Jump to content

How fast do expresses actually travel?


Deucey

Recommended Posts


13 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

My (F) crawled through timers at Elmhurst and before Roosevelt at 5-6 mph, when the GT is set for 25.

There are no timers at Elmhurst. Just a poorly placed automatic about 3/4 of the way through the station on the express track. Watching from the platform, it is red for quite a while after trains pass during the AM

Those STs before Roosevelt are another story. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2018 at 11:09 AM, P3F said:

The Culver El express feels like it actually moves quickly. Can't say the same for the West End express, though.

If your T/O doesn't hold speed down for the curve entering Kings Highway, you can crest 50 s/b.

21 hours ago, RestrictOnTheHanger said:

There are no timers at Elmhurst. Just a poorly placed automatic about 3/4 of the way through the station on the express track. Watching from the platform, it is red for quite a while after trains pass during the AM

Yeah. I'll have to go look again, but I'm pretty sure that signal is the last (or second to last?) non-ST before entering the regressive series towards Roosevelt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎10‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 11:20 AM, RTOMan said:

Wow they changed up those timers???

 

On ‎10‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 11:20 AM, RTOMan said:

Wow they changed up those timers???

Glad to see you and I Run Trains posting in this thread. I missed it originally but some motor instructors steered me here. I wondered what they were so worked up about but after reading this section of the thread I see what they were talking about. Let me say this right up front. From a motor instructor and a Supt. of Schoolcar. 30+ years ago. " If you're looking for unbridled speed there's a place located on Surf Avenue between the Aquarium and Nathan's". It's called " the Cyclone" . It's brothers were the " Thunderbolt" and the " Tornado". If you're a speed junkie or thrill seeker you belong there and not in RTO. The motor instructor was a former Marine Corp drill instructor and he took no prisoners. I had him when I broke in as a C/R so I wasn't as intimidated during M/M training. He, the aforementioned Supt., the Chief Transportation Officer, and one of the Desk Trainmasters, would individually ride trains, overnights, weekends, holidays, whatever and critique you, praise you, or take you out of service on the spot for some of the things people are praising in this thread. I'll give you a few examples. N/B (2) or (3) rounding the curve at Houston St. There's a timer around Christopher St. It's there because some people operated like a bat out of hell back in the day. With the fellows I mentioned on your train if you had to slow down almost to a stop before it cleared you would be out of service when the supervisor made it to the front of the train. Usually happened at Times Square. Likewise on the east side (4) or (5) n/b between the Bridge and Union Square there was a " C' sign   which meant coast from approximately south of Bleecker and all the way into 14th St. If the M/M kept it wide open 'til Union Square he was out of service when the train entered Grand Central. If there was another C/R available at GC the C/R on the train was out of service too for not pulling the cord at Union Square. Simple rule for a M/M, T/O, or C/R on the IRT was if your C/R could not stand outside the operating cab without holding on then the person up front was guilty of improper operation. East or west side the men I worked with when I was a C/R made sure I wasn't thrown from side to side. The places I mentioned and some that you guys mentioned ,96th-72nd, the stretch between 72nd and 50th St on the West Side, Simpson St n/b,  were locations that made you or broke you. If the person working the middle of the train is being thrown from side to side the people in the last car are too and that is guaranteed improper operation leading to suspension or demotion. What some of you are cheering RTOMan and I Run Trains and I are telling you is nothing to be proud of. Try to operate a NTT train like that in any division and any passenger can nail your hide to the wall. No supervisor needed because the train will tell on you. Luckily my mentors aren't interested in hanging anyone they said but don't sling one from side to side because even Local 100 can't help you then. Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think few of us cheer improper operation; we're merely enjoying the few speedy runs that still exist. 

I also don't think it's correct to treat these slow(er) areas as realities without nuance (nor do I think, for that matter, that that's what you're saying -- though I will, of course, expound).

A significant portion of GT installations deal not with comfort in areas of non-tangent track, but instead with stopping distance and signal safety margin. What that speaks to is not some immutable reality of physics, but instead a deficiency in breaking -- one that should be rectified to the limits of static friction before we go (one) shot up the subway.

