RailRunRob Posted December 13, 2017 Share #876 Posted December 13, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, rbrome said: It may not be the be-all and end-all. But it can add not-insignificant capacity to existing lines with no other changes. It's vastly cheaper than new lines. The MTA would be crazy to not do it. It's also the current best practice and effective world standard. Fixed-block is ancient technology that will only be more difficult to maintain in the future. That's true of any fixed-block system, but much of NYC's is particularly ancient. Indeed CBTC and SSI need to happen there's no questions about that. It's just how long it's going to take? Edited December 13, 2017 by RailRunRob 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted December 13, 2017 Share #877 Posted December 13, 2017 CBTC is not THE answer. It is PART of the answer. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted December 13, 2017 Share #878 Posted December 13, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, Art Vandelay said: CBTC is not THE answer. It is PART of the answer. It's a important point to make. And the people on top need to understand that. The way they talk about moving to CBTC I feel as if they do feel it's there saving grace end all by all that and gangway cars. And even with that in 20 years, they managed to get what 2 lines upgraded? And these were the easy ones the layups. How do we get to building something new if we cant even upgrade. Man, there's no winning for transportation in the short turn. Edited December 13, 2017 by RailRunRob 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco Posted December 13, 2017 Share #879 Posted December 13, 2017 8 hours ago, RailRunRob said: It's a important point to make. And the people on top need to understand that. The way they talk about moving to CBTC I feel as if they do feel it's there saving grace end all by all that and gangway cars. And even with that in 20 years, they managed to get what 2 lines upgraded? And these were the easy ones the layups. How do we get to building something new if we cant even upgrade. Man, there's no winning for transportation in the short turn. Unfortunately, that's exactly why the extensions proposed in the '60s were either shelved or greatly scaled down. Whatever money we had that would've gone toward new lines was instead placed to repair the existing system, which was way worse than it is even now. Nowadays though, the MTA can't choose between one or the other to resolve it. What's more, even with the R211, it will still be awhile before all cars are here, and the second option isn't a guarantee either. From both an infrastructure and rolling stock perspective, things are really bad right now 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted December 16, 2017 Share #880 Posted December 16, 2017 (edited) On 12/13/2017 at 5:07 PM, Bosco said: Unfortunately, that's exactly why the extensions proposed in the '60s were either shelved or greatly scaled down. Whatever money we had that would've gone toward new lines was instead placed to repair the existing system, which was way worse than it is even now. Nowadays though, the MTA can't choose between one or the other to resolve it. What's more, even with the R211, it will still be awhile before all cars are here, and the second option isn't a guarantee either. From both an infrastructure and rolling stock perspective, things are really bad right now Right on. Ultimately we got shafted by the generations that came before and they don't have to deal with the consequences of there actions were going to have to work double time and pick up the slack. The MTA's going to have to walk and chew gum in the next 30 years. Maintenance, upgrades, and expansion are going to have to be done in parallel. Or New York going to have a major problem moving into the second half of the 21 century. Edited December 16, 2017 by RailRunRob 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted December 16, 2017 Share #881 Posted December 16, 2017 I feel like the MTA has already been “walking and chewing gum” for the past 30 years. Sixty years is a long time to be doing that, but then again given how big the system is, rehab projects that took place in the 80s are now coming due for another major rehab. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted December 16, 2017 Share #882 Posted December 16, 2017 (edited) 19 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said: I feel like the MTA has already been “walking and chewing gum” for the past 30 years. Sixty years is a long time to be doing that, but then again given how big the system is, rehab projects that took place in the 80s are now coming due for another major rehab. Indeed this is a dynamic system no doubt about it there's always going to be some section of the system that needs rehab.Three separate systems built in different periods that can't be helped. The last 30 years was digging out of the hole from the 30 before and they gained ground i'll give them that. I remember what R14 and 17's looked like in the Late 70s early 80s haha. The system is in decent shape compared to where it was. So Chewing gum maybe. Besides a few Extensions, no major bandwidth has been added to the system. Walking and chewing gum in my eyes = Maintaining the state of good repair. CTBC upgrades(Optimizing current bandwidth) and getting some Shovels in the ground(Adding bandwidth) at the same time. Over the next 30-40 years. If this isn't achievable then New York really needs to stop expanding at its current rate way too much Development going on driving the population and ridership up. This really needs to be figured out. Distribution of people in NY it's subway-based that mode of transport has always been the foundation and the DNA of modern NYC. Again New York is going to begin to struggle on the world stage in the second half Of the 21st century if this isn't figured out. Edited December 16, 2017 by RailRunRob 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGA Link N Train Posted January 7, 2018 Share #883 Posted January 7, 2018 This chat hasn't been heard from in a while. Let me guess, MTA Still didn't award the contract? