Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Deucey

QBL CBTC: I need an explanation...

Recommended Posts

So CBTC is coming to QBL. All QBL services will be NTTs in order for CBTC to work.

Okay.

CBTC will allow more trains to run on QBL by eliminating fixed block signalling.

Great.

But QBL branches to the following non-CBTC lines: 8th Av, 6th Av, Broadway, and Crosstown.

So if you have more trains running closer together because of CBTC, what happens when those trains that are 700ft apart on QBL meet the 1000ft fixed blocks on the aforementioned lines?

How do you not have severe congestion or uneven service gaps on 6th Av, for example?

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Deucey said:

So CBTC is coming to QBL. All QBL services will be NTTs in order for CBTC to work.

Okay.

CBTC will allow more trains to run on QBL by eliminating fixed block signalling.

Great.

But QBL branches to the following non-CBTC lines: 8th Av, 6th Av, Broadway, and Crosstown.

So if you have more trains running closer together because of CBTC, what happens when those trains that are 700ft apart on QBL meet the 1000ft fixed blocks on the aforementioned lines?

How do you not have severe congestion or uneven service gaps on 6th Av, for example?

Here are the lists of problems and solutions each lines:

(E) - 8th is getting CBTC too, and assuming Fast Forward is in place, it could finish around the time QBL finishes.

(M) - already limited by WillyB and Myrtle, so unless there are short turns to 2nd Av, I don't expect CBTC to have much of an effect

(R) - limited by the (N) merge, and even if that is fixed, it won't be increased much considering it has the (W) helping it on Broadway and already faces a conga line at Forest Hills

The (F) here is the real problem- it shares trackage with the (E) and is as packed as the latter is. Unfortunately, Fast Forward calls for automating every part of the (F) within 10 years except Crosstown, which is short-sighted given it would allow both the (F) and (G) to be fully CBTC equipped, and with that extra (F) capacity, you could run a few (F) s express provided Bergen lower was rebuilt and the awful junction was upgraded.

Edited by R68OnBroadway
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Fast Forward calls for automating every part of the (F) within 10 years except Crosstown, which is short-sighted given it would allow both the (F) and (G) to be fully CBTC equipped, and with that extra (F) capacity, you could run a few (F) s express provided Bergen lower was rebuilt and the awful junction was upgraded.

Crosstown is planned to be CBTC upgraded under Fast Foward, so that shouldn't be an issue which debunks what I put in bold. And I'll agree with you on the fact that Bergen Lower needs a rebuild

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://fastforward.mta.info/transform-the-subway/

46 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Crosstown is planned to be CBTC upgraded under Fast Foward, so that shouldn't be an issue which debunks what I put in bold. And I'll agree with you on the fact that Bergen Lower needs a rebuild

This shows that Crosstown doesn't seem to be planned to get CBTC- apparently for some reason West 8th to CI isn't getting it either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

You were saying......

NYC subway lines reviving CBTC within first 5 years; Andy Byford's MTA Fast Foward Plan

 

It still doesn't mention the segment from Church to Bergen, which is Crosstown...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

It still doesn't mention the segment from Church to Bergen, which is Crosstown...

That's because that portion of the subway is mainly used for testing purposes. I believe a couple of years ago, CBTC itself was tested between Bergen Street and Church Avenue 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume that Crosstown Between Ct Square and Queens Plaza will be CBTC as well, and they'll be able to extend the (G) to 71st Ave effortlessly when necessary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

I assume that Crosstown Between Ct Square and Queens Plaza will be CBTC as well, and they'll be able to extend the (G) to 71st Ave effortlessly when necessary?

Will never happen. Crew requirements/pick. No LEO for tresspass arrest at 71 avenue for fast fumigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Deucey said:

So CBTC is coming to QBL. All QBL services will be NTTs in order for CBTC to work.

Okay.

CBTC will allow more trains to run on QBL by eliminating fixed block signalling.

Great.

But QBL branches to the following non-CBTC lines: 8th Av, 6th Av, Broadway, and Crosstown.

So if you have more trains running closer together because of CBTC, what happens when those trains that are 700ft apart on QBL meet the 1000ft fixed blocks on the aforementioned lines?

