Why Your Subway Train Might Start Moving Faster

[XcelsiorBoii4888]

7 hours ago, RR503 said:

CBTC will take care of 8th and Fulton, but you can't really do anything about the timers on CPW. Whatever you may think of their implementation, they do indeed serve real safety functions!

I don't get it though, there's other sections of track that are more wild that have higher speed limits. What exactly are those timers for? I would love to know. Has there ever been an accident on that are stretch of track? 

[RR503]

9 hours ago, XcelsiorBoii4888 said:

I don't get it though, there's other sections of track that are more wild that have higher speed limits. What exactly are those timers for? I would love to know. Has there ever been an accident on that are stretch of track? 

If I were a betting man, I would be willing to wager that a majority of timers exist for control line safety (ie making sure trains are going slow enough that, given a certain distance ahead of a signal which makes it red/maximum attainable speed, there's sufficient stopping distance) rather than to protect nutty track geometry. Most CPW timers are there for that reason, or were baked into the resignalling they did there in the late '80s because controlling train speeds actually can help _increase_ capacity (this is the primary motivation behind many timed areas on downgrades: it's not so much that we don't want trains doing 65 as it is we don't want to have the control line lengths that'd come with that). 

[XcelsiorBoii4888]

2 minutes ago, RR503 said:

If I were a betting man, I would be willing to wager that a majority of timers exist for control line safety (ie making sure trains are going slow enough that, given a certain distance ahead of a signal which makes it red/maximum attainable speed, there's sufficient stopping distance) rather than to protect nutty track geometry. Most CPW timers are there for that reason, or were baked into the resignalling they did there in the late '80s because controlling train speeds actually can help _increase_ capacity (this is the primary motivation behind many timed areas on downgrades: it's not so much that we don't want trains doing 65 as it is we don't want to have the control line lengths that'd come with that). 

If that's the case, you don't think CBTC would fix that? 

I know the original post was about currently improving existing operating speeds with a T/O, which makes sense as to why the timers are there now...but down the line, CBTC couldn't automatically fix that?

I'm a bus guy so my apologies if this was explained before. I study transportation engineering and I don't see why a longer stretch of track would benefit from slower speeds to maintain capacity. 

[Lex]

4 minutes ago, XcelsiorBoii4888 said:

If that's the case, you don't think CBTC would fix that? 

I know the original post was about currently improving existing operating speeds with a T/O, which makes sense as to why the timers are there now...but down the line, CBTC couldn't automatically fix that?

I'm a bus guy so my apologies if this was explained before. I study transportation engineering and I don't see why a longer stretch of track would benefit from slower speeds to maintain capacity. 

CBTC can address operator variability, but it can't do anything about physics.

[XcelsiorBoii4888]

8 minutes ago, Lex said:

CBTC can address operator variability, but it can't do anything about physics.

Interesting, I'll look into that. Thanks. 

[RR503]

33 minutes ago, XcelsiorBoii4888 said:

If that's the case, you don't think CBTC would fix that? 

I know the original post was about currently improving existing operating speeds with a T/O, which makes sense as to why the timers are there now...but down the line, CBTC couldn't automatically fix that?

I'm a bus guy so my apologies if this was explained before. I study transportation engineering and I don't see why a longer stretch of track would benefit from slower speeds to maintain capacity. 

See my original response. CBTC fixes this 100% because your speed profile is the lower of maximum allowed speed for geometry and maximum safe speed for following. This, plus the acceleration benefits that come with CBTC ops are why you see such big runtime gains when you turn CBTC on.

27 minutes ago, Lex said:

CBTC can address operator variability, but it can't do anything about physics.

The whole point of my reply is these aren’t exactly physics (curve speeds etc) problems: they are choices made relative to a very specific set of constraints inherent to fixed block installations.

FWIW, CBTC fixes operator variability but not conductor variability, which can be punishing in high ridership segments. 

[XcelsiorBoii4888]

11 minutes ago, RR503 said:

See my original response. CBTC fixes this 100% because your speed profile is the lower of maximum allowed speed for geometry and maximum safe speed for following. This, plus the acceleration benefits that come with CBTC ops are why you see such big runtime gains when you turn CBTC on.

The whole point of my reply is these aren’t exactly physics (curve speeds etc) problems: they are choices made relative to a very specific set of constraints inherent to fixed block installations.

FWIW, CBTC fixes operator variability but not conductor variability, which can be punishing in high ridership segments. 

Thank you. Your original response said CBTC can only fix 8th and Fulton, which is why I was confused. One simple rule that can help improve conductor variability is closing both sections at the same time. The NTT doors already close slower than the older fleet, and having one section close, and then another section close can delay a train by 5 secs at minimum. Doing this at a 24 stations delays by 2 mins. Also, some conductors take 3-4 seconds before opening doors at stations, whereas some open soon as the train stops. Some conductors (veterans) open the window before the train stops, is already pointing when the train stops to make sure it's aligned with the board, and automatically opens the door soon as the train stops (on NTTs at least, i just noticed a few weeks ago on the  a conductor used a key before unlocking the door). But anyways that three seconds of delaying opening the doors can delay a train by 1 minute at 20 stations. That's already three minutes delayed by the conductor that can vary between conductor. 

