudson's Yard do you understand the logic behind why it's so deep? How could you build using C & C when your clearing 3 levels of rail traffic above plus the foundations to Skyscrapers with 7 or more floors plus Pylons below ground?  Same with Second Ave Especially in East Midtown what am I missing? Your talking about lines that were built mostly before 1940. And the Sixth Ave line barely made it.. That was an engineering marvel unto itself that's window is done. It's to the order of magnitude more Obstacles underground Power, Steam, Fiber , foundations other tunnels.. plus disruptions.. What am I missing?

Ok, Hudson Yards was not a good example because of the rail tracks -  but my point still stands about cut and cover being superior for routes which follow the street grid and don’t have large obstacles (rail yards, water, other tunnels) standing in the way.

You mentioned the Sixth Avenue line. Yes, that was an engineering marvel that probably won’t be repeated again. But if we could build a subway around PATH tracks and an elevated in 1940, we can do a two-track line down Water Street today. It will be a temporary pain, but we should be able to do construction and keep at least one late open (possibly for buses). Utility relocation isn’t the end of the world, and they could probably be replaced inside the newly-built subway tunnel.

[Around the Horn]

19 minutes ago, The MTA said:

Why were  trains running via second avenue this morning? Saw a R68a and r160 at 86th st. 

Stalled train at 5th Avenue

[RR503]

Also keep in mind that Manhattan had significantly more people at higher densities in the early 1900s than it does today. In that sense, we have an easier time today. 

Keep in mind too that back then, there was little knowledge whatsoever of what utilities were where, complicating construction greatly. It was the age of “dig until you hit something, reroute, rinse repeat.” Sure, Parsons was a savant at surveying underground things and then remembering the info collected, but he was only able to do that for so many places. 

The major negative difference is that buildings were shorter back in the day — the tallest of the tall were about 50 stories. That said, unless you’re really digging to the sidewalk line or burrowing under foundations, height is pretty inconsequential. 

[Trainmaster5]

1 hour ago, RailRunRob said:

Okay,here's your path south how do you make sure these buildings are shored up? Digging at the basement or sub-basement level? What about there Water, power and Sewage how long would you say it'll take for Utility relocation? Sure you don't want to just dig under in bedrock?

Brooklyn and The Bronx I'm not counting. I don't think you're looking at the holistic picture IMO at least. Hudson's Yard do you understand the logic behind why it's so deep? How could you build using C & C when your clearing 3 levels of rail traffic above plus the foundations to Skyscrapers with 7 or more floors plus Pylons below ground?  Same with Second Ave Especially in East Midtown what am I missing? Your talking about lines that were built mostly before 1940. And the Sixth Ave line barely made it.. That was an engineering marvel unto itself that's window is done. It's to the order of magnitude more Obstacles underground Power, Steam, Fiber , foundations other tunnels.. plus disruptions.. What am I missing?

That's why cut and cover won't be an option going forward,  Massive utility relocation and shoring up the existing buildings would never be an option put forward by a reputable construction company or consortium. The relative depth of the newer stations has more to do with the existing surroundings than anything else IMO.  The "ornateness "  of them is something else entirely.  Look no further than the Wall and Fulton Street stations on the Lexington line.  Does anyone think that type of construction is possible today ? Even if you could do that type of construction in SE Brooklyn or parts of SE Queens  for example the existing  infrastructure might be problematic.  The water tables would add to the cost and add another variable to the projects.  As a former construction worker and  as someone who has experienced the   Lenox Invert project and the  Vanderveer water work project on the Nostrand Avenue line cut and cover might be cheaper  upfront but any repair or other unforeseen work down the line is not cheap or easy. Just my thoughts on the topic. Carry on. 

Edited February 26, 2018 by Trainmaster5
Additional information about construction

[RailRunRob]

17 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Also keep in mind that Manhattan had significantly more people at higher densities in the early 1900s than it does today. In that sense, we have an easier time today. 

Keep in mind too that back then, there was little knowledge whatsoever of what utilities were where, complicating construction greatly. It was the age of “dig until you hit something, reroute, rinse repeat.” Sure, Parsons was a savant at surveying underground things and then remembering the info collected, but he was only able to do that for so many places. 