How do you not have severe congestion or uneven service gaps on 6th Av, for example?

Eastbound Exp to Lcl switch at 75th avenue is the largest cause PM E/F delays. Its BRAND NEW as of 2017 timer clears at 3-5 mph. Most T/Os just stop and wait. CBTC won't fix 5 mph timers on mainline, that was a policy decision. Timers on CBTC are FAR WORSE than block timers, since a CBTC timer won't clear till the front axle leaves the "zone", while when block GTs clear, the T/O can notch 3 it. The L train is a a mixed result. There are no timers on death curves in ATO.  But L has very low TPH that never pushes the capacity of CBTC system.

On 7's CBTC, which is still ATPM mode, not ATO. CBTC allow for "ST 5" ANYWHERE. 5-6PM West bound looks like LIE of R188s. I counted every train door close to door close, is 1:40-1:50 or 2:10 to 2:25. Sometimes 2-3 1:40 headways pull in right after another. CBTC lets trains pull upto 100 feet/2 car lengths from coupler of next train, anywhere on the 7 elevated. There is a capacity restriction policy by the MTA, that no train can pull into a station at all unless it has the whole platform vacated by next train, unlike LIRR/MNRR. So 7 trains will often be waiting 1-2 train cars apart, right before the station platform starts, even if the next train is 50% pulled out, the previous 7 will not move until next train is 75% or 100% gone from the platform. CBTC's movement authorities are calculated 100 feet at a time I think.  So really quickly 200 or 300 feet to "red" can accumulate as next train pulls out, but rear T/O wont move till he has whole platform empty. Its a policy to never have a half pulled in train at a platform, but it kills capacity.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

The (F) here is the real problem- it shares trackage with the (E) and is as packed as the latter is. Unfortunately, Fast Forward calls for automating every part of the (F) within 10 years except Crosstown, which is short-sighted given it would allow both the (F) and (G) to be fully CBTC equipped, and with that extra (F) capacity, you could run a few (F) s express provided Bergen lower was rebuilt and the awful junction was upgraded.

You really don't need Crosstown CBTC. The line doesn't run anywhere close to capacity. The (G) will have to be CBTC equipped if it operates on a Culver CBTC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

That's because that portion of the subway is mainly used for testing purposes. I believe a couple of years ago, CBTC itself was tested between Bergen Street and Church Avenue 

12 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

I assume that Crosstown Between Ct Square and Queens Plaza will be CBTC as well, and they'll be able to extend the (G) to 71st Ave effortlessly when necessary?

This is one of my greatest criticisms of FF. While they moved more towards a demand-based CBTC install model, they continued to predicate many installations solely on existing signal system age. So while Fulton/Rockaways/Crosstown/Lower Culver get CBTC, Jamaica/Upper Culver/CPW/WPR do not. Now, of course, it has been publicly stated that those other segments will get CBTC after the initial 10 year period, but such long term commitments are shaky. 

Re (G) to 71st: the restriction there pertains to the 71st fumigation process, not the signal system. Until (as @bulk88 said) trains are allowed to close in station limits and 24/7 double ending is implemented, jack shit will change. And FWIW, if we can extract more throughput from 71, it really should go to the Manhattan bound trains, not a tangential line. 

4 hours ago, bulk88 said:

Eastbound Exp to Lcl switch at 75th avenue is the largest cause PM E/F delays. Its BRAND NEW as of 2017 timer clears at 3-5 mph. Most T/Os just stop and wait. CBTC won't fix 5 mph timers on mainline, that was a policy decision. Timers on CBTC are FAR WORSE than block timers, since a CBTC timer won't clear till the front axle leaves the "zone", while when block GTs clear, the T/O can notch 3 it. The L train is a a mixed result. There are no timers on death curves in ATO.  But L has very low TPH that never pushes the capacity of CBTC system.