[RR503]

13 minutes ago, XcelsiorBoii4888 said:

Thank you. Your original response said CBTC can only fix 8th and Fulton, which is why I was confused.

Ah, sorry--CBTC can fix all of these areas, but they're only installing on 8th and Fulton. 

[XcelsiorBoii4888]

40 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Ah, sorry--CBTC can fix all of these areas, but they're only installing on 8th and Fulton. 

Got it, thank you! 

[Trainmaster5]

3 hours ago, XcelsiorBoii4888 said:

Thank you. Your original response said CBTC can only fix 8th and Fulton, which is why I was confused. One simple rule that can help improve conductor variability is closing both sections at the same time. The NTT doors already close slower than the older fleet, and having one section close, and then another section close can delay a train by 5 secs at minimum. Doing this at a 24 stations delays by 2 mins. Also, some conductors take 3-4 seconds before opening doors at stations, whereas some open soon as the train stops. Some conductors (veterans) open the window before the train stops, is already pointing when the train stops to make sure it's aligned with the board, and automatically opens the door soon as the train stops (on NTTs at least, i just noticed a few weeks ago on the  a conductor used a key before unlocking the door). But anyways that three seconds of delaying opening the doors can delay a train by 1 minute at 20 stations. That's already three minutes delayed by the conductor that can vary between conductor. 

For my Surface amigo a C/R closes the rear,  checking the indication that all doors are closed and locked,  then repeats the process with the front section and then passes indication to the T/O which allows the train to move.  This is by rule . Passenger safety and all that. The seconds you called delay are built into the schedule. FYI a C/R who closes both sections at the same time is looking at a suspension if lucky,  demotion or termination in the worst case.  Just trying to clear up things. Carry on. 

[XcelsiorBoii4888]

2 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

For my Surface amigo a C/R closes the rear,  checking the indication that all doors are closed and locked,  then repeats the process with the front section and then passes indication to the T/O which allows the train to move.  This is by rule . Passenger safety and all that. The seconds you called delay are built into the schedule. FYI a C/R who closes both sections at the same time is looking at a suspension if lucky,  demotion or termination in the worst case.  Just trying to clear up things. Carry on. 

Ohh yeah I know it's a rule. I'm just saying thats a rule that can be modified, especially with today's technology and doors that are designed to open up if obstructed. After the stand clear announcement is played, conductor can look left right left right, and close the doors. It's not like the goal is to not have the doors close on people. Doors close on people 90% of the time. Whether it's people not fitting in, people running to catch doors, or whatever. I'm just saying, doesn't make sense. MTA is looking at ways to cut dwell times but that's a major one. 

My post wasn't to recommend conductors to break rules, it was being referred to the higher ups to possibly break that rule, or modify it. I can understand it being a rule with the older trains, but with NTTs, it's like writing with chalk on a smart board. 

[Trainmaster5]

15 minutes ago, XcelsiorBoii4888 said:

Ohh yeah I know it's a rule. I'm just saying thats a rule that can be modified, especially with today's technology and doors that are designed to open up if obstructed. After the stand clear announcement is played, conductor can look left right left right, and close the doors. It's not like the goal is to not have the doors close on people. Doors close on people 90% of the time. Whether it's people not fitting in, people running to catch doors, or whatever. I'm just saying, doesn't make sense. MTA is looking at ways to cut dwell times but that's a major one. 

My post wasn't to recommend conductors to break rules, it was being referred to the higher ups to possibly break that rule, or modify it. I can understand it being a rule with the older trains, but with NTTs, it's like writing with chalk on a smart board. 

The local recycle function on NTT was a great idea in theory. Reopen one car vs a whole section. In my experience in the real world that one door panel being obstructed can cause a delay equaling the time wasted with SMEE cars. The sensitivity of the door panels had to be adjusted (lessened) because the smart school kids on the  line discovered that they could delay a train as long as they desired by sticking a foot in the door tracks from inside the train. It basically forced the conductor to revert back to old school operations. Quite a few of us realize that station dwell time is dependent on the ridership and not solely due to the equipment. I have seen dwell time decreases because the riders on the train took matters into their own hands and forced the platform people to remove their hands and/or feet away from the door tracks. The people I’m talking about now were adults along the Lexington Avenue corridor and not school kids playing around in the Bronx. Old school or NTT didn’t matter if the riders weren’t cooperative. Just my observation. Carry on. 

