Six years to resolve the subway problems?

[RailRunRob]

10 hours ago, itmaybeokay said:

So, I read the proposal suggesting the use of UWB, and I gotta be honest, I fail to see how it's going to significantly speed up deployment. 

First of all, you're talking about developing a COMPLETELY NEW CBTC platform. The only thing UWB gives you is the position of the trains. There's to be two 5.9ghz UWB transmitters per car, and wayside antennas every couple hundred feet would give you position information on the train. You still have to do all the CBTC computing and get a cab signal back to the operating motor. 

The existing CBTC systems are using roadbed transponders at fixed locations which the train reads to determine it's location. The roadbed transponders are passive, energized by induction from the reader on the train. Not unlike Ez-pass. As far as I can tell the only benefits are not having to get transponders on the roadbed, and having an accuracy of trains position within centimeters instead of meters - but why is like, 2m resolution that bad in this scenario? 

And you're still installing wayside radios up and down the entire system. It's not like, by eliminating roadbed transponders, you can suddenly do that work without stopping trains. 

How I view UWB

• Higher Bandwith and transmission rates over standard RF.
• Way higher Robustness and Multi Path options with Higher frequencies bands.
• Lower chance of transmission interception due to super low power spectral densities. Safer by far
• Works well with other radio systems dont have to lock in as much requirements 

As for as deployment time true hardware installation is on par with current systems due to tunnel access and 24/7 service in NYC. But in Brownfield deployments situations UWB on the backend should be a lot easier to get network connected and get online.. QA/Testing and maintenance.

Also from what I understand (Super Smart guys on the team) LOL UWB Bands run from 3-10GHz just from our entry to the MTA (Mesh technology ) I know you have to factor in things like 

• Path loss (LOS) Line of sight
• Propagation
• Delay Spreads
• MISO/SISO setups.

And that's just to name afew so you have to tweak transmission settings ect. But looking at it from a distance getting everything testing and online is the hard part UWB I think could speed that up.  

[itmaybeokay]

18 hours ago, RailRunRob said:

How I view UWB

• Higher Bandwith and transmission rates over standard RF.
• Way higher Robustness and Multi Path options with Higher frequencies bands.
• Lower chance of transmission interception due to super low power spectral densities. Safer by far
• Works well with other radio systems dont have to lock in as much requirements 

As for as deployment time true hardware installation is on par with current systems due to tunnel access and 24/7 service in NYC. But in Brownfield deployments situations UWB on the backend should be a lot easier to get network connected and get online.. QA/Testing and maintenance.

Also from what I understand (Super Smart guys on the team) LOL UWB Bands run from 3-10GHz just from our entry to the MTA (Mesh technology ) I know you have to factor in things like 

• Path loss (LOS) Line of sight
• Propagation
• Delay Spreads
• MISO/SISO setups.

And that's just to name afew so you have to tweak transmission settings ect. But looking at it from a distance getting everything testing and online is the hard part UWB I think could speed that up.  

I'm not speaking ill of UWB as a technology, and I think it may even have applications for the subway - but this specific proposal is talking about using it within a CBTC system as the mechanism that relays the positions of trains. In that respect - especially considering it's not even approved to do so yet - I think it's more trouble than it's worth for that application. 

In other words: 

"It's going to take X number of years to install globally-used field-tested refined technology. 

Lets switch to untested hypothetical application of existing tech to save time."

That doesn't check out to me. 

[RailRunRob]

5 hours ago, itmaybeokay said:

I'm not speaking ill of UWB as a technology, and I think it may even have applications for the subway - but this specific proposal is talking about using it within a CBTC system as the mechanism that relays the positions of trains. In that respect - especially considering it's not even approved to do so yet - I think it's more trouble than it's worth for that application. 

In other words: 

"It's going to take X number of years to install globally-used field-tested refined technology. 

Lets switch to untested hypothetical application of existing tech to save time."

That doesn't check out to me. 

I understand you have a point from that perspective.