Jump to content

MTA board member slams the agency for misleading New Yorkers about delays in subway service


Via Garibaldi 8

Recommended Posts

If they need capacity on the eastern side (assuming Myrtle is inconvenient because fumigation is needed), they can rehab the still-existing center platform at Atlantic Avenue.

 

On the western side, the best use of time would be to add tail tracks to 8 Avenue during the 14 Street Tunnel shutdown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Glad to see I'm not the only one that sees through the CBTC bullshit.

 

 

Well the tech fanboys are all idiots anyway. Screw 'em. I bet none of them would even know how to repair a car from before 1990 (it's a good skill to have.

 

Arguments aren't won with insults. Try again.

 

Dude, he works for the TA; he knows inherently more about how transit systems work than you ever will.

 

And who ever said I don't...

The TWU would disagree with you on that. And if passengers were going to be told that their trains are to be operated by robots, there would be an uproar. Computers will never replace the safety of human operation. Rail accidents would be an order of magnitude more catastrophic if we left it up to computers.

And I'm glad they will, because that means they're doing their job. Humans always have and always will be the weak link in any system. Looking at aircraft -- things that make the subway look like a child's toy -- very few -- if any -- crashes have ever been caused by automation. Almost all stem from human error. Computers would make things safer and more efficient. Again, its and inconvenient truth I know, but you've got to see it. You can't fight progress, you'll always lose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They already do all of that.

 

Oh. Noted. 

 

 

 

Anyway - really passionate positions pro and con CBTC here. 

 

I do agree that more trunk lines would be the best case, future proof, what-we-need solution. 

 

But I also think there's a place for CBTC. 

 

It shouldn't be looked at as the end-all-be-all solution to all of the problems. 

 

It will add capacity on the existing trunks. However, as long as the trains are carrying human passengers, there will be delays such as the dreaded "sick passenger". 

 

With more trains on the trunk thanks to CBTC, the "clog" can be worse than with less trains. 

 

That said - theoretically CBTC allows a human dispatcher a more precise top-down-view of the trains in their territory, and allows centralized control of the entire line which is likely better than the smattering of local and master towers the b-div currently has. 

 

It won't take away the need for more trunk lines - but I think, if done right (IF) it could help make the most out of the ones we have. 

 

Even though we should have more trunks - I just have a bad feeling it won't happen in my lifetime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now it's clear: We need more trunk lines rather than CBTC. As much as I agree, do we really see the TA looking to build more lines? Looking how little the expansion has been within the last half century just like you pointed out.

 

 

The new trunk line, for now, is the Second Avenue Subway. Given that the MTA had trouble finding money for the current Capital plan, even with only a three stop subway expansion, either the MTA needs to be better at convincing people to give it money (through fares, state and city money, etc.), or the MTA needs to reduce costs, for there to be any further, substantial increase in the speed of expansion.

 

The MTA does not fund these projects. The MTA only requests them on its capital plan and the money must be appropriated to study it. Politicians have the final say on all these matters, which is why they don't happen.

 

The MTA can't simply act without the approval of city and state government, even if it were somehow able to fully fund system expansion.

 

The only reason you had good expansion of the system in the first 40 years of this century was people saw the realities of 1880-1890's Manhattan and realized the realities of it. The choice for construction of elevateds was the first offshoot of all that, (grade separated right of way, unlike trolleys/streetcars) and it continued, but the propensity of snowstorms to cripple el service was what eventually made subways the better solution. Almost of the el components of the subway today were legacy elements incorporated into the system for convenience since they were already there. By the time the IND showed up, you really didn't see much el construction.

 

Subways are the best solution because they do not add to street traffic, are much more reliable than other forms of transportation in all weather, and are faster and have a higher passenger capacity than any other form of transportation. It also uses less energy per passenger than any other powered form of transportation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, don't know where to begin with this, but apparently I'm replying to a teen judging by the response. Here goes:

 

 

OK, I'll do this paragraph by paragraph

 

Many. Ex: Shanghai, Tokyo, Beijing, Hong Kong... And all of said systems have interlining. So you're wrong. 

 

OK, great, you pinpointed one part of my argument. What about the rest? What about the ridership, the # of trips, the level of interlining (which is different than the fact there just "is" interlining)? What about the inability to close lines long term for major projects?

 

Ummmm have you ever read the NYC subway? Ever heard the conductor announce that due to signal problems, the train is going OOS or will just sit and sit and sit....? Computer systems rely on just a few number of parts, connected wirelessly or with fibre optics, removing one of the most common points of failure in our current system. The problem with the way that CBTC was done in NYC was that the MTA (at the request of the unions) decided to integrate it with block signals, creating a technological mess and significantly increasing costs/maintenance. 

 

Oh, even better. A tech fanboy that wants to blame the unions for everything. You have no clue what you are talking about. Have I ever read a book about the subway??? This is your criteria for knowledge of the system??? No, I just get paid to deal with it everyday. I've heard secondhand reports of regret by one of the people who was responsible for getting CBTC into NYCT in the first place (who is now happily retired). I've seen and am trained in operational procedures related to these systems, and I spend more time on the trains than just about anyone on this forum so no one is more aware of the causes, duration, and outcome of delays than me on this forum. The reason the MTA kept fixed block signals in place on Canarsie was work trains and other non-revenue moves. WOW! This is great! New CBTC! Extra 2 trains per hour, except now all the platforms are overfilling with trash because the garbage train isn't CBTC ready and so doing pickups would necessitate the operation of an absolute block between signals. Or, let's let the R32 and R42 trains still on the J get filthy and look like some of the trains from the 60s and 70s, since they're not CBTC equipped and therefore can't wash in Canarsie Yard.

 

This is what I meant by interlining, not just like most other cities do it where rolling stock can just "toggle" between two modes of operation easily. CBTC requires all sorts of equipment older trains aren't equipped with to run. Cab signalling has been around for decades, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the super hi-tech stuff that is being pushed by politicians. Full on ATO, etc.

 

Wireless connections are not that reliable. Zone controllers fail just like track circuits and relays do.

 

Your next point again has to do with the way the MTA is doing this. If they got their sorry acts together, and decided to just do it instead of catering to their contractor friends with thousands of contractors doing the work of 1, you wouldn't have the problem you described.

 

Yeah, like if they didn't have those pesky laws that require them to take the lowest bidder. Totally the MTA's fault, and not the politicians that often allow one firm to design a capital project, then another to bid on the work, with no accountability when the project goes over budget and the 2nd contractor can simply demand the amount of the overrun. The MTA should totally, like, make a law, about not doing that and stuff...cuz that's what the MTA does, right? Or maybe the MTA could just make a bunch of money on the stock market and pay for it all themselves!

 

Posts like these indicate the majority of "railfans" have no idea how finances work, let alone how finances at the MTA work.

 

Yes. I agree that new corridors are necessary, but updating of existing ones is also needed. New shiny things are nice, but if all the old stuff doesn't work well, and is in fact using technologies that are *so* outdated that they have to be fabricated specially for the subway, then its time to do some SGR work. 

 

OK, first logical thing you've said all day. Updating existing corridors = expensive, service disrupting congestion.

 

I'll Take Solutions For the Future for $500

A: This alleviates the impact of that?