[RR503]

11 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

The local recycle function on NTT was a great idea in theory. Reopen one car vs a whole section. In my experience in the real world that one door panel being obstructed can cause a delay equaling the time wasted with SMEE cars. The sensitivity of the door panels had to be adjusted (lessened) because the smart school kids on the  line discovered that they could delay a train as long as they desired by sticking a foot in the door tracks from inside the train. It basically forced the conductor to revert back to old school operations. Quite a few of us realize that station dwell time is dependent on the ridership and not solely due to the equipment. I have seen dwell time decreases because the riders on the train took matters into their own hands and forced the platform people to remove their hands and/or feet away from the door tracks. The people I’m talking about now were adults along the Lexington Avenue corridor and not school kids playing around in the Bronx. Old school or NTT didn’t matter if the riders weren’t cooperative. Just my observation. Carry on. 

Gonna disagree that it's a great idea in theory -- it's a great one in practice as well. It was just designed obtusely, so that you have to LR the entire train vs a zone, which means you can't use it in normal door operation or outside of an autorecycle sequence bc just pressing the button may recycle a door you're not looking at. 

[Trainmaster5]

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

Gonna disagree that it's a great idea in theory -- it's a great one in practice as well. It was just designed obtusely, so that you have to LR the entire train vs a zone, which means you can't use it in normal door operation or outside of an autorecycle sequence bc just pressing the button may recycle a door you're not looking at. 

Perhaps I used the wrong verbiage but your take on the results fall in line with what I’ve observed. What the  line crews endured the TSS’s over there warned the WPR/ Dyre crews about although the problem was concentrated on the Pelham line. My friend on the console at RCC was aware of the issue as well as the supervision at East 180th because we heard everything on our radios. I picked up school kids every day from Dyre down to the East during the same timeframe but we never had that problem. I chalked it up to the difference between the R142 and the R142A at the time. Back when I had complaints about the ATS system and my console dispatcher and I talked every day. My take. Carry on.

Edited March 23, 2020 by Trainmaster5
Added content

[MeeP15-9112]

Is the  doing something about 75 Ave Interlocking?

Also, have you noticed that for the past year or so, northbound  trains leaving 47-50-Rockefeller are creeping out of the station? I know theres a junction there, but remember that it used to be much faster.

Edited April 10, 2020 by MeeP15-9112

[RestrictOnTheHanger]

On 4/9/2020 at 10:16 PM, MeeP15-9112 said:

Is the  doing something about 75 Ave Interlocking?

Also, have you noticed that for the past year or so, northbound  trains leaving 47-50-Rockefeller are creeping out of the station? I know theres a junction there, but remember that it used to be much faster.

At 47-50 there are either 15-20mph speed signs or timers after the switch. I think it's timers, because the trains diverge faster from the express track to the 63rd st line.  Its been a month or two since I've ridden through that way so I dont remember which. 

Edited April 17, 2020 by RestrictOnTheHanger

[RestrictOnTheHanger]

The April NYCT board book shows that during March, a lot of GT calibrations have supposedly been done. I believe it's shown under the fast forward progress. 

Edited April 23, 2020 by RestrictOnTheHanger

[RestrictOnTheHanger]

The thread has been dormant for a few months. Any news or observations on timer adjustments/speed increases from anyone who is still using the trains?

Edited July 10, 2020 by RestrictOnTheHanger

[Jsunflyguy]

On 7/10/2020 at 9:44 AM, RestrictOnTheHanger said:

The thread has been dormant for a few months. Any news or observations on timer adjustments/speed increases from anyone who is still using the trains?

Recently a few areas had in the BMT East had their timers replaced with electric timers and higher speeds in general but mostly in areas that do not affect revenue service directly.

[RestrictOnTheHanger]

18 hours ago, Jsunflyguy said:

but mostly in areas that do not affect revenue service directly.

You mean places like yards/layup tracks? Or for diverging moves over switches?

[Jsunflyguy]

10 hours ago, RestrictOnTheHanger said:

You mean places like yards/layup tracks? Or for diverging moves over switches?

The Broad Street Layup tracks, the switches to the Montague Tunnel and a few odd routes in that vicinity were sped up; Marcy Ave to the Middle track was also increased slightly. Only one of these really directly applies to revenue trains

[Union Tpke]

@RR503 This could be a game changer. This is one of the things considered in the December 2019 study on speeds. This is some of the best news in transit I have heard in some time. I wonder how much travel times on the Culver express would be reduced.

 

[Maxwell179]

6 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

@RR503 This could be a game changer. This is one of the things considered in the December 2019 study on speeds. This is some of the best news in transit I have heard in some time. I wonder how much travel times on the Culver express would be reduced.

 

Do tests like these happen often ?

[RR503]

6 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

@RR503 This could be a game changer. This is one of the things considered in the December 2019 study on speeds. This is some of the best news in transit I have heard in some time. I wonder how much travel times on the Culver express would be reduced.

Correct, and this was looked at previously in the 1990s when they set the current standards.
 

Culver Express wouldn’t gain much from this — its curves are either timed or on long uphills that make it impossible to even get to V4 — but on other parts of the system, where untimed geometric limits abound, this indeed could be great. IND Queens and IRT Broadway especially. 

[7-express]

Bit of news on this topic: https://www.thecity.nyc/2021/3/15/22330165/subway-speed-rise-on-mta-train-tracks