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco Posted January 7, 2018 Share #884 Posted January 7, 2018 3 hours ago, LGA Link N train said: This chat hasn't been heard from in a while. Let me guess, MTA Still didn't award the contract? If a thread is dead for awhile, it implies there's no news. The award for the base contract is tentatively set for this January, which means we'll know in about two weeks time at the Board Meetings. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brillant93 Posted January 18, 2018 Share #885 Posted January 18, 2018 You have to be really misguided to think our signaling system shouldn’t be upgraded. We really on 80 year technology which right now is causing our delays more and more. Upgrading our system to the rest of the world is the answer. Now if the process of doing is a bit too long I can agree. It shouldn’t take 30 years to update signaling, at all. If other cities can do it in a short amount of time why can’t we? They are testing other systems but we know the state of our system is a result of neglect and power struggle on all fronts. We have all these workers but yet work is slow? Something isn’t right. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGA Link N Train Posted January 18, 2018 Share #886 Posted January 18, 2018 6 hours ago, Brillant93 said: You have to be really misguided to think our signaling system shouldn’t be upgraded. We really on 80 year technology which right now is causing our delays more and more. Upgrading our system to the rest of the world is the answer. Now if the process of doing is a bit too long I can agree. It shouldn’t take 30 years to update signaling, at all. If other cities can do it in a short amount of time why can’t we? They are testing other systems but we know the state of our system is a result of neglect and power struggle on all fronts. We have all these workers but yet work is slow? Something isn’t right. I didn't say that we shouldn't upgrade our signals, they Need to be upgraded. What I was trying to say is that our method of doing it and the system were using to make this upgrade is not the answer. It only increases capacity by 1, 2, maybe 3 TPH. Hopefully there's a system out there that can achieve a higher number (say 10 or 20 TPH increase) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted January 19, 2018 Share #887 Posted January 19, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, LGA Link N train said: I didn't say that we shouldn't upgrade our signals, they Need to be upgraded. What I was trying to say is that our method of doing it and the system were using to make this upgrade is not the answer. It only increases capacity by 1, 2, maybe 3 TPH. Hopefully there's a system out there that can achieve a higher number (say 10 or 20 TPH increase) Man 10-20 TPH you'd need more bandwidth for that bud!. Not going to get that atop of 19th-century design and engineering. Have to get some shovels in the ground with some new lines. I can't see more than a 25% increase 30% tops. 6-8.5 more TPH and 8 is prob super pushing it but maybe on the QBL with 179th (Shrugs). Even with ATO you'd still need adequate spacing between and the terminals would have to be upgraded as well to accommodate/turn more trains I'm sure. A 10% increase in trains (3TPH) is easily 4,000-5,000 more people moved per hour plus smoother flow overall less moving parts and maintenance. We'll take a 10%-15% increase we need it. Edited January 19, 2018 by RailRunRob 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U-BahnNYC Posted January 19, 2018 Share #888 Posted January 19, 2018 8 hours ago, LGA Link N train said: I didn't say that we shouldn't upgrade our signals, they Need to be upgraded. What I was trying to say is that our method of doing it and the system were using to make this upgrade is not the answer. It only increases capacity by 1, 2, maybe 3 TPH. Hopefully there's a system out there that can achieve a higher number (say 10 or 20 TPH increase) I don't know why we're not doing whatever London did. They have a system just as old and did something with the signaling to enable well over 30TPH on many lines (Central and Victoria come to mind). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted January 19, 2018 Share #889 Posted January 19, 2018 21 minutes ago, U-BahnNYC said: I don't know why we're not doing whatever London did. They have a system just as old and did something with the signaling to enable well over 30TPH on many lines (Central and Victoria come to mind). I was just in London. Central Line is running about 35-36 TPH. Victoria 33 TPH the Met is being updated to about 33 as well. That's about 25-30% 6-8 more than NYC's current capacity thus my earlier numbers. Not even close to 10-20 more TPH. Remember London doesn't have the same intermixing on routes just spurs plus stations on average are better spaced. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted January 19, 2018 Share #890 Posted January 19, 2018 4 hours ago, U-BahnNYC said: I don't know why we're not doing whatever London did. They have a system just as old and did something with the signaling to enable well over 30TPH on many lines (Central and Victoria come to mind). You mean, install CBTC? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted January 19, 2018 Share #891 Posted January 19, 2018 3 hours ago, RailRunRob said: I was just in London. Central Line is running about 35-36 TPH. Victoria 33 TPH the Met is being updated to about 33 as well. That's about 25-30% 6-8 more than NYC's current capacity thus my earlier numbers. Not even close to 10-20 more TPH. Remember London doesn't have the same intermixing on routes just spurs plus stations on average are better spaced. They are actually capable of squeezing out more TPH, they just don't have enough cars on hand. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted January 19, 2018 Share #892 Posted January 19, 2018 4 hours ago, RailRunRob said: Man 10-20 TPH you'd need more bandwidth for that bud!. Not going to get that atop of 19th-century design and engineering. Have to get some shovels in the ground with some new lines. I can't see more than a 25% increase 30% tops. 6-8.5 more TPH and 8 is prob super pushing it but maybe on the QBL with 179th (Shrugs). Even with ATO you'd still need adequate spacing between and the terminals would have to be upgraded as well to accommodate/turn more trains I'm sure. A 10% increase in trains (3TPH) is easily 4,000-5,000 more people moved per hour plus smoother flow overall less moving parts and maintenance. We'll take a 10%-15% increase we need it. could go from 19-26TPH with an upgraded power supply, probably all the way to the theoretical maximum of 40TPH with appropriate terminals. 90s headways are the norm in most places with CBTC. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted January 19, 2018 Share #893 Posted January 19, 2018 36 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said: could go from 19-26TPH with an upgraded power supply, probably all the way to the theoretical maximum of 40TPH with appropriate terminals. 90s headways are the norm in most places with CBTC. Isolated services like the are an exception. On most lines, services would need to share that new space with 2 to 3 others. So in reality, what LGA said isn't wrong. And even so, we're not going to start seeing the true benefits until the Manhattan trunk lines start getting upgraded. And in the case of the QBL, both 6th Avenue and 8th Avenue (which we know is next), would need to be equipped before the true benefits can be seen. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted January 19, 2018 Share #894 Posted January 19, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, bobtehpanda said: could go from 19-26TPH with an upgraded power supply, probably all the way to the theoretical maximum of 40TPH with appropriate terminals. 90s headways are the norm in most places with CBTC. Moscow is the only place I know running 40TPH headways not surprising they have a few major notches and 1st's under there belt. 42-44 TPH is possible thats the max ive seen a metro do.. The power upgrades and Terminal upgrade are a given. The interwoven routing here in NYC, as well as the type of CTBC/ATO has to be taken into consideration. With 36+ TPH, we're talking a fully automated system Paris Metro line 1/14 comes to mind. So NYC would have to go full Type 4 to approach that 40TPH mark and beyond. Second I guess thinking of London are we speaking that theoretical 40 per route or trunk service? The Central runs 36 TPH but you have different branches on either end. West Ruislip, E-Broadway ect. So where would to count that 40TPH on a 6th or 8th Line? 40 and express combined? With another 40 on the local ? Routing like the merges with the and during it's run a level of complexity I haven't seen in most other older Cities, London, Paris, Barcelona there all solo routes with possible cross-platform transfers but nothing like this. Am I missing anything? The & are low hanging fruit. Can we solve for the Majority of the system? Edited January 19, 2018 by RailRunRob 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted January 19, 2018 Share #895 Posted January 19, 2018 6 hours ago, bobtehpanda said: They are actually capable of squeezing out more TPH, they just don't have enough cars on hand. They'd have to go full Type 4 automation to hit that mark. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U-BahnNYC Posted January 19, 2018 Share #896 Posted January 19, 2018 9 hours ago, bobtehpanda said: You mean, install CBTC? Well, of course, but unless I'm missing something here, it didn't take them decades to do it. The MTA needs to start closing down lines at night if it wants to get ahead with the rest of the world in a reasonable timeframe. People in other cities fare just fine. We can too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U-BahnNYC Posted January 19, 2018 Share #897 Posted January 19, 2018 9 hours ago, bobtehpanda said: 40TPH with appropriate terminals. What would an appropriate terminal look like? I know the 8th Ave one isn't good enough, but I want to know how a high-throughput terminal might look like, and why the isn't building one for the ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted January 19, 2018 Share #898 Posted January 19, 2018 (edited) 45 minutes ago, U-BahnNYC said: What would an appropriate terminal look like? I know the 8th Ave one isn't good enough, but I want to know how a high-throughput terminal might look like, and why the isn't building one for the ? A setup like 34th street Hudson yards would do it for higher throughput. 179th as well why I mentioned it before. You'd be able to juggle 3 trains at a terminal. Station disembark > forward to pocket track> Reverse > In station for pickup. If your basing headways on a Trunkline, for example, you might count a or a together headway wise which would be the case for most of the MTA. Terminal Constraints are less of an issue the being their branches. Kinda the setup with some of the lines in London. Central In particular with 36TPH. Think of that line like the and lines here in NewYork most of the Route is shared but they don't share terminals on either end. They just have to focus on the pinch points in Central London. As for they would just extend the tracks beyond 8th ave on the Manhattan side. Don't think there's much that could be done at Canarsie so they'd prob have to short turn at Myrtle or Atlantic/Bway Jct area in IMO. Edited January 19, 2018 by RailRunRob 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbrome Posted January 19, 2018 Share #899 Posted January 19, 2018 One step closer! https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/nyregion/subway-trains-kawasaki-transportation.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysteriousBtrain Posted January 19, 2018 Share #900 Posted January 19, 2018 8 minutes ago, rbrome said: One step closer! https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/nyregion/subway-trains-kawasaki-transportation.html Meh, kind of expected. I mean who else would be set to build the R211s besides a banned company. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.