Q: What is...Building a redundant corridor first to minimize the effect of construction, Alex?

 

AND THAT MY FRIEND IS THE DAILY DOUBLE!!!

 

Right now we need major upgrades to the NYC subway to make up for the fact that next to nothing has been done for SIXTY YEARS! When the hard work is done, then we can talk about retrofitting existing corridors. Cab signalling actually makes a lot of improvements CBTC makes but without the over-reliance on software and computers present in most post 1990s systems. That's something that should be considered in the future. But if you've ever ridden a train operated in ATO, you know as well as I do, that no computer can operate a train as well as a SKILLED HUMAN. The computer ride is rougher, the train jerks around curves, up and down grades, and doesn't make good stops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy...

 

 

And part two!

 

I'll skip the ad hominem stuff, and go to the meat. 

 

The reaction time matters when it comes to automation, which I will speak to below. 

I am not a T/O, and I have never operated a train, so I can't speak directly to what you're complaining about, but that sounds like a UI/system design problem. Again, MTA's fault, not CBTC's. 

 

I'm not complaining about anything. You're talking about how much better a computer is at reacting to changing conditions. I'm saying if a human reacts slowly (1 second delay from the computer, which is actually quite slow since human reactions are generally far faster) it means a difference of 60 feet at 40 MPH. That's not so much. And the cases where that actually matters, CBTC is incapable of reacting anyway (person on the tracks, debris on the tracks, etc.) A CBTC train in full ATO will barrel into all of those things at the full 40 MPH!

 

One thing that ranters don't seem to understand: once CBTC is installed, T/Os, conductors, etc will not be needed. We have seen both in NYC and elsewhere that OPTO at the very least is easy -- except for the part where we have to negotiate with the unions. Fully automated systems are popping up all over the place -- in cities with crowding mind you -- so with a bit of courage, the MTA could eliminate all train crews after they install CBTC (and yes, I know I'm making myself VERY unpopular here by saying that).

 

Keep crying about the unions, though. Your tears are delicious. Just because I can make a decent life providing for my family while you are out here getting a degree in something you hope will pay your student loans back someday is no cause for alarm, however. You know what is cause for alarm? 2000 passengers stuck in a tunnel in the dark while smoke fills it, talking over an intercom to the Control Center trying to breathe, while they are promisd that the Fire Department is on their way. Another 500 passengers stuck in on the Rockaway flats with no power or heat in the middle of a snowstorm on a fully automated train, with no crew, and no one that knows what to do. Imagine the lawsuits when people decide to try to climb off these trains and are crushed as the train suddenly and unexpectedly moves, or as they contact the electrified third rail, or as they fall through the gaps in the ties getting off a train stuck on the Manhattan bridge. Imagine the lawsuit from a victim of a 12-9 when they learn an automated train struck their loved one, and that the first responders were distracted from attending to the injured customer because they also had to evacuate 1500 people off a crowded train during the rush hour, or when they learn that the train couldn't sense the person on the tracks without a person keeping an eye out, and so it didn't begin emergency braking until the person's severed arm just happened to come into contact with the stop arm underneath the third car after the train had barrelled into them at 40 MPH.

 

Perhaps MORE technology is the answer, and we can at least prevent that last one by putting in alarms passengers can hit to stop the next train when someone falls. I'm sure the wonderfully well behaved schoolkids of NYC won't abuse that one. Or perhaps sensors could detect when someone falls, and trust that this highly intelligent technology that needs to be maintained constantly will know a person fell, and not a jelly donut. Or we could do the alltime best - PLATFORM SCREEN DOORS - at full cost to the riding public, so that by that point I can sit happily retired in my rocking chair cackling away at the reports of automatic trains overrunning the screen door so it won't open (ATO trains aren't perfect!), or seeing them malfunction as frequently as the gap fillers at Union Square and South Ferry (which still do malfunction, probably more than the average signal.

 

So once you've done the above, you have a bunch of cash that you can now use. Put it to work! Build all those fantasy lines that you want.

 

Sure. You completely get rid of about 6500 Train Operators and Conductors, which means if each makes 100K a year (extremely generous by the way, the average is around 65-70 for conductors, and 80 for T/Os) you will save 650 million dollars extra a year. Maybe if you put that in a savings account, in 20 years you might be able to fund Phase 2 of Second Avenue! At this rate, it will take another 200 years to get the subway up to a standard that will be acceptable right now, in 2017. And never mind all the money you'll be paying out in lawsuits now!

 

This is the 21st century. Time to get with it, MTA.

 

<<Dramatic Conclusion>>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I agree with everything you said especially expansion I can't tell you many times in discussions especially on the Second Avenue I just couldn't figure out where the extra bandwidth was coming from I tried despite knowing the Math didn't add up. So expansion would indeed render the need for ATO most cases unnecessary thank you I know I'm not crazy.  Now I respect your knowledge and experience with the MTA you're at the pinnacle of your field. A degree in Civil Engineering and internship turned 6-month job at Kawasaki isn't going to trump 20 years experience. I Don't think anyone can deny that I can't you got me there. But with that out of the way, one thing I am qualified to speak on is software and technology What I'm about to say I mean with the utmost respect and I had to learn this myself as a Gen Xer when it comes to Technology and to lesser extent Millennial's there's no winning that war. It's best to embrace and guide em or bring experience to the table. All the twentysomething interns that we have walked through our doors. Entitled overconfident and over complicated used to piss me off to no end. Turns out most just need a little guidance. We know our time is always limited better to have an imprint on the replacement IMO. To your points on ATO/CBTC, everything you said was correct from the current MTA perspective. But I come bearing info and gems from the outside world. Some of the CTBC computers and software are what circa 1999-2004? Updates both hardware and software okay but still limited to the infrastructure of that time. Might as well be 1945 most of the issues you spoke of are well within reach with hierarchical learning systems which have improved leaps and bounds in the last 2-3 years. I visited Uber 4-5 months ago they had dedicated department of data scientists and all working on eliminating latency and algorithmic efficiency this kinda SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) could be flip and used for Rail operations none of this was around in 2010 let alone 2004 or 1999 plus cloud computing for  processing larger datasets, integration, and interoperability and speeder updates. Fred Flinstone designed what the MTA's has now. The point is I wouldn't bet on black (Human Jobs) the MTA could hold out 30 years But the world would upgrade there systems around it electrical grids, Traffic (possibly autonomous) Water, just to name a few it's going to happen Inevitability you and I will more than likely be out of the way I mean after all we all have our time. I'd much rather at least have my input and have a shot a shaping what's to come. I hear a few folks here and it a lot like fear and fear is a major point of weakness. Some of these tech fanboys might go on to be the one to build something major teach em don't bash em. All this information about what trains? What are you going to do with it pass it on.. Just a little food for thought. 

 

I have never argued against all technology. There are cases where it actually does make sense. But these are selected circumstances where technology that meets the reliability test of its intended environment meets with institution specific knowledge of methods of doing things and come together to formulate a solution that incorporates that technology while being consistent with the methods, policies, and procedures of the target agency.

 

I am not saying CBTC is a dumb system and should be scrapped worldwide. I'm saying it's wrong for New York, right now. New York doesn't need 2 trains per hour on every line. New York needs a 2 million riders a day increase in system capacity without adding trains to existing lines.