☝️ this.

 

17 minutes ago, RR503 said:

That said, unless you’re really digging to the sidewalk line or burrowing under foundations, height is pretty inconsequential. 

True. Stations along major thoroughfares are definitely the pitch points.

[RailRunRob]

1 hour ago, officiallyliam said:

You mentioned the Sixth Avenue line. Yes, that was an engineering marvel that probably won’t be repeated again. But if we could build a subway around PATH tracks and an elevated in 1940, we can do a two-track line down Water Street today

Two things with Sixth. The H&M only went as far 33rd street Sixth Ave south of that point is lower density.Midtown besides the El was clear. And IIRC the IND grazed and extended Sixth Ave itself to Canal they muscled through there. So the mile or so where the Local rides outside of the HM was lower density and wide enough to accommodate an extra two tracks they were able to shore up properties abit easier. Lucky they had the foresight to add provisions for the express tracks that bore deep to clear everything above including the 14th street BMT. 34th street station with its over the Penn and under the BMT was a triumph.  

1 hour ago, officiallyliam said:

Utility relocation isn’t the end of the world, and they could probably be replaced inside the newly-built subway tunnel.

Ahh man, your Underestimating the process. I guess my question if C&C is the best way to build why aren't they taking that option? Places like the MurryHill and The East Village might work. Second Avenue is also very close to the shoreline In Midtown you have quite a few crossing you'd have to clear as well. 

Edited February 27, 2018 by RailRunRob

[RailRunRob]

1 hour ago, Trainmaster5 said:

That's why cut and cover won't be an option going forward,  Massive utility relocation and shoring up the existing buildings would never be an option put forward by a reputable construction company or consortium. The relative depth of the newer stations has more to do with the existing surroundings than anything else IMO.  The "ornateness "  of them is something else entirely.  Carry on. 

My point exactly.

[officiallyliam]

15 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

Ahh man, your Underestimating the process. I guess my question if C&C is the best way to build why aren't they taking that option? Places like the MurryHill and The East Village might work. Second Avenue is also very close to the shoreline In Midtown you have quite a few crossing you'd have to clear as well. 

Because they know that no community will ever agree to cut and cover; the MTA has ruined their reputation when it comes to community impact from capital projects after 63rd Street and, most recently, SAS. People won't forget that even with deep bore tunneling, SAS phase 1 still managed to be a decade-long pain for the East Side. If the MTA had a better record with meeting budgets and timelines, and really minimizing the impacts of their construction work, doing cut and cover in a more widespread fashion would likely be on the table. They're still proposing it as one of the (and, in my opinion, the best) options for the Grand Street SAS stop to allow a cross-platform transfer to the . In order to stay out of the way of potentially oppositional communities the MTA will choose cut-and-cover, for better or for worse, for future projects.

[RailRunRob]

50 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

Because they know that no community will ever agree to cut and cover; the MTA has ruined their reputation when it comes to community impact from capital projects after 63rd Street and, most recently, SAS. People won't forget that even with deep bore tunneling, SAS phase 1 still managed to be a decade-long pain for the East Side. If the MTA had a better record with meeting budgets and timelines, and really minimizing the impacts of their construction work, doing cut and cover in a more widespread fashion would likely be on the table. They're still proposing it as one of the (and, in my opinion, the best) options for the Grand Street SAS stop to allow a cross-platform transfer to the . In order to stay out of the way of potentially oppositional communities the MTA will choose cut-and-cover, for better or for worse, for future projects.

I'm not a Certified or practicing Engineer. But I do have a background and degree in Civil and Environmental. The fact that Phase 1 took a decade I mean that's operation with the MTACC has nothing to do with the science behind Geotechnical engineering. Cities like London, Paris,LA and Madrid are all using boring methods with better yield. Sure the Mica and Schist might have its challenges nothing not seen before. As stated by @trainmaster5 the environment is really what sets the parameters. Great way to sum it up.. From Geology to Existing obstacles, and Environmental Challenges you have to find the best way to make it work with least impact. So coming from Engineers prospective the MTA's shortfalls aren't my concerns science, math and execution are. Don't get more wrong C&C is a reliable, effective and proven method. Just not with many of the conditions found in parts of Manhattan. Brooklyn, The Bronx different story altogether.

Edited February 27, 2018 by RailRunRob

[itmaybeokay]

8 hours ago, RailRunRob said:

Make's sense!

This also makes sense so.. with General feed is the countdown the countdown based on the Train Activity Console and updated with via triggers when the train enters the station? Or are the stations along the line talking to each other via TCP/IP with the BLE tied in on the station level? And tracking that way..  That brings me to wondering to how reroute information is handled?  I know we're going deep in CPM territory interesting topic.

I'm not entirely certain how the feed is updated by the train. Presumably, it's BLE sensors near/in the stations networked by TCP/IP. 

In terms of how reroutes are handled, the feed has a route indication, but individually lists stops - each "trip" has every stop the train will arrive at defined, along with arrival and departure times. it's actually GTFS-Realtime, which is a little more of a pain in the butt to interpret because you have to run it through google's protocol buffers, but like, 5 lines of python and you're good to go. So here's something I just pulled from the NQRW feed: 

 

	trip {
	  trip_id: "125700_N..N"
	  start_date: "20180226"
	  route_id: "N"
	}
	stop_time_update {
	  arrival {
	    time: 1519702086
	  }
	  departure {
	    time: 1519702086
	  }
	  stop_id: "R01N"
	  schedule_relationship: SCHEDULED
	}

So, based on this document http://web.mta.info/developers/data/nyct/subway/Stations.csv "R01" is Astoria-Ditmars, N I assume is the railroad-Northbound direction

So the trip ID, weirdly, is encoded in "hundreths of a minute past midnight" so that train left coney island heading north at 8:57 PM. The 2056 November Stillwell then - That train would be scheduled to arrive at ditmars at 10:07, here we see an arrival time encoded as Epoch time - or seconds since Jan 1 1970 - (pretty sure you know this one Bob, but for everyone else, this sounds weird, but it's how most computers tell time) Anyway, that epoch time translates to Monday, February 26, 2018 10:28:06 PM. 21 minutes late - sounds about right. 

The schedule_relationship field seems specifically geared toward reroutes - The MTA description of it, however, doesn't make a lot of sense:

"It is our recommendation that the realtime feed train data should replace that of the static train schedule data. There will be times when a link between the schedule trip and the realtime trip may be possible but it is not an absolute. Realtime trip information will be made available approximately 30 minutes before the scheduled origin time." -_____-

Presumably an extra or a put-in would show up as "UNSCHEDULED". Likely so for reroutes. 

Anyway, the point is, while the general URL http://datamine.mta.info/mta_esi.php?key=GET-YOUR-OWN-KEY&feed_id=16' (api key redacted) will give you the whole NQRW line, you add a &stop_id=whatever to that and you can get the arrival times for a specific stop - interestingly a request formatted in that manner will give you ALL trains scheduled at that stop, not just on the feed you requested. E.G. that submitted to the NQRW feed at queens plaza will also show the M and the E.

Sorry if anyone is bored by this technobabble. I hope more than Bob and I find it interesting. 

 

Edited February 27, 2018 by itmaybeokay
Added info on requesting specific stop.

[P3F]

17 minutes ago, itmaybeokay said:

I'm not entirely certain how the feed is updated by the train. Presumably, it's BLE sensors near/in the stations networked by TCP/IP. 

