Computerized Switching B Div
Cap'n Bludd
ueb...@aol.com (UeBklyn) wrote:
>
> The new system will consolidate multiple tower locations in one
>MegaTower to be located @ Queensboro Master complex. This tower will
>eliminate local control at numerous locations, including Court Square,
>Queens Plaza,the entire Astoria Line,and the new Queens cut to 21st.
This isn't new, it been around for several years. 207th master
controls from 207th down to 145, 59th controls from 125 to 59. The
Queensboro tower aready handles the 11th st cut (the switch that
seperates N's from R's). Last time I worked the cut the tower was
closed for asbestos abatement and service ran normal, so I assume that
QBP had control.
Cap'n Bludd C/r C/f
cpnb...@pipeline.com
capn...@aol.com
http://www.pipeline.com/~cpnbludd
The probability of someone watching you is directly
proportional to the stupidity of your actions....
Terry Kennedy
UeBklyn <ueb...@aol.com> writes:
> The potential savings in manpower alone is ample reason for management
> to proceed with this project, but is there any reason to believe that they
> will be able to connect real-time data communication between such remote
> areas, when the Public Address system still can't be consolidated?
The Metrocard communication is more complicated than that (all stations)
and it seems to be holding up pretty well...
Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing
te...@spcvxa.spc.edu St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA
+1 201 915 9381 (voice) +1 201 435-3662 (FAX)
Michael549
During the current rush hours and at other periods - the need for
"rapid responses to changing conditions" is paramount. Sometimes
there is a great need to re-route express trains and local trans from
one track to another. How will this new "Mega-Tower" enhance this
kind of activity?
Sometimes "creative solutions" are needed on the fly.
Today some of the current large wall interlocking boards at
the Jay Street complex do not actually report the real location of
trains -- the operators usually visualize the location of trains, and use
their radios. How would this new "Mega-Tower" operate "better" over
and on top of an existing system?
New York City is the largest transit operation in the United States,
and indeed the world. NYCTA has run this system using "human
and mechanical based systems" since its opening. What other
"Mega-Tower" operations handle a system as complex as NYC"s?
Will the "Mega-Tower" actually cost less than the human beings
it might replace?
Replacing the human beings "might be a good idea" but at the same
time, there would be a loss of the talent and experience of those persons.
Would that lead to a "dumbing down" on the kinds of responses to
problems, and hence a slowness in transit for the riders.
In the mid-1970's the R-46 trains were bought because they were
more computerized, faster and with of "space-age concepts". Many
of those "improvements" had to be abandoned because of the actual
and real need to get the trains moving. Is it possible that the "Mega-
Tower" might prove difficult in operation, and prone to numerous
computer mal-functions?
These are just some thoughts.
Michael-549
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Subject: Computerized Switching B Div
From: ueb...@aol.com (UeBklyn)
Date: 25 May 1997 16:16:26 GMT
Message-ID: <19970525161...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
NYCT is considering computerization of main-line switching along the
lines of the prototype currently testing in Chicago.
The new system will consolidate multiple tower locations in one
MegaTower to be located @ Queensboro Master complex. This tower will
eliminate local control at numerous locations, including Court Square,
Queens Plaza,the entire Astoria Line,and the new Queens cut to 21st.
The potential savings in manpower alone is ample reason for management
to proceed with this project, but is there any reason to believe that they
will be able to connect real-time data communication between such remote
areas, when the Public Address system still can't be consolidated?
Anyone having any thoughts about this, please let me know
Stephen Bauman
First, consider another hypothesis - that the TA brass and/or personnel
are incompetent, etc. Then Openheimer's law might apply - "first rate
minds attract first rate minds; second rate minds attract third rate
minds". The fact the the R46 was a failure might have been due more to
its designers' limitations than the available technology of its day.
There certainly were many criticisms of its design when they went out to
contract.
A lot has changed in technology, since CTC was introduced in the 1950's.
The reason for using computers is that they are far cheaper than trying
to use relay technology. The pitfall is that the designers will try to
use the computer to mimic the relay technology rather than to use the
computer type technology. The result would be that the finished product
would be up to 1950's standards and only 40 to 50 years late.