 

I have trouble with the tech fanboys as a group because they are young, dumb, inexperienced, and think they know everything. They don't listen and are unwilling to learn. Ultimately, reality hits them when they get their first job and they realize they don't get to call shots, or when they actually study their first real world scenario and realize after a few meeting "oh, shit, this is really complicated."

 

If automating is pursued "above all else" it will make the system unusable. Imagine a system as unsafe as India, with that level of crowding, without a single human in sight. That's a nightmare. And that's where we're heading if automation is the only endgame.

 

I also recognize the reality of building out all these corridors, and that's why all of my political posts have also mentioned downzoning, ending developer tax breaks for large luxury buildings (or requiring infrastructure improvement dollars for the smaller amount that get greenlit in the future), and other measures to keep housing more affordable in general. A two or three pronged approach is the only way this gets done. Otherwise, it will just get worse, and get ready for a much larger scale version of 1902 downtown Manhattan, in all four transited boroughs.

 

There are a lot of really screwed up things in this city, state, and country right now, and people are arguing over stupid things while the real issues persist. Think of it like the planet. Everyone worries about global warming, but no one talks about how the sun will become a red giant and swallow the planet whole in a fiery death for all on it because it's well beyond our lifetimes. Well this is how politicians think about the transit system as it relates to the election cycle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh. Noted. 

 

 

 

Anyway - really passionate positions pro and con CBTC here. 

 

I do agree that more trunk lines would be the best case, future proof, what-we-need solution. 

 

But I also think there's a place for CBTC. 

 

It shouldn't be looked at as the end-all-be-all solution to all of the problems. 

 

It will add capacity on the existing trunks. However, as long as the trains are carrying human passengers, there will be delays such as the dreaded "sick passenger". 

 

With more trains on the trunk thanks to CBTC, the "clog" can be worse than with less trains. 

 

That said - theoretically CBTC allows a human dispatcher a more precise top-down-view of the trains in their territory, and allows centralized control of the entire line which is likely better than the smattering of local and master towers the b-div currently has. 

 

It won't take away the need for more trunk lines - but I think, if done right (IF) it could help make the most out of the ones we have. 

 

Even though we should have more trunks - I just have a bad feeling it won't happen in my lifetime. 

 

ATS (in the IRT) already does that. A console dispatcher can see everything. A precise top down view is a perfect example of good technology in action. But it's not perfect.

 

When local towers controlled the entire system, every tower operator and dispatcher was intimately familiar with the moves in their territory, the impacts on service, and what turning or rerouting a crew or train would do to service down the road.

 

While giving a console dispatcher that authority over a much larger area could theoretically be the same, it requires extensively more knowledge of the entire system as a whole. Now instead of worrying about 5 stations, you're worrying about 80. Instead of worrying about 2 or 3 lines of service, you're worried about 6. And you have to communicate with everyone.

 

Imagine a 12-9 at Grand Central on the southbound 5. That will knock out both express tracks in both direction. So a single dispatcher will have to hold and reroute all service up the local tracks. Suppose you're lucky enough to have use of all the switches (say the 12-9 occurred as the train was leaving the station). Now you have to reroute all southbound expresses down the local north of 42. Northbound, you may have 3 express trains caught between 14th and 42nd, those trains are stuck between stations. Immediately, you have to take the train in the station at 14th St. out of service (and don't let it leave, or it'll be FOUR stuck trains!) because it's committed to a blocked route, and you can get those people off that train. The following northbound express train (and all behind it) can be sent up the local track from south of 14th to north of 42nd Street to run around. All of these trains will be calling you, let alone the 6's that are being delayed by making all these moves. You still have to get the people off the 3 stuck express trains between 14 and 42. You also are going to have a bunch more trains backing up into the Bronx and Brooklyn unless you start turning service, so even though your incident is at 42nd Street, you have to keep an eye on places you can turn trains back for service like Brooklyn Bridge, or 149th Street/Concourse (and you'll probably also want to start sending the 5 trains over the west side in both directions, too). Meanwhile, while all of this is going on, you also have to keep in contact with the crew that has the 12-9, instruct them on how to proceed, talk a possibly traumatized employee through investigating it and keep them sane/safe/not panicking until police, EMS, fire, and supervision arrive to help out. You must continue to communicate with them to get updates on the situation as the various other city agencies respond...also being mindful that the most important thing in this entire process hasn't even been mentioned yet, and that's if the struck customer is alive, getting them help immediately so that they survive

 

This is reality, although slightly altered because in real life there is more than 1 console dispatcher. But NYCT is not a model train simulator where you can just throw switches and everything is fine. Centralized control works to see the whole picture, but the reality of running over capacity is that delays can quickly get out of control, especially when you reduce the number of people tasked with handling them. Again, more corridors provide travel alternatives which reduce the need for such extreme levels of service, and also direct passengers away from affected train routes to minimize other delays and other safety hazards. Crowding levels at platforms must be monitored during extreme delays. Now imagine trying to do all of that with computer inputs and software instead, and no train crews. During extreme delays, train crews can provide personalized information for the passengers that helps explain delays, within the guidelines we have to make. It helps passengers to tell them the reason the train is being held is an incident at XX and we can't leave the station because there is another train holding at YY, directly in front of us. Without crews, you lose all that, and you'll have a mutiny of people pushing the panic button (literally) with the passenger emergency intercoms (which at that point would presumably communicate with the overwhelmed control center dispatcher) or station intecomes (which might communicate with a less informed station agent, assuming that title still exists in this fantasy world).

 

These are the real operating constraints under which a system must pass muster, not the ideal world of "good service - no delays"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never argued against all technology. There are cases where it actually does make sense. But these are selected circumstances where technology that meets the reliability test of its intended environment meets with institution specific knowledge of methods of doing things and come together to formulate a solution that incorporates that technology while being consistent with the methods, policies, and procedures of the target agency.

 

I am not saying CBTC is a dumb system and should be scrapped worldwide. I'm saying it's wrong for New York, right now. New York doesn't need 2 trains per hour on every line. New York needs a 2 million riders a day increase in system capacity without adding trains to existing lines.

 

I have trouble with the tech fanboys as a group because they are young, dumb, inexperienced, and think they know everything. They don't listen and are unwilling to learn. Ultimately, reality hits them when they get their first job and they realize they don't get to call shots, or when they actually study their first real world scenario and realize after a few meeting "oh, shit, this is really complicated."

 

If automating is pursued "above all else" it will make the system unusable. Imagine a system as unsafe as India, with that level of crowding, without a single human in sight. That's a nightmare. And that's where we're heading if automation is the only endgame.

 

I also recognize the reality of building out all these corridors, and that's why all of my political posts have also mentioned downzoning, ending developer tax breaks for large luxury buildings (or requiring infrastructure improvement dollars for the smaller amount that get greenlit in the future), and other measures to keep housing more affordable in general. A two or three pronged approach is the only way this gets done. Otherwise, it will just get worse, and get ready for a much larger scale version of 1902 downtown Manhattan, in all four transited boroughs.