 On 7's CBTC, which is still ATPM mode, not ATO. CBTC allow for "ST 5" ANYWHERE. 5-6PM West bound looks like LIE of R188s. I counted every train door close to door close, is 1:40-1:50 or 2:10 to 2:25. Sometimes 2-3 1:40 headways pull in right after another. CBTC lets trains pull upto 100 feet/2 car lengths from coupler of next train, anywhere on the 7 elevated. There is a capacity restriction policy by the MTA, that no train can pull into a station at all unless it has the whole platform vacated by next train, unlike LIRR/MNRR. So 7 trains will often be waiting 1-2 train cars apart, right before the station platform starts, even if the next train is 50% pulled out, the previous 7 will not move until next train is 75% or 100% gone from the platform. CBTC's movement authorities are calculated 100 feet at a time I think.  So really quickly 200 or 300 feet to "red" can accumulate as next train pulls out, but rear T/O wont move till he has whole platform empty. Its a policy to never have a half pulled in train at a platform, but it kills capacity.

^THIS. 

Beyond the implementation idiocy that pervades the NYCT CBTC process (we really don't need aux. waysides, we really do need reliable shutdowns and comprehensive contracts), many (if not all) operating environment issues get carried over into the technology. Not just the 'no platform sharing' rule, but also areas of unnecessary slowing (think those timers on the QB viaduct's express track), overlarge safety margins, switches with restrictions slower than their capability, etc. CBTC merely cloaks these issues (and resultant capacity erosions) in a more resilient technology.

In fact, while everyone is crowing about how great the (L)'s OTP is, I'd actually say it's remarkable it's not higher. CBTC and related improvements unequivocally sped that line up, yet a 2002 schedule and a current day schedule show basically identical scheduled run times. Given that a train isn't technically late until it reaches its destination more than 5 minutes (or 13% of total (L) line runtime) late, it's honestly worrying that that number isn't higher. 

Edited by RR503
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bulk88 said:

Eastbound Exp to Lcl switch at 75th avenue is the largest cause PM E/F delays. Its BRAND NEW as of 2017 timer clears at 3-5 mph. Most T/Os just stop and wait. CBTC won't fix 5 mph timers on mainline, that was a policy decision. Timers on CBTC are FAR WORSE than block timers, since a CBTC timer won't clear till the front axle leaves the "zone", while when block GTs clear, the T/O can notch 3 it. The L train is a a mixed result. There are no timers on death curves in ATO.  But L has very low TPH that never pushes the capacity of CBTC system.

On 7's CBTC, which is still ATPM mode, not ATO. CBTC allow for "ST 5" ANYWHERE. 5-6PM West bound looks like LIE of R188s. I counted every train door close to door close, is 1:40-1:50 or 2:10 to 2:25. Sometimes 2-3 1:40 headways pull in right after another. CBTC lets trains pull upto 100 feet/2 car lengths from coupler of next train, anywhere on the 7 elevated. There is a capacity restriction policy by the MTA, that no train can pull into a station at all unless it has the whole platform vacated by next train, unlike LIRR/MNRR. So 7 trains will often be waiting 1-2 train cars apart, right before the station platform starts, even if the next train is 50% pulled out, the previous 7 will not move until next train is 75% or 100% gone from the platform. CBTC's movement authorities are calculated 100 feet at a time I think.  So really quickly 200 or 300 feet to "red" can accumulate as next train pulls out, but rear T/O wont move till he has whole platform empty. Its a policy to never have a half pulled in train at a platform, but it kills capacity.

 

3 hours ago, RR503 said:

This is one of my greatest criticisms of FF. While they moved more towards a demand-based CBTC install model, they continued to predicate many installations solely on existing signal system age. So while Fulton/Rockaways/Crosstown/Lower Culver get CBTC, Jamaica/Upper Culver/CPW/WPR do not. Now, of course, it has been publicly stated that those other segments will get CBTC after the initial 10 year period, but such long term commitments are shaky. 

Re (G) to 71st: the restriction there pertains to the 71st fumigation process, not the signal system. Until (as @bulk88 said) trains are allowed to close in station limits and 24/7 double ending is implemented, jack shit will change. And FWIW, if we can extract more throughput from 71, it really should go to the Manhattan bound trains, not a tangential line. 

^THIS. 