Signal spacing, for those of you unfamiliar with it, is generally determined by finding the maximum achievable speed at a given signal (so, how fast a train would be going if it had been put at full power since its last restriction, whether that be a station, a set of timers, or something else) and then calculating the stopping distance from said speed given the system's standard emergency braking rate, as you'd want a tripped train to be able to stop within block. Multiply that number by 135%, and you have the distance to the next signal.

Now, of course, if you change a variable in this equation (speed, emergency brake rate, safety margin) without compensating in others, the whole calculation gets thrown out of whack. This is what happened post-Williamsburg -- the safety margin for some areas jumped from 110% to 135%, while there was a degradation in emergency braking rates. The resultant calculated stopping distances -- which were longer than the signal blocks at that time -- forced the agency to slow the speeds at which a train could pass these 'deficient' signals, which in turn led to timing. The flaw in logic here should be obvious (up your brake rates before you lower your speed). The most pernicious effect of it all? Not runtimes, no, but capacity loss -- what NYCT effectively did was maintained physical train spacing while reducing train speed, effectively cutting throughput. So again, let's up brake rates and see what we can do. 

To the subject of comfort and responsible operation -- it, too, requires discussion if for no other reason than there are many, many different definitions of 'comfort.' The way forces acting on a train through a curve are usually measured is via something called 'cant deficiency,' or the number of additional inches of superelevation that would be required to bring a train into balance. The standard for that number lies generally anywhere between 3 and 9 inches, but on NYCT, I hear (and please correct me if I'm mistaken) it's generally 6 -- which is to say, the speed that produces six inches of cant deficiency through a curve/switch is deemed the 'maximum comfort speed' through said curve/switch.

The key word there is, of course, generally. I can't authoritatively speak to specific examples, but it's generally held that (in terms of GT signals -- not the 'do I have to hold on method lol) comfort speed enforcement varies widely across the system. There are certainly curves which seem to be taken above that speed (s/b out of 65 being possibly a great example), while there are others that have been timed or otherwise restricted to the point where achieving even a 3 inch cant deficiency seems impossible. Having a systemwide standard is a must -- not just for enforcement's sake (why should I be written up for taking one curve at a speed that is equivalent to the permissible speed on another?) but also for capacity's sake. I again do not know what cant deficiency the various signal systems were designed around, but I'd imagine that there are areas that slow trains below that design speed -- meaning capacity is being lost, potentially for no good cause. 

But I've meandered a lot; lemme see if I can tie this to the points of @Trainmaster5's (very interesting) post. I again do not think that we should be letting people play Roadrunner under Broadway, but I do think that there's something to be said for questioning underground speed enforcement. What you're speaking to is the seriousness with which these speeds were enforced; what some of us are, I think, is the idea that some of these may not be necessary, or are sometimes unduly restrictive. There's a lot at stake capacitally and temporally -- every lost second on a fully loaded (2) train is half an hour of lost civic productivity -- and it seems the pendulum of regulation seems to have swung too far. 

This is an insanely long post. My apologies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always believed that I could stop an old R17, R21, or any unmodified equipment quicker than an overhauled one. Most people don’t realize that the composition brake shoes used now give a smoother stop than the older types but, IMO, the older shoes were metal on metal and stopped quicker. The older brakes wore out quicker than the new shoes and caused the wheel truing equipment to be used more often but I think the quieter , smoother stopping , argument won out. Riders complained about the screeching of the older braking system so, coupled with the mandated signal adjustments,, guaranteed a general system slowdown in my opinion. I bet that some of the older museum cars stop better than the new equipment. My opinion. Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@RR503 What do you think of these project?

 

Project: T7080319

Description: Modification to Signal Control Lines - Phase 6

Category: Signals & Communications

Element: Signals & Communications

xxxxxxxxxx

...

This project will bring 380 signal locations systemwide into compl iance with the latest design standards. Work may include the extension of control and operation of wayside equipment, installation of grade timing and station timing, modification of signal control lines, or in stallation of new signal locations. The work will vary at each location depending on specific needs and/or conditions.