 

There are a lot of really screwed up things in this city, state, and country right now, and people are arguing over stupid things while the real issues persist. Think of it like the planet. Everyone worries about global warming, but no one talks about how the sun will become a red giant and swallow the planet whole in a fiery death for all on it because it's well beyond our lifetimes. Well this is how politicians think about the transit system as it relates to the election cycle.

Can't argue with you on this one friend. Very valid points MTA could use someone with your talents on Madison honestly you have a unique multifaceted/hybrid point of view rare thing nowadays. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK This is the last time I'll post about CBTC; it's not worth polluting the forum with our back and forth. I don't want to quote everything just for space reasons, but I'll lay out some general points. 

 

You seem to have this overarching impression that I'm some toddler with a subway map. While you present an endearing image, I'm not. I work for the MTA too. 

 

You ask for ridership, ability to close lines, etc. FWIW, 3 of the 4 metro systems I named have more than double the ridership of NY's, have trains that operate on significantly lower headways, and somehow manage to do this all while interlining. I can't claim to have an in-depth knowledge of those system's service, track or mx structures, but their maps all show shared trackage on multiple lines. If someone here can elaborate, please do!

 

For all your bluster, you seem to consistently ignore the fact that the unions were actually responsible for many of the problems with CBTC. In general, I love the union, but I think that in the course of doing its job, it ends up hindering development. As for non-rev and garbage moves, I still can't understand why the MTA didn't bother installing CBTC on some work engines that work out of ENY and thereby save on constructing/maintaining a block system along with CBTC. It would have been a lot cheaper. 

 

As for my point about contractors, I mean that the MTA parcels out work to multiple bidders instead of just having one deal with all. I realise I phrased that terribly, so mea culpa. 

 

I wholeheartedly agree with you on the comfort of ATO operation, and the need for more capex, but as for the former, technology will get better, and for the latter, well.... it's another story. 

 

PART 2

 

 

So for the person-on-the tracks scenario (and someone plz correct me if I'm mistaken here), stations could be equipped with a sort of detection device that looks for disturbances on the track and triggers brake applications if needed. (I learned about this a few months ago from https://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/feature/2012/infrastructure-cities/mobility-logistics/2012-04-metro-paris/factsheet-how-does-a-driverless-metro-work-en.pdf) Your point on reliability is all well and good, but as of now I can place some opportune paper clips and short out the blocks, bringing a line to its knees. At least the problem can be fixed in the CBTC case with (god forbid!) better technology. I understand (and agree with) your concerns about technological reliability, but you must realise that its getting better. They do something in Silicon Valley, you know. 

 

Again, you bash me for not agreeing with unions. Well, unless you're living in the world of alt-facts, the TWU was the one who stopped the implementation of OPTO, so I don't really know what to say in response.

 

As for your doomsday scenarios, I really can't see how T/Os could help here either. Assuming the train has been stopped by the fire, it really is inconsequential whether there is someone on board or not; the train can't run. And for your rockaway flats thingy, well, trains have doors for a reason..... Conductors help keep passengers informed, but there are things called radios and telephones that could allow a remote conductor to keep people in the loop. And before you point out (correctly) that that's all moot because there is no power, there are things called batteries too...

 

Finally, I did my math wrong on TO and conductor elimination. You're right. No way its funding jack s***. But, on the bright side, 650,000,000 in savings (your math, not mine!) could be used to, you know, fill holes in the budget. Sure, its not a be all end all solution, but it's not nothing either. 

 

I've enjoyed this back and forth, and despite your dismal caricature of me, I actually learned something from it. Thank you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subways are the best solution because they do not add to street traffic, are much more reliable than other forms of transportation in all weather, and are faster and have a higher passenger capacity than any other form of transportation. It also uses less energy per passenger than any other powered form of transportation.

 

And I'm not saying they're not. We really should be doing an all-of-the-above thing to solve it, since new trunk lines can't come online fast enough; small switch reconfigurations and tail track expansions to boost capacity, junction reconfigurations, new trunk lines, the open gangway cars. Every little bit helps; individually some of these may be a 5% boost, but add up a lot of 5% boosts and you get something more substantial.

 

It should be noted that if New York spent the money on SAS Phase I as effectively as, say, Los Angeles, Phase II would also be done by now. If New York spent the money as effectively as the Netherlands, which has the most expensive non-Anglophone subway projects, we'd have finished the entire SAS. If New York spent the money as effectively as the Spaniards, who aren't exactly known for friendly labor regulations or high work productivity, then we would have built the entire Program for Action from 1968. Politicians have to find the money, but reducing costs also makes finding the money that much easier - after all, what could you do with $6B for public housing, road maintenance, subway station rehabs, public health, safety, etc., if you didn't spend it on Phase II?

 

Note that I am not arguing that we should actually redirect money around like that, but politicians and such do have to consider opportunity costs when it comes to working with a limited budget. The last time they didn't, Gerald Ford told the city to drop dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'm not saying they're not. We really should be doing an all-of-the-above thing to solve it, since new trunk lines can't come online fast enough; small switch reconfigurations and tail track expansions to boost capacity, junction reconfigurations, new trunk lines, the open gangway cars. Every little bit helps; individually some of these may be a 5% boost, but add up a lot of 5% boosts and you get something more substantial.

 

It should be noted that if New York spent the money on SAS Phase I as effectively as, say, Los Angeles, Phase II would also be done by now. If New York spent the money as effectively as the Netherlands, which has the most expensive non-Anglophone subway projects, we'd have finished the entire SAS. If New York spent the money as effectively as the Spaniards, who aren't exactly known for friendly labor regulations or high work productivity, then we would have built the entire Program for Action from 1968. Politicians have to find the money, but reducing costs also makes finding the money that much easier - after all, what could you do with $6B for public housing, road maintenance, subway station rehabs, public health, safety, etc., if you didn't spend it on Phase II?

 

Note that I am not arguing that we should actually redirect money around like that, but politicians and such do have to consider opportunity costs when it comes to working with a limited budget. The last time they didn't, Gerald Ford told the city to drop dead.

 

To add on to your point, if New York was as effective as London, we'd have East Side Access by now. They are poised to have completed Crossrail in half the time ESA is expected to take.

 

They are even building a Northern Line extension comparable in length to the SAS Phase 1. The TBM's are being installed this week, with the whole thing open by 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK This is the last time I'll post about CBTC; it's not worth polluting the forum with our back and forth. I don't want to quote everything just for space reasons, but I'll lay out some general points. 

 

You seem to have this overarching impression that I'm some toddler with a subway map. While you present an endearing image, I'm not. I work for the MTA too. 

 

You ask for ridership, ability to close lines, etc. FWIW, 3 of the 4 metro systems I named have more than double the ridership of NY's, have trains that operate on significantly lower headways, and somehow manage to do this all while interlining. I can't claim to have an in-depth knowledge of those system's service, track or mx structures, but their maps all show shared trackage on multiple lines. If someone here can elaborate, please do!

 

For all your bluster, you seem to consistently ignore the fact that the unions were actually responsible for many of the problems with CBTC. In general, I love the union, but I think that in the course of doing its job, it ends up hindering development. As for non-rev and garbage moves, I still can't understand why the MTA didn't bother installing CBTC on some work engines that work out of ENY and thereby save on constructing/maintaining a block system along with CBTC. It would have been a lot cheaper. 