Beyond the implementation idiocy that pervades the NYCT CBTC process (we really don't need aux. waysides, we really do need reliable shutdowns and comprehensive contracts), many (if not all) operating environment issues get carried over into the technology. Not just the 'no platform sharing' rule, but also areas of unnecessary slowing (think those timers on the QB viaduct's express track), overlarge safety margins, switches with restrictions slower than their capability, etc. CBTC merely cloaks these issues (and resultant capacity erosions) in a more resilient technology.

In fact, while everyone is crowing about how great the (L)'s OTP is, I'd actually say it's remarkable it's not higher. CBTC and related improvements unequivocally sped that line up, yet a 2002 schedule and a current day schedule show basically identical scheduled run times. Given that a train isn't technically late until it reaches its destination more than 5 minutes (or 13% of total (L) line runtime) late, it's honestly worrying that that number isn't higher. 

That's interesting about platform sharing. I was thinking about that while driving. When a car in front of me is at the stop sign, I can slow down in a way that I reach the sign as the car enters the Intersection, no large buffer necessary. The no Platform Sharing is such a waste, I was hoping that would speed up the trains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 9/23/2018 at 10:37 AM, bulk88 said:

Eastbound Exp to Lcl switch at 75th avenue is the largest cause PM E/F delays. Its BRAND NEW as of 2017 timer clears at 3-5 mph. Most T/Os just stop and wait. CBTC won't fix 5 mph timers on mainline, that was a policy decision. Timers on CBTC are FAR WORSE than block timers, since a CBTC timer won't clear till the front axle leaves the "zone", while when block GTs clear, the T/O can notch 3 it. The L train is a a mixed result. There are no timers on death curves in ATO.  But L has very low TPH that never pushes the capacity of CBTC system.

On 7's CBTC, which is still ATPM mode, not ATO. CBTC allow for "ST 5" ANYWHERE. 5-6PM West bound looks like LIE of R188s. I counted every train door close to door close, is 1:40-1:50 or 2:10 to 2:25. Sometimes 2-3 1:40 headways pull in right after another. CBTC lets trains pull upto 100 feet/2 car lengths from coupler of next train, anywhere on the 7 elevated. There is a capacity restriction policy by the MTA, that no train can pull into a station at all unless it has the whole platform vacated by next train, unlike LIRR/MNRR. So 7 trains will often be waiting 1-2 train cars apart, right before the station platform starts, even if the next train is 50% pulled out, the previous 7 will not move until next train is 75% or 100% gone from the platform. CBTC's movement authorities are calculated 100 feet at a time I think.  So really quickly 200 or 300 feet to "red" can accumulate as next train pulls out, but rear T/O wont move till he has whole platform empty. Its a policy to never have a half pulled in train at a platform, but it kills capacity.

You just dropped the Mike... Very good explanation! 👍🏾

I know about that switch just south of 75th ave all too well...

Edited by RTOMan
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2018 at 10:37 AM, bulk88 said:

Its a policy to never have a half pulled in train at a platform, but it kills capacity.

Is that to prevent passengers from being anxious about the doors opening?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2018 at 10:37 AM, bulk88 said:

Eastbound Exp to Lcl switch at 75th avenue is the largest cause PM E/F delays. Its BRAND NEW as of 2017 timer clears at 3-5 mph. Most T/Os just stop and wait. CBTC won't fix 5 mph timers on mainline, that was a policy decision. Timers on CBTC are FAR WORSE than block timers, since a CBTC timer won't clear till the front axle leaves the "zone", while when block GTs clear, the T/O can notch 3 it. The L train is a a mixed result. There are no timers on death curves in ATO.  But L has very low TPH that never pushes the capacity of CBTC system.

On 7's CBTC, which is still ATPM mode, not ATO. CBTC allow for "ST 5" ANYWHERE. 5-6PM West bound looks like LIE of R188s. I counted every train door close to door close, is 1:40-1:50 or 2:10 to 2:25. Sometimes 2-3 1:40 headways pull in right after another. CBTC lets trains pull upto 100 feet/2 car lengths from coupler of next train, anywhere on the 7 elevated. There is a capacity restriction policy by the MTA, that no train can pull into a station at all unless it has the whole platform vacated by next train, unlike LIRR/MNRR. So 7 trains will often be waiting 1-2 train cars apart, right before the station platform starts, even if the next train is 50% pulled out, the previous 7 will not move until next train is 75% or 100% gone from the platform. CBTC's movement authorities are calculated 100 feet at a time I think.  So really quickly 200 or 300 feet to "red" can accumulate as next train pulls out, but rear T/O wont move till he has whole platform empty. Its a policy to never have a half pulled in train at a platform, but it kills capacity.