In terms of how reroutes are handled, the feed has a route indication, but individually lists stops - each "trip" has every stop the train will arrive at defined, along with arrival and departure times. it's actually GTFS-Realtime, which is a little more of a pain in the butt to interpret because you have to run it through google's protocol buffers, but like, 5 lines of python and you're good to go. So here's something I just pulled from the NQRW feed: 

 

	trip {
	  trip_id: "125700_N..N"
	  start_date: "20180226"
	  route_id: "N"
	}
	stop_time_update {
	  arrival {
	    time: 1519702086
	  }
	  departure {
	    time: 1519702086
	  }
	  stop_id: "R01N"
	  schedule_relationship: SCHEDULED
	}

So, based on this document http://web.mta.info/developers/data/nyct/subway/Stations.csv "R01" is Astoria-Ditmars, N I assume is the railroad-Northbound direction

So the trip ID, weirdly, is encoded in "hundreths of a minute past midnight" so that train left coney island heading north at 8:57 PM. The 2056 November Stillwell then - That train would be scheduled to arrive at ditmars at 10:07, here we see an arrival time encoded as Epoch time - or seconds since Jan 1 1970 - (pretty sure you know this one Bob, but for everyone else, this sounds weird, but it's how most computers tell time) Anyway, that epoch time translates to Monday, February 26, 2018 10:28:06 PM. 21 minutes late - sounds about right. 

The schedule_relationship field seems specifically geared toward reroutes - The MTA description of it, however, doesn't make a lot of sense:

"It is our recommendation that the realtime feed train data should replace that of the static train schedule data. There will be times when a link between the schedule trip and the realtime trip may be possible but it is not an absolute. Realtime trip information will be made available approximately 30 minutes before the scheduled origin time." -_____-

Presumably an extra or a put-in would show up as "UNSCHEDULED". Likely so for reroutes. 

Anyway, the point is, while the general URL http://datamine.mta.info/mta_esi.php?key=GET-YOUR-OWN-KEY&feed_id=16' (api key redacted) will give you the whole NQRW line, you add a &stop_id=whatever to that and you can get the arrival times for a specific stop - interestingly a request formatted in that manner will give you ALL trains scheduled at that stop, not just on the feed you requested. E.G. that submitted to the NQRW feed at queens plaza will also show the M and the E.

Sorry if anyone is bored by this technobabble. I hope more than Bob and I find it interesting. 

 

Random thought: Some of the missing codes would have referred to closed stations.

S02: Dean Street

S10: Atlantic

S12: Nassau

(The bottom two were actually viewable in the SubwayTime app until late January, 2017.)

 

But then some others are missing without any discernible reason.

D36: Between Kings Hwy (D35) and Avenue U (D37)

R07: Between 36 Av (R06) and 39 Av (R08)

...and so on.

Edited February 27, 2018 by P3F

[CenSin]

19 minutes ago, P3F said:

But then some others are missing without any discernible reason.

D36: Between Kings Hwy (D35) and Avenue U (D37)

R07: Between 36 Av (R06) and 39 Av (R08)

...and so on.

For a future station?

[Lawrence St]

Not only that, I was looking at the code recently, it seems as when a train is rerouted via another line, specifially in B divison, it's coded to show up as a line that is usually always there, but use the destination sign from the rerouted train. 

[RailRunRob]

10 hours ago, itmaybeokay said:

I'm not entirely certain how the feed is updated by the train. Presumably, it's BLE sensors near/in the stations networked by TCP/IP. 

 

Here's a Diagram breakdown with ISIM/ITRAC integration with the upcoming CTBC check the data point's (Purple) this would be what's feeding their public feed. Interesting. I'm thinking about building out a quick app as a hobby. Was thinking about putting together something that can track the movement of riders in route. Think R211 mock route map with location might be a bit taxing on the ole battery (Location Services) but might be cool to try.. Test my UX/UI chops out in transport.   I Have a few documents on the ISIM software infrastructure If anyone's interested.

Edited February 27, 2018 by RailRunRob

[Around the Horn]

10 hours ago, P3F said:

Random thought: Some of the missing codes would have referred to closed stations.

S02: Dean Street

S10: Atlantic

S12: Nassau

(The bottom two were actually viewable in the SubwayTime app until late January, 2017.)

 

But then some others are missing without any discernible reason.

D36: Between Kings Hwy (D35) and Avenue U (D37)

R07: Between 36 Av (R06) and 39 Av (R08)

...and so on.

Perhaps D36 is the tower at Kings Highway? I know WMATA codes like that with each interlocking and station receiving a number but I don't think NYCT operates that way...

The Astoria line example, i have no idea...