Project: T7080323

Description: Modification of Signal Key-By Circuits - Phase 4

Category: Signals & Communications

Element: Signals & Communications

xxxxxxxxxx

...

This project will upgrade signal locations systemwide by incorpora ting a signal key-by timer into the existing circuits of all automatic and approach signals at the leaving end of station platforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/16/2018 at 1:52 PM, Union Tpke said:

Project: T7080319

Description: Modification to Signal Control Lines - Phase 6

Category: Signals & Communications

Element: Signals & Communications

xxxxxxxxxx

...

This project will bring 380 signal locations systemwide into compl iance with the latest design standards. Work may include the extension of control and operation of wayside equipment, installation of grade timing and station timing, modification of signal control lines, or in stallation of new signal locations. The work will vary at each location depending on specific needs and/or conditions.

 

The various phases of this project are responsible for timer installation. I think it's worth noting that the statistics/assumptions underpinning it all have not been updated since the original study in the 1990s. That said, I've *heard* that this may have been put on hold pending review. (heard, of course, being the operative word there).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, RR503 said:

The various phases of this project are responsible for timer installation. I think it's worth noting that the statistics/assumptions underpinning it all have not been updated since the original study in the 1990s. That said, I've *heard* that this may have been put on hold pending review. (heard, of course, being the operative word there).

I presume there are documents that list the locations for each phase. It would be great to find out what they have to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

I presume there are documents that list the locations for each phase. It would be great to find out what they have to say.

Yes. The whole program was informed by a Parsons study conducted just before the W'burg crash, and by some supplementary analyses conducted after the accident (I think). Those docs are very much under wraps, however... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the only operators who actually follow every speed limit were fresh out of school car.. I could understand following speed limits on tight curves and switches but who's doing 30 on a straightaway ?

Once in a while I'll have an operator who actually keeps the train at 10 mph throughout the whole Crescent - Cypress Hills "S" curve even after clearing the timers and curves.. 🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2018 at 5:26 PM, brakethrow said:

I thought the only operators who actually follow every speed limit were fresh out of school car.. I could understand following speed limits on tight curves and switches but who's doing 30 on a straightaway ?

Once in a while I'll have an operator who actually keeps the train at 10 mph throughout the whole Crescent - Cypress Hills "S" curve even after clearing the timers and curves.. 🙄

The problem with your observation isn't what you're implying. The only operators who follow every speed limit are the only ones operating correctly.  Case closed.Carry on 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have trouble with this stuff. I still believe that a policy like that was more reasonable before the mad rush of timers and the slow-downs of the Prendergast era. As most know, Prendergast was not an operations guy but a management official; recently many of the guys to make it highest up have been isolated from T/O or C/R experiences. They'll always veer on the side of absolute caution, even when that caution is counterproductive and can even lead to new problems (i.e. overcrowding, or frustrated passengers who take it out on employees).

The operator who never goes a single mile per hour above posted is just about doomed to run late in today's system, and given that many of those new limits and timers were the results of bean-counters and bureaucrats rather than on-site engineers, I have a lot of trouble believing in the wisdom of all of the limits and timers in place. Some of those limits predate the presence of speedometers in cars, since the EDO pieces were only retrofitted in the 1980s in most cases, and naturally are meant to represent benchmarks rather than exact figures. Many of the old-timers I know were familiar enough with the pitch of the motor to estimate their speeds (Arnines at high C meant throttling along, for example), but they simply couldn't know the exact figure. With the failure rate of R62/A EDO speedometers, nor can a lot of T/Os. It's not like those early operators were maniacs, or that the T/Os today who take an extra 2-3mph are particularly chancing the safety of their trains. In the days of field shunting and the original shoes, perhaps rough levels of speed were more possible--today, following every sign? The system's been idiot-proofed in a lot of places, but I have trouble believing that's a good thing. T/Os are specialized, trained, talented employees, not members of the public. They can and should be expected to use their judgment, in the same way that RBO above ground expects safe (defensive) and yet timely operation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MHV9218 said:

I have trouble with this stuff. I still believe that a policy like that was more reasonable before the mad rush of timers and the slow-downs of the Prendergast era. As most know, Prendergast was not an operations guy but a management official; recently many of the guys to make it highest up have been isolated from T/O or C/R experiences. They'll always veer on the side of absolute caution, even when that caution is counterproductive and can even lead to new problems (i.e. overcrowding, or frustrated passengers who take it out on employees).