 

As for my point about contractors, I mean that the MTA parcels out work to multiple bidders instead of just having one deal with all. I realise I phrased that terribly, so mea culpa. 

 

I wholeheartedly agree with you on the comfort of ATO operation, and the need for more capex, but as for the former, technology will get better, and for the latter, well.... it's another story. 

 

PART 2

 

 

So for the person-on-the tracks scenario (and someone plz correct me if I'm mistaken here), stations could be equipped with a sort of detection device that looks for disturbances on the track and triggers brake applications if needed. (I learned about this a few months ago from https://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/feature/2012/infrastructure-cities/mobility-logistics/2012-04-metro-paris/factsheet-how-does-a-driverless-metro-work-en.pdf) Your point on reliability is all well and good, but as of now I can place some opportune paper clips and short out the blocks, bringing a line to its knees. At least the problem can be fixed in the CBTC case with (god forbid!) better technology. I understand (and agree with) your concerns about technological reliability, but you must realise that its getting better. They do something in Silicon Valley, you know. 

 

Again, you bash me for not agreeing with unions. Well, unless you're living in the world of alt-facts, the TWU was the one who stopped the implementation of OPTO, so I don't really know what to say in response.

 

As for your doomsday scenarios, I really can't see how T/Os could help here either. Assuming the train has been stopped by the fire, it really is inconsequential whether there is someone on board or not; the train can't run. And for your rockaway flats thingy, well, trains have doors for a reason..... Conductors help keep passengers informed, but there are things called radios and telephones that could allow a remote conductor to keep people in the loop. And before you point out (correctly) that that's all moot because there is no power, there are things called batteries too...

 

Finally, I did my math wrong on TO and conductor elimination. You're right. No way its funding jack s***. But, on the bright side, 650,000,000 in savings (your math, not mine!) could be used to, you know, fill holes in the budget. Sure, its not a be all end all solution, but it's not nothing either. 

 

I've enjoyed this back and forth, and despite your dismal caricature of me, I actually learned something from it. Thank you. 

Man, this is a great discussion I can see both sides of this coin. I don't think either is wrong this a more of a point of view and perception. I wouldn't worry too much about toddler thing I had the same view and they did of me when I started posted some years back. When you're used to 15-year-olds posting incomplete ideas I mean they are 15, after all, it's hard to break that pattern when you get adults in the room. Now I don't have any background with the MTA besides a year working CAD design for Kawasaki so this is coming from the outside.  Now your point's with ATO valid it's all going that way software is advancing hardware as well and AI I'm in the Software Development/Engineering game 15 years in. I see it when I visit Google, Uber, ect no stopping what's coming. But I also understand the POV of understanding the system. The what and why is very important. Better planning for rollout and understanding of what makes new York subway system unique and those unique problems. So I get that and from inside I could see how folks inside the MTA could see this negatively if it's 10 years in and the new system seems/or is less efficient than what was in place before that's where it seems it's coming from IMO. So it's not the technology more of the implementation I can build the system but if the rollout isn't right shurgs. It's funny this is something I talk about with my team alot, especially Coding and Building software vs UI and UX,  understanding the user and why your building what your building I see parallels here which is why I can relate to Subway Guy as well. A car with all the Horsepower and no handling as I tell them. Your the Horsepower and SG is the handling both are very necessary. The traditional planning and engineering part's building new trunk lines for bandwidth go's hand and with using a properly implemented CTBC system to get the most of existing lines.  Your also right about other cities and CTBC but the one thing I'd also have to factor in is some other systems are quite newer in some cases (date built). There are some older systems as well but for the most part there coming online phase by phase. When I was at Kawasaki I remember  London was upgrading and Paris as well line by line. So with NYC having a bit more of an integrated system with Express and Local services and interlockings might have to take that into consideration.  Seoul and Tokyo might have the most done as far as ATO.   I don't really have any comment about the union thing I don't really know enough about it to make an assessment.  Blend both pov's overall and you have great plan to move forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just let me say that I'm in agreement with SubwayGuy, for obvious reasons, but especially for his stance about "tech" vs the human factor. I was going to post about some of the problems the seeming overreliance on tech in the subway system from my personal experience and perspective. Working on the IRT the only thing resembling "tech" was the NTT R142/ 142A fleet and the ATS system that was installed as an overlay on the signal system. I'll take this in order. Many of you railfans and all of us in RTO are familiar with the SRS, or Sperry Car. The unit assigned to NYCT is almost always on the premises checking for rail problems in both divisions. It's generally operated after the PM rush on a specific corridor each day. When it checked the Lexington corridor s/b from 125th St it used to originate from Mosholu/Concourse yards following a s/b (4) train. Coming south from Dyre or East 180th Street I could hear the radio transmission that the train was on the move and I'd file that info away. I never took into account that the (4) train scheduled to follow the Sperry car was also aware of the car's location. At first every time I'd get to 149th-GC I'd be  held so I could follow my leader but then they would put me ahead of the (4) train I was scheduled to follow. I didn't care because I was going home. I soon found out why this was happening. One night the (4) line Supt., who used to be a TSS on the (5), got on my train at 149th St. A TSS boarded my train at 125th St and we proceeded south to GC. 3 experienced people in the cab of a NTT. At GC I told either gentleman that they could take over operation of the train to the Bridge. The TSS took the bait and at 14th St-Union Square the TSS with his Supt. and me in the cab blew the gap fillers by over 2 feet. I already knew what was going to happen but the TSS was a big proponent of the NTT over the older SMEE equipment so I was extremely happy to stick the knife in his back and twist it. Because of the braking system of the old vs the new equipment the NTT always had a problem with sleet or mist and the Sperry cart sprays a mist on the rails when it's testing. The ATS system was touted as a way to give console dispatchers more control over trains in the IRT. In my personal experience it worked well during the non-rush hours. That's the only good thing I'll say about it. Maybe it's working better now than when I retired. Example. I leave Dyre Avenue on time. I'm in contact with RCC on the radio at Baychester, Morris Park, Tremont Avenue, Simpson St, Jackson Avenue and 149th St-3rd Avenue. I'm on time at each point, validated by RCC and the T/D, Tw/O, and Supt. at Grand Concourse. Leave the station and enter the loop s/b and wait....and wait... while the new tech ATS system gives my follower, the (4) lineup into and out of Grand Concourse while my train sits still. Every day I'm 4-5 minutes late at 125th St and 8 minutes late at Bowling Green. Five days a week. the only time I'm on schedule is when the ATS system is turned off at Grand Concourse. Lest I forget the mighty ATS system would occasionally identify me as a (4) train to Utica instead of a (5) to the "Bush which only added to the delay. The solution was to, once again, turn the system off and allow the local Tw/o to give me the proper lineup because doing it from RCC through the ATS console was too time consuming. As SubwayGuy mentioned there were many supervisors who warned of the problems with installing the ATS system. Most of them retired or found other positions in NYCT. The pom-pom cheerleaders who remained are not respected by any knowledgeable people. The problem with ATS in the IRT arises when one tries to graft new tech on the back of something that wasn't designed for it. I'm guessing that it's performing better now than it did back in 2010. The CBTC idea, excluding the (L) and (7) implementations would seem to be the time it it would take to have it fully operational in the B-1 and B-2 divisions. A sole source implementation with perpetual upgrades might keep each segment from becoming obsolete before the whole thing is put in place. My last point in this rant is that what technology is going to appear on the scene that can evacuate a crew-less train from the Montague, Cranberry, Rutgers, or Steinway tubes during a blackout or fire? Don't belittle the human element, ever. Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Responses in red.