BINGO!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2018 at 12:19 PM, Deucey said:

So CBTC is coming to QBL. All QBL services will be NTTs in order for CBTC to work.

Okay.

CBTC will allow more trains to run on QBL by eliminating fixed block signalling.

Great.

But QBL branches to the following non-CBTC lines: 8th Av, 6th Av, Broadway, and Crosstown.

So if you have more trains running closer together because of CBTC, what happens when those trains that are 700ft apart on QBL meet the 1000ft fixed blocks on the aforementioned lines?

How do you not have severe congestion or uneven service gaps on 6th Av, for example?

You might have uneven service gaps. But that already exists today; the (M) runs far less frequently than the (F) , for example. 

Very few corridors are at full track capacity. It's mostly just the IRT, (7), (L), and (E)/(F) in Queens Blvd, and the (N)(R)(W) . I might be forgetting some, but there is definitely spare capacity on, say, Church, to accommodate extra CBTC (F)s for example. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2018 at 3:19 PM, Deucey said:

So CBTC is coming to QBL. All QBL services will be NTTs in order for CBTC to work.

Okay.

CBTC will allow more trains to run on QBL by eliminating fixed block signalling.

Great.

But QBL branches to the following non-CBTC lines: 8th Av, 6th Av, Broadway, and Crosstown.

So if you have more trains running closer together because of CBTC, what happens when those trains that are 700ft apart on QBL meet the 1000ft fixed blocks on the aforementioned lines?

How do you not have severe congestion or uneven service gaps on 6th Av, for example?


You have reached the stumbling block, some of it doesn't work until all of it works. 

ALL needs to include better capacity terminals, which is nowhere on the horizon, so it'll be 2-3 trains here and there.


It's the same issue we have coming in aviation with NEXTGEN, everyone is pushing it as the solution but it doesn't alleviate the limiting capacity factor, which is runway availability. 

Enroute Capacity needs to be uniform for these things to be effective, and terminal capacity needs to be sufficient to take advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So about terminals. CBTC can slow the trains down at a gradual rate when pulling into intermediate stations, since the computer is controlling the train why cant they slow down in a similar manner for stub terminals when having a straight lineup?

For example, most newer traction elevators gradually decelerate to a complete stop [In general, and] when reaching the lowest floor, they don't go extra slow after reaching the 2nd floor or first floor (if there is a basement).

Also when relaying trains, can that be done via CBTC as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2018 at 7:19 PM, Jsunflyguy said:


You have reached the stumbling block, some of it doesn't work until all of it works. 

ALL needs to include better capacity terminals, which is nowhere on the horizon, so it'll be 2-3 trains here and there.


It's the same issue we have coming in aviation with NEXTGEN, everyone is pushing it as the solution but it doesn't alleviate the limiting capacity factor, which is runway availability. 

Enroute Capacity needs to be uniform for these things to be effective, and terminal capacity needs to be sufficient to take advantage.

2-3 trains an hour is still a good amount of capacity. On the (F) , which is already pretty busy, that would be a 20% capacity increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

2-3 trains an hour is still a good amount of capacity. On the (F) , which is already pretty busy, that would be a 20% capacity increase.


I left out the words per hour purposefully. I mean these will add a handful of trains, and won't be cost effective until other improvements are made as well. 

Consider QBL, the (M) / (R) won't be adding trains, the 71st fumigation and relay rodeo barely works as it is. The (E) to JC won't be getting them because, in the last 30 years we never got around to making it a proper terminal. So as you point out it will be the (F) (or more 179th St (E) trains) that will add trains, but back to the earlier problem, when Coney Island was rebuilt in the early 2000s we, again only built a terminal for 12 trains per hour which is why King's Highway turns 30% of the (F) trains already, so how many more trains can be put on QBL? As many as Kings Highway can handle. 