The finished product should be far more flexible and responsive than the
existing interlocking system. Moreover, it could provide useful
passenger information - like the arrival times of the next few trains.
All this depends on the implementation. The implementation depends on
the competence and imagination of the designers - which comes back to my
first point.
Steve
Bradley Ward Allen
It's exciting to see someone else say the same things I did without my
having read it first!
I agree with you, and you probably said it better (and with more
knowledge in many areas), Steve. The point is so important in my mind
that I thought it bared redundant attention, thus my message.
Lisa or Jeff
Regarding the post that said "NY underrepresented in machine automated talent"
(whatever that means)...
Railroading has traditionally been a very conservative business, with
technological innovations taking place slowly over time. However,
railroads have clearly improved technically over time--new materials,
pratices have made a big difference between today and even 20 years ago.
In the case of the New York City transit system, the first and foremost
requirement is RUGGEDNESS. What works in other cities would wear out in NYC.
In recent years, many new technologies dealt with electronics.
Unfortunately, electronics took a long time to evolve to the durability
required for a subway system. Look at how long it took BART to debug its
computers. Just last winter an automated train in Washington had a fatal
accident.
Regarding the signal system, technically speaking the existing relay based
system is obsolete. It does require a lot of expensive (manpower)
maintenance. It is not flexible (ie accomdating new trains of higher
speeds, adding an intermediate speed aspect such as "medium approach", or
reducing block length to accomodate more trains.) Some proposed new
systems eliminate fixed track blocks altogether, removing the need for
track circuits and insulated rail joints and bonds (big maintenance savings.)
Naturally, though, this new stuff better work well and right ALL of the time.
(See Railway Age for articles on the new stuff.)
I dare say some towers in the subway system are not too busy. I visited
the tower at Canarsie (LL) and all the operator did was flick a switch to
clear the start signal every 12 minutes. I think a function like that
could be efficiently automated or at least centralized. (Side note--in
Philadelphia, most subway towers are automated, even at terminals.) If
you have a situation were a towerman is on duty basically in case of an
emergency, then centralization or automation is possible.
I submit _evolutionary_, not _revolutionary_ improvements are the best.
The late great Pennsylvania Railroad slowly built upon technical successes
over the years, allowing for efficiency yet reliability. But when they
rushed out the original Metroliner MU trains without sufficient testing, they
had massive failures.
In NYC subway history, major breaks with the past often had serious problems.
The new trucks on the R-10. The R-46. But subway trains of today are much
more efficient than the R-10s. Through the 1950s and early 1960s, minor
improvements were applied and built upon, such as things like dynamic
brakes, married pairs sharing compressors/mg sets, and lightweight battery
boxes. Air conditioning was finally perfected.
Bradley Ward Allen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
You raise many questions about implementing more machine-automated
systems in place of less-machine automated systems.
I have a firm belief that NYC has been underrepresented in excellent
machine-automated talent compared to other regions (Northern
California, where I grew up and which houses BART, comes to mind), so
in practice theory is not achieved. While the talent has existed
here, it has not always been as plentiful and available as in other
regions. Furthermore, regardless of other regions and especially in
terms of being so good that one can only compare to ones' self for
improvement, I don't think technology has been applied to its fullest
possible beneficial extent in this region. Although NYC has a complex
train system, I really doubt that the complexity would make automated
systems worse off; rather, I think it is a prime place that automation
could far excell the performance of their human counterparts. Where
it all breaks down, in my opinion, is the design and application of
the technology. The technology is only as good as it is built and
operated, so one must look at the builders and operators of technology
in the NYC area as compared to the builders and operators of human
power. NYC has always had a plethora of wonderful people. However,
technology in general around here has always been kept at a level that
the mafia can understand and control, which has been close to none.
It is easy in this environment in my mind to see the horrible
disparity in quality of work done by these wonderful people and the
technology that to my lifetime is indistinguishable from stone-age
(since they both were put together far before I was born). As such,
the people should be highly acclaimed and rewarded (hopefully with
decent jobs and pay). However, I believe that appropriