Jump to content

RPA Moving Forward Accelerating the Transition to Communications-Based Train Control for NYC


Union Tpke

Recommended Posts


I love how they make all this new technology sound so wonderful but they ignore limiting factors that have all but made it a giant waste of money to this point:

 

-That it is prone to complete failures that necessitate near entire line shutdowns periodically

-That while nominal TPH of a line might be as high as "40 TPH", terminal capacity in no way shape or form approaches that at any NYCT location. Your line capacity is only as high as your lowest capacity, in TPH, at any point along that line...unless you are using multiple north terminals, or multiple south terminals, which many lines do not.

-That ATO mode is a very jerky, uncomfortable ride.

-That money spent upgrading the signal system over the next "50 years" (we all know it will be longer) would be better spent expanding the rail rapid transit network or lengthening stations to run longer trains since it will accommodate a present need as well as a future one, AND it will not be obsolete by the time it is done (as CBTC certainly will be in 50 years).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how they make all this new technology sound so wonderful but they ignore limiting factors that have all but made it a giant waste of money to this point:

 

-That it is prone to complete failures that necessitate near entire line shutdowns periodically

-That while nominal TPH of a line might be as high as "40 TPH", terminal capacity in no way shape or form approaches that at any NYCT location. Your line capacity is only as high as your lowest capacity, in TPH, at any point along that line...unless you are using multiple north terminals, or multiple south terminals, which many lines do not.

-That ATO mode is a very jerky, uncomfortable ride.

-That money spent upgrading the signal system over the next "50 years" (we all know it will be longer) would be better spent expanding the rail rapid transit network or lengthening stations to run longer trains since it will accommodate a present need as well as a future one, AND it will not be obsolete by the time it is done (as CBTC certainly will be in 50 years).

just wanted to put it out and I agree with everything you said.

Especially the last comment.

I would always rather having C/Os and T/Os on my train!

179th has large capacity,

JC was not meant to be a terminal, which is why the switches are badly arranged. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although CBTC is a step in the right direction, it alone will not be enough to address capacity issues.

Structural changes need to be made, as the report acknowledges.

Terminals need to be improved and stations need to be configured a little better.

Take the L line, which I predict will receive even MORE ridership in the future (new construction in Williamsburg).

Why isn't there an exit on 2nd Avenue? Avenue A?

The 8th Avenue terminal isn't good enough. Tail tracks need to be built so that trains can pull into the station quicker.

Either that or a system has to be in place where you have a couple motorman that immediately pull out trains into 6th av leaving slots available for incoming trains (like the D train at Bedford Park Blvd).

I don't know what's up with timers...like on the A train at Broadway Junction. What's the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The L terminals really do need expansion. At the minimum the 8 Ave terminal needs tail tracks, and what would be really nice is making a 3-track terminal with tail tracks, with a third track at Canarsie, too.

 

As for CBTC, it does have its benefits, but it is indeed expensive and taking ages to install. As was pointed out, computer and wireless communication technology is advancing so rapidly that anything installed becomes instantly obsolete, and there's the problem of no back-up system. Now, that being said, the current 1900s signal system has its share of issues, too (and is also so obsolete it's a damn antique). It's really just a matter of picking your poison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although CBTC is a step in the right direction, it alone will not be enough to address capacity issues.

 

Structural changes need to be made, as the report acknowledges.

 

Terminals need to be improved and stations need to be configured a little better.

 

Take the L line, which I predict will receive even MORE ridership in the future (new construction in Williamsburg).

 

Why isn't there an exit on 2nd Avenue? Avenue A?

 

The 8th Avenue terminal isn't good enough. Tail tracks need to be built so that trains can pull into the station quicker.

 

Either that or a system has to be in place where you have a couple motorman that immediately pull out trains into 6th av leaving slots available for incoming trains (like the D train at Bedford Park Blvd).

 

I don't know what's up with timers...like on the A train at Broadway Junction. What's the point?

 

 

Great Post!!!! 

I love how they make all this new technology sound so wonderful but they ignore limiting factors that have all but made it a giant waste of money to this point:

 

-That it is prone to complete failures that necessitate near entire line shutdowns periodically

-That while nominal TPH of a line might be as high as "40 TPH", terminal capacity in no way shape or form approaches that at any NYCT location. Your line capacity is only as high as your lowest capacity, in TPH, at any point along that line...unless you are using multiple north terminals, or multiple south terminals, which many lines do not.

-That ATO mode is a very jerky, uncomfortable ride.

-That money spent upgrading the signal system over the next "50 years" (we all know it will be longer) would be better spent expanding the rail rapid transit network or lengthening stations to run longer trains since it will accommodate a present need as well as a future one, AND it will not be obsolete by the time it is done (as CBTC certainly will be in 50 years).

 

 

Im losing Count How many times im hearing on the radio "There is NO L service between 8th ave and Canarse due to signal problems"..

 

:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how they make all this new technology sound so wonderful but they ignore limiting factors that have all but made it a giant waste of money to this point:

 

-That it is prone to complete failures that necessitate near entire line shutdowns periodically

-That while nominal TPH of a line might be as high as "40 TPH", terminal capacity in no way shape or form approaches that at any NYCT location. Your line capacity is only as high as your lowest capacity, in TPH, at any point along that line...unless you are using multiple north terminals, or multiple south terminals, which many lines do not.

-That ATO mode is a very jerky, uncomfortable ride.

-That money spent upgrading the signal system over the next "50 years" (we all know it will be longer) would be better spent expanding the rail rapid transit network or lengthening stations to run longer trains since it will accommodate a present need as well as a future one, AND it will not be obsolete by the time it is done (as CBTC certainly will be in 50 years).

 

1. That's more a function of the MTA using the (L) as an unproven test bed and not planning adequate contingency measures.

 

2. The main use of all that TPH would be on trunk lines, which do have multiple terminals on either end.

 

3. I would take more trains over comfortable ride any day. Besides, the subway used to have significantly worse ride quality.

 

4. Expansion is great and all, but expansion is of no use when the core itself is congested (and the amount of money being spent on three new stations on the Upper East Side is five times more expensive than the Queens Blvd CBTC). CBTC is just being used as the replacement for the current signals as they come of age, and the current signal replacement cycle is way behind schedule - it's money that would have to be spent anyways.

 

That being said, the RPA report is very misleading, since CBTC has never been installed on complex main lines with multiple services merging into and out of CBTC territory. Even the MTA's current projections are very optimistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

The reason why the (L) train pulls in to the 8th Avenue Station slow because of safety issues and to prevent from collision to the bumper like the CBTC / ATO incident from April 2004 when the CBTC / ATO caused the R143 to overshoot the bumper at 8th Avenue Terminal causing a collision with the wall and even with that third track as previous comments said, the (L) still has to pull in very slow but there will be at least an empty / unoccupied space for the next (L) to pull in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why the (L) train pulls in to the 8th Avenue Station slow because of safety issues and to prevent from collision to the bumper like the CBTC / ATO incident from April 2004 when the CBTC / ATO caused the R143 to overshoot the bumper at 8th Avenue Terminal causing a collision with the wall and even with that third track as previous comments said, the (L) still has to pull in very slow but there will be at least an empty / unoccupied space for the next (L) to pull in.

The L line still used the regular signalling system in 2004 so CBTC didn't cause that accident, 42s was still running on the L in 2004.

 

And they come into Rockaway Parkway at normal speed in ATO, well at least one of the pocket tracks it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.