 

OK This is the last time I'll post about CBTC; it's not worth polluting the forum with our back and forth. I don't want to quote everything just for space reasons, but I'll lay out some general points. 

 

You seem to have this overarching impression that I'm some toddler with a subway map. While you present an endearing image, I'm not. I work for the MTA too. 

 

You ask for ridership, ability to close lines, etc. FWIW, 3 of the 4 metro systems I named have more than double the ridership of NY's, have trains that operate on significantly lower headways, and somehow manage to do this all while interlining. I can't claim to have an in-depth knowledge of those system's service, track or mx structures, but their maps all show shared trackage on multiple lines. If someone here can elaborate, please do!

 

For all your bluster, you seem to consistently ignore the fact that the unions were actually responsible for many of the problems with CBTC. In general, I love the union, but I think that in the course of doing its job, it ends up hindering development. As for non-rev and garbage moves, I still can't understand why the MTA didn't bother installing CBTC on some work engines that work out of ENY and thereby save on constructing/maintaining a block system along with CBTC. It would have been a lot cheaper.

 

Except this doesn't demonstrate a fundamental understanding of how work trains actually work. Work trains are never "Based out" of particular yards, other than regularly scheduled garbage pickups. Work trains are scheduled based on the needs of maintenance of way and contractors for scheduled and/or emergency work, and are based out of yards based on general availability, or staging intended to have them in place for construction. CBTC equipping the work trains would involve 1) equipping all of them or 2) considerable expense to ensure that only CBTC equipped work trains went to those areas (and thus lots of overtime staging the worktrains appropriately, as well as moving non CBTC work trains out of those areas to maximize the efficient use of the diesel fleet in general). CBTC equipping work trains would also require extensive amounts of space for CBTC equipment that is not available on the older diesels. Also, many work train moves take place (even over the mainline) with the locomotive in the rear pushing the consist, so it would not be sufficient to CBTC equip only the locomotive, as CBTC would not be able to detect the location of the other cars (flats, cranes, tankers, hoppers, etc.) in the consist, which would render the safety factor nonexistent even with CBTC equipped diesels. So now all of those same constraints with staging CBTC equipped diesels for work in CBTC territory would also apply to building the work trains and their entire consist. And it's not something as simple as overcoming it by "putting diesels on both ends" - many work trains necessarily must have non operating positions on their open ends (famously, crane cars) to perform work at the worksite. Additionally, there are not enough diesels to do it this way anyway.

 

Plus, with work trains, issues that are no problem for road trains can become extremely hazardous for work trains. Consider the CWR (Continuous Welded Rail) trains. When fully loaded, they are extremely heavy, and must be handled extremely carefully both up and down grades as the weight of the rail on them can cause the train to lose control. With a CBTC system in place, any delocalization issues that cause CBTC to fail and place the train in emergency could be catastrophic at the wrong location since going into emergency effectively causes the operator to have relinquished control of the train to the emergency brakes. In the wrong situation, the emergency brakes will lock the wheels of a heavy train on a steep grade and cause it to slide down, completely out of control. In the wrong situation on an upgrade, the emergency brakes will stop the train and it will be unable to overcome its own inertia to get moving again.

 

These are the types of short sighted oversights of details that I constantly criticize tech fanboys for overlooking, and that's why there a bunch of beautiful new R156 locomotives in the system that are nothing more than rolling death traps that can't be trusted to lay track panels running around the system.

 

As for my point about contractors, I mean that the MTA parcels out work to multiple bidders instead of just having one deal with all. I realise I phrased that terribly, so mea culpa. 

 

I wholeheartedly agree with you on the comfort of ATO operation, and the need for more capex, but as for the former, technology will get better, and for the latter, well.... it's another story. 

 

PART 2

 

 

So for the person-on-the tracks scenario (and someone plz correct me if I'm mistaken here), stations could be equipped with a sort of detection device that looks for disturbances on the track and triggers brake applications if needed. (I learned about this a few months ago from https://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/feature/2012/infrastructure-cities/mobility-logistics/2012-04-metro-paris/factsheet-how-does-a-driverless-metro-work-en.pdf) Your point on reliability is all well and good, but as of now I can place some opportune paper clips and short out the blocks, bringing a line to its knees. At least the problem can be fixed in the CBTC case with (god forbid!) better technology. I understand (and agree with) your concerns about technological reliability, but you must realise that its getting better. They do something in Silicon Valley, you know. 

 

And such a system was tried not long ago at a particular station. You know what happened? It was constantly tripped by false alarms, delaying train service, and ultimately removed. If you think delays are bad now, imagine with such a feature at every station. Every train will be entering every station at less than 10 MPH from now until the terminal.

 

Again, you bash me for not agreeing with unions. Well, unless you're living in the world of alt-facts, the TWU was the one who stopped the implementation of OPTO, so I don't really know what to say in response.

 

Because OPTO is unsafe. A train operator cannot safely see 500-600 feet behind them, close the entire train's doors in one shot (since you won't get the advantage of "first the rear then the front") and observe the platform behind him while also focusing on what's in front of him to ensure no one is being dragged. Curved stations present a special challenge, and with the number of CCTV monitors that would be needed to spot an entire train in some stations from one point, they would be unable to safely monitor all of them at the same time. Reliance on technology doesn't really get you anywhere here. It'd be easy for kids to surf trains, so long as they let the doors close first, and despite improvements to door relays and everything else, you still get someone getting dragged to their death every so often. Conductors, each year, prevent draggings through careful observation....I know what I am speaking of when I say this. Not to mention the logistics of one person trying to evacuate a train stuck between stations by themselves. There are procedures that must be followed in order to do this. If evacuating to the street, one of which is testing the emergency exit before leading people to it. I'm sure the people will love being told "Hang on, I'll be right back!" as the tunnel fills with smoke.

 

As for your doomsday scenarios, I really can't see how T/Os could help here either. Assuming the train has been stopped by the fire, it really is inconsequential whether there is someone on board or not; the train can't run. And for your rockaway flats thingy, well, trains have doors for a reason..... Conductors help keep passengers informed, but there are things called radios and telephones that could allow a remote conductor to keep people in the loop. And before you point out (correctly) that that's all moot because there is no power, there are things called batteries too...