The operator who never goes a single mile per hour above posted is just about doomed to run late in today's system, and given that many of those new limits and timers were the results of bean-counters and bureaucrats rather than on-site engineers, I have a lot of trouble believing in the wisdom of all of the limits and timers in place. Some of those limits predate the presence of speedometers in cars, since the EDO pieces were only retrofitted in the 1980s in most cases, and naturally are meant to represent benchmarks rather than exact figures. Many of the old-timers I know were familiar enough with the pitch of the motor to estimate their speeds (Arnines at high C meant throttling along, for example), but they simply couldn't know the exact figure. With the failure rate of R62/A EDO speedometers, nor can a lot of T/Os. It's not like those early operators were maniacs, or that the T/Os today who take an extra 2-3mph are particularly chancing the safety of their trains. In the days of field shunting and the original shoes, perhaps rough levels of speed were more possible--today, following every sign? The system's been idiot-proofed in a lot of places, but I have trouble believing that's a good thing. T/Os are specialized, trained, talented employees, not members of the public. They can and should be expected to use their judgment, in the same way that RBO above ground expects safe (defensive) and yet timely operation. 

I understand why you feel that way. I have never relied on a speed “ indicator “ or a speedometer as a sole means of train movement. I was already pounding the road when that equipment hit the IRT. Let’s just say that the original indicators were rudimentary at best. A good example was a train at a full stop in the Utica relay showing 8mph as a n/b New Lots train passes by. Throw the federally mandated signal adjustments into the mix and you are on the way to a slowdown. Now add some lawsuits brought after 12-9s which the TA lost because of excessive speed by T/Os and the (MTA) decided to stop paying every claimant. When you say that the T/O who follows the rules is doomed to run late guess what? The running time is increased by the scheduling people so there is no lateness on paper. You and I know better but the on time performance looks good to the media. When a T/O gets banged by a TSS for going 5mph over the posted speed, nobody is gonna defend that person whether it’s safe or not. Who’s to say that that particular area wouldn’t be re-timed later , weeks or a month even, but that won’t erase that bad entry on the T/Os disciplinary record. I can remember when the R62 equipment first came to the (4) and guys were making it from Woodlawn to 149th 6-8 minutes to the good. The very next pick jobs were eliminated and the remaining folks were gifted with more trips 😁. When the mandatory slowdowns were imposed all they did was increase the running time again. What I’m saying is that the over abundance of caution is a byproduct of the legal situation and as a self-insured entity the bean counters wield the power no matter who’s the head honcho in RTO. Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent posts.

It's funny you bring up the padding issue. Recently, the MTA has been trying to make the case that they've 'turned a corner,' citing improved OTP. If you look at the data, though, you'll see that the lines on which OTP has improved are the ones that have had recent rescheduling (so (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)). In fact, B division OTP is still decreasing, indicative of the fact that the root issue here (an unaccountable, fear-based ops culture fueled by rank inefficiency and ineffective managers) has yet to be addressed. Old habits die hard...

One thing I'm surprised so few people have brought up in discussions about timers is the potential of brake rates to solve so much in the system. We all know that restoring a uniform 3.2 mphps fleetwide (and then re-evaluating installs relative to that) would obviate many 'stopping distance' type timers, but I've always wondered why we don't go beyond that. Most LRT systems achieve emergency brake rates in excess of 5 mphps with track brakes (including several in the US, for those of you worried about the tort aspect), and in fact, the BMT experimented with them on the Bluebirds. Given that higher emergency brake rates means we can have faster acceleration and closer train spacing (and thus greatly increased capacity) I really think this is a route that should be explored...

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.