If we're lucky we'll get a few more 179th (E) trains. 

In the end a lot of smoke, not a lot of fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jsunflyguy said:


I left out the words per hour purposefully. I mean these will add a handful of trains, and won't be cost effective until other improvements are made as well. 

Consider QBL, the (M) / (R) won't be adding trains, the 71st fumigation and relay rodeo barely works as it is. The (E) to JC won't be getting them because, in the last 30 years we never got around to making it a proper terminal. So as you point out it will be the (F) (or more 179th St (E) trains) that will add trains, but back to the earlier problem, when Coney Island was rebuilt in the early 2000s we, again only built a terminal for 12 trains per hour which is why King's Highway turns 30% of the (F) trains already, so how many more trains can be put on QBL? As many as Kings Highway can handle. 

If we're lucky we'll get a few more 179th (E) trains. 

In the end a lot of smoke, not a lot of fire.

Terminate the extra (F)'s at Kings Highway and 18 Av and even 2 Av if you have to. 

IIRC, (L) capacity pre-CBTC was 19TPH. We got 2TPH out of CBTC, another 2 out of the power upgrades coming out of the (L) shutdown, and IIRC if they did all the power upgrades required they could get up to 26TPH. Which is great with no new physical infrastructure. 

New physical infrastructure, IMO, is almost completely out of the question. The South Ferry rebuild cost more than half a billion dollars. At those prices we will never see terminal improvements, or new subway lines other than SAS for generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Terminate the extra (F)'s at Kings Highway and 18 Av and even 2 Av if you have to. 

IIRC, (L) capacity pre-CBTC was 19TPH. We got 2TPH out of CBTC, another 2 out of the power upgrades coming out of the (L) shutdown, and IIRC if they did all the power upgrades required they could get up to 26TPH. Which is great with no new physical infrastructure. 

New physical infrastructure, IMO, is almost completely out of the question. The South Ferry rebuild cost more than half a billion dollars. At those prices we will never see terminal improvements, or new subway lines other than SAS for generations.

 

18th Isn't a long term solution with the (F) express eventuality, so 2nd Ave would be it. 

As far as the (L) running 26tph all the timetables show 21 TPH and in a quick skim of old timetables I haven't seen any example of anything above that number being utilized but I welcome any information you have. The (L) is also an example of how important physical infrastructure is, the 3rd rail system certainly counts in that regard since it requires new equipment, power lines, generators etc. If you mean physical rails the Pocket Track in Myrtle (which turns ~30% of the trains during rush hour) was put in service in 2004 during CBTC installation, so the gains of CBTC weren't purely signal related. 

I'm not saying to build the IND 2nd System but things like moving the crossovers closer to the platform at JC, a crossover west of 71st so the (E) / (F) can go local and come back express when it's hitting the fan without having to use the local platform at 71st...things that can be done within the existing ROW just as Myrtle Ave was.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Terminate the extra (F)'s at Kings Highway and 18 Av and even 2 Av if you have to. 

IIRC, (L) capacity pre-CBTC was 19TPH. We got 2TPH out of CBTC, another 2 out of the power upgrades coming out of the (L) shutdown, and IIRC if they did all the power upgrades required they could get up to 26TPH. Which is great with no new physical infrastructure. 

New physical infrastructure, IMO, is almost completely out of the question. The South Ferry rebuild cost more than half a billion dollars. At those prices we will never see terminal improvements, or new subway lines other than SAS for generations.

To say (L) CBTC added capacity is disingenuous -- it was a restoration at best. Into the '60s, NYCT ran 26tph during rush hours with the then-standard lighter cars. Since then, trains got heavier, and we forgot how to run them. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2018 at 12:14 AM, RR503 said:

To say (L) CBTC added capacity is disingenuous -- it was a restoration at best. Into the '60s, NYCT ran 26tph during rush hours with the then-standard lighter cars. Since then, trains got heavier, and we forgot how to run them. 

So in effect, all CBTC is doing is spending a large amount of money to do what (NYCT) did before (MTA) took control?

  • LMAO! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

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