 

Actually, it isn't. A person on board can report the condition immediately so that FDNY is notified instantly (instead of panicked passengers not knowing what to do in the initial seconds and inciting chaos), and a person on board that is trained can calm people, and direct them in an orderly fashion through the PA. In circumstances where it is unsafe to proceed, a T/O can let the passengers know what's going on in a way that establishes control of the situation so they don't panic, communicate with the control center, obtain permission, change ends, and bring the train back to the previous station with minimal delay. All of these are difficult scenarios either way, but it's much harder with passengers by themselves. As for the Rockaways, trains having doors means nothing. You don't think people stranded between stations long enough won't try to climb out between the cars? On 75 foot equipment this is downright dangerous as the end doors being locked will keep people trapped regardless of what is going on, and also prevent passengers from communicating with ones in the other cars. Now imagine one car's intercom to the control center isn't working! Why do you think it's standard policy during a delay for the crew to be instructed to walk through the train to speak to passengers, or why must we announce movement of the train when service resumes before actually moving?? This is a very real situation. As a matter of fact, it actually happened during a recent blizzard. A Train Operator on the A got stuck behind signal problems on the flats, and rather than just sit there as a completely ATO train would as the passengers froze, he contacted the control center, obtained the necessary permissions to bypass red signals, and got the train to the next station to get the people in a station rather than stranded on the train in a remote area.

 

In this humanless fantasy era, who OK's the trains for service? Who couples and uncouples them so that they can be maintained? Who reports defects with the train that don't show up in new tech self diagnosis (there are plenty of defects that don't)?

 

Finally, I did my math wrong on TO and conductor elimination. You're right. No way its funding jack s***. But, on the bright side, 650,000,000 in savings (your math, not mine!) could be used to, you know, fill holes in the budget. Sure, its not a be all end all solution, but it's not nothing either. 

 

Except, it wouldn't. You know what it would do? Cause politicians to reduce their share of MTA funding, keeping the agency in dire straits. The MTA is specifically created to take the heat off politicians for transit related issues. Thanks to the internet and generally growing awareness over the past 10 years, it seems that people are finally starting to realize the issues with the current model, and that having the MTA rely so much on generating its own revenue to meet costs is ultimately counterproductive for the ridership.

 

I've enjoyed this back and forth, and despite your dismal caricature of me, I actually learned something from it. Thank you. 

 

Good, that's what this place is for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, couldn't help myself here. I'll keep it short.

 

For work trains, just put an EOT device like they do on freight railroads. Clean and simple solution. As for CBTC installation on work locomotives (and thank you for educating me on how work equipment allotment works, I always thought yards had dedicated fleets), just put it on all. It's an investment that will have to be made anyway.

 

I can't speak to handling issues, but if maintained correctly, CBTC should fail much less frequently than the current signal system, making such scenarios as you've described unlikely.

 

As for the reliability of sensor systems, all I can say is that multiple transit systems now have ATO lines, and all of them have to have those sensors. They must have worked out the bugs.

 

I'll say the same thing about OPTO. Many systems have implemented it (or ZPTO) perfectly safely. It can be done (and don't give me NY exceptionalism crap here, many O/ZPTO systems are just as busy/chaotic as NY).

 

Next. About evacuations, I'll refer you to this document: http://www.hitachi.com/rev/pdf/2005/r2005_04_106.pdf

Announcements and instructions can be given from afar too, remember. In your blizzard scenario, the control center could do the same thing just without the operators mediating instructions.

 

I never said no yard crews, BTW. Don't misrepresent me.

 

Finally, that growing awareness you speak of will in all probability stop pols from cutting funding.

 

Thanks again for the debate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So just a question and some observations on ATO and the NYC Subway. 

 

 

True is the fact that other large Cities have ATO operations. But one thing I'd have to point out is that most are on average 50 years newer than our system here at home. One thing I'm reminded of is TM5's comment about grafting CTBC on top of 19th-century infrastructure factor that in as a unique task You're asking the system to do something it wasn't intended to within the same external parameters. Some of the most extensive ATO system's are in Asia. Shanghai their oldest line was built in the 1990's also want to point out there are quite a few systems with ridership numbers at our levels that do have drivers on board in case of emergencies. Hong honk and Shanghai come to mind so it's not that crazy to have someone onboard. Looking forward we have a lot of questions to ask as a society in terms of technology and it's implications just because we can should we? That seems to be the main one. Another point that comes to mind to add to the fact that we have an older system is a very small percent have intricately interlaced lines and service to NYC's level. Maybe London with their branch lines but still you don't have services from different trunks sharing trackage as you do in NYC that's something to factor in for rollout with a more complex system to design. I can't think of any City with a system in place for this type of complexity. Correct me if I'm wrong. I guess the question overall is what as the MTA learned from the Canarsie project? What new with this Flushing rollout? ATO rollout isn't going to be an easier undertaking there's going to be quite a bit of hiccup and learning both on the Computer side on Human. It's going to be 30 year's of trial and error it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So from everything I've read, I come to the conclusion that the technology being used is supposed to make things better, but seems to be making things worse.  From my own experiences, I've witnessed more waiting at stations on various lines, and more waiting in between stations on various lines, all supposedly because of "train traffic".  I don't buy it because often times I'll use the subway off-peak and even on weekends, where the headways are such that that shouldn't be that much train traffic ahead.  All I know is trips take A LOT longer than they use to now and that needs to be addressed.  Sometimes you literally crawl from one station to the next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So from everything I've read, I come to conclusion that the technology being used is supposed to make things better but seems to be making things worse.  From my own experiences, I've witnessed more waiting at stations on various lines, and more waiting in between stations on various lines, all supposedly because of "train traffic".  I don't buy it because often times I'll use the subway off-peak and even on weekends, where the headways are such that that shouldn't be that much train traffic ahead.  All I know is trips take A LOT longer than they use to now and that needs to be addressed.  Sometimes you literally crawl from one station to the next.

That's the thing with us humans we tend to be shortsighted we process what we see this is a both a great strength and weakness. From a historical standpoint when anything new or on the verge you tend to take a step back to jump 3 or 4 forward. Take automotive breakthroughs at the turn of the 20th Century automobiles were questioned that technology left and right with the breakdowns and inefficiencies compared to their livestock counterparts. Look how that turned out. It would make sense when starting a new system the old one it might work just as good or better in certain situations, after all, it's been tweaked and optimized. But the potential is where the interest is for ATO.  There's a process you have to hammer the kinks out and agilely find out what works and what doesn't it's the process. Whether the MTA is doing that effectively I can't say seems like they could be doing a better job from the sounds of it. Where in the middle of change period sometime's it hard to understand the context when you living it or in the middle of the storm sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, couldn't help myself here. I'll keep it short.

For work trains, just put an EOT device like they do on freight railroads. Clean and simple solution. As for CBTC installation on work locomotives (and thank you for educating me on how work equipment allotment works, I always thought yards had dedicated fleets), just put it on all. It's an investment that will have to be made anyway.

I can't speak to handling issues, but if maintained correctly, CBTC should fail much less frequently than the current signal system, making such scenarios as you've described unlikely.

As for the reliability of sensor systems, all I can say is that multiple transit systems now have ATO lines, and all of them have to have those sensors. They must have worked out the bugs.

I'll say the same thing about OPTO. Many systems have implemented it (or ZPTO) perfectly safely. It can be done (and don't give me NY exceptionalism crap here, many O/ZPTO systems are just as busy/chaotic as NY).

Next. About evacuations, I'll refer you to this document: http://www.hitachi.com/rev/pdf/2005/r2005_04_106.pdf

Announcements and instructions can be given from afar too, remember. In your blizzard scenario, the control center could do the same thing just without the operators mediating instructions.

I never said no yard crews, BTW. Don't misrepresent me.

Finally, that growing awareness you speak of will in all probability stop pols from cutting funding.

Thanks again for the debate!

Just curios how many of those systems run 24 hours a day? Do you ride the NYC subway on the midnights? I mean the "mentality" of the people who live in this city is unlike any other I have seen, in London San Fran Chicago just a example of the cities I visited and rode their systems. Well after 0100 hrs I think they shut down mostly... Let's be honest the word "accountability " comes into play safer to blame a human for a gaff than a system that's outdated like CBTC on the L line is... Inteteresting discussion though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the thing with us humans we tend to be shortsighted we process what we see this is a both a great strength and weakness. From a historical standpoint when anything new or on the verge you tend to take a step back to jump 3 or 4 forward. Take automotive breakthroughs at the turn of the 20th Century automobiles were questioned that technology left and right with the breakdowns and inefficiencies compared to their livestock counterparts. Look how that turned out. It would make sense when starting a new system the old one it might work just as good or better in certain situations, after all, it's been tweaked and optimized. But the potential is where the interest is for ATO. There's a process you have to hammer the kinks out and agilely find out what works and what doesn't it's the process. Whether the MTA is doing that effectively I can't say seems like they could be doing a better job from the sounds of it. Where in the middle of change period sometime's it hard to understand the context when you living it or in the middle of the storm sometimes.

This more than anything has been what I've been trying to get at. We can't hide from progress.

 

RTOman: yes, they shut after ~1 am, but during those hours, the MTA also does loads of work on their system too (see fastrack) so I think the comparison can be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just let me say that I'm in agreement with SubwayGuy, for obvious reasons, but especially for his stance about "tech" vs the human factor. I was going to post about some of the problems the seeming overreliance on tech in the subway system from my personal experience and perspective. Working on the IRT the only thing resembling "tech" was the NTT R142/ 142A fleet and the ATS system that was installed as an overlay on the signal system. I'll take this in order. Many of you railfans and all of us in RTO are familiar with the SRS, or Sperry Car. The unit assigned to NYCT is almost always on the premises checking for rail problems in both divisions. It's generally operated after the PM rush on a specific corridor each day. When it checked the Lexington corridor s/b from 125th St it used to originate from Mosholu/Concourse yards following a s/b (4) train. Coming south from Dyre or East 180th Street I could hear the radio transmission that the train was on the move and I'd file that info away. I never took into account that the (4) train scheduled to follow the Sperry car was also aware of the car's location. At first every time I'd get to 149th-GC I'd be  held so I could follow my leader but then they would put me ahead of the (4) train I was scheduled to follow. I didn't care because I was going home. I soon found out why this was happening. One night the (4) line Supt., who used to be a TSS on the (5), got on my train at 149th St. A TSS boarded my train at 125th St and we proceeded south to GC. 3 experienced people in the cab of a NTT. At GC I told either gentleman that they could take over operation of the train to the Bridge. The TSS took the bait and at 14th St-Union Square the TSS with his Supt. and me in the cab blew the gap fillers by over 2 feet. I already knew what was going to happen but the TSS was a big proponent of the NTT over the older SMEE equipment so I was extremely happy to stick the knife in his back and twist it. Because of the braking system of the old vs the new equipment the NTT always had a problem with sleet or mist and the Sperry cart sprays a mist on the rails when it's testing. The ATS system was touted as a way to give console dispatchers more control over trains in the IRT. In my personal experience it worked well during the non-rush hours. That's the only good thing I'll say about it. Maybe it's working better now than when I retired. Example. I leave Dyre Avenue on time. I'm in contact with RCC on the radio at Baychester, Morris Park, Tremont Avenue, Simpson St, Jackson Avenue and 149th St-3rd Avenue. I'm on time at each point, validated by RCC and the T/D, Tw/O, and Supt. at Grand Concourse. Leave the station and enter the loop s/b and wait....and wait... while the new tech ATS system gives my follower, the (4) lineup into and out of Grand Concourse while my train sits still. Every day I'm 4-5 minutes late at 125th St and 8 minutes late at Bowling Green. Five days a week. the only time I'm on schedule is when the ATS system is turned off at Grand Concourse. Lest I forget the mighty ATS system would occasionally identify me as a (4) train to Utica instead of a (5) to the "Bush which only added to the delay. The solution was to, once again, turn the system off and allow the local Tw/o to give me the proper lineup because doing it from RCC through the ATS console was too time consuming. As SubwayGuy mentioned there were many supervisors who warned of the problems with installing the ATS system. Most of them retired or found other positions in NYCT. The pom-pom cheerleaders who remained are not respected by any knowledgeable people. The problem with ATS in the IRT arises when one tries to graft new tech on the back of something that wasn't designed for it. I'm guessing that it's performing better now than it did back in 2010. The CBTC idea, excluding the (L) and (7) implementations would seem to be the time it it would take to have it fully operational in the B-1 and B-2 divisions. A sole source implementation with perpetual upgrades might keep each segment from becoming obsolete before the whole thing is put in place. My last point in this rant is that what technology is going to appear on the scene that can evacuate a crew-less train from the Montague, Cranberry, Rutgers, or Steinway tubes during a blackout or fire? Don't belittle the human element, ever. Carry on.

 

Wow no reply to the one who has more knowledge and experience than anyone in this post... Says a lot great post Trainmaster....

This more than anything has been what I've been trying to get at. We can't hide from progress.

RTOman: yes, they shut after ~1 am, but during those hours, the MTA also does loads of work on their system too (see fastrack) so I think the comparison can be made.

Oh I'm aware of that fastrack (which is a patch job at best) but hey I give em credit for trying something anything... Maybe I'll operate the Mikey in CBTC mode sometime soon along the Corridor..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This more than anything has been what I've been trying to get at. We can't hide from progress.

 

RTOman: yes, they shut after ~1 am, but during those hours, the MTA also does loads of work on their system too (see fastrack) so I think the comparison can be made.

I understand your view your not wrong. But I don't think the other insight and points are wrong either. Not blaming the technology as a whole. But let's say the MTA rollout and implementation of CTBC was off and done inefficiently here. And this causes unforeseen issues I could say this is a part of the game overall which we both know it's going to get better over time. But to the rider to whom this is invisible and expects the same level of service and the employees who are still held to the same standard and expected to perform with new unproven (In NYC's application of ATO) Tech I could see how this could rub some people the wrong way. After all, I'm not rerouting trains or answering questions to passengers about delay's I'm sure after a few months on the job I'd have a better view maybe a different one I have to submit to that and take these points into consideration. So I see both angles on this one.  Kinda like when my mom's computer isn't working for her I tell her it works for me. Not really want she wants to hear all she's knows is she has a job to do and this computer isn't helping her haha true story! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow no reply to the one who has more knowledge and experience than anyone in this post... Says a lot great post Trainmaster....

 

Oh I'm aware of that fastrack (which is a patch job at best) but hey I give em credit for trying something anything... Maybe I'll operate the Mikey in CBTC mode sometime soon along the Corridor..

I mean what could you say? Even if you read his post the question next would do you understand what was said? And then do you have the means to process it? A lot of wisdom, knowledge and experience there. TM5 (Tip's hat)  Much appreciated as always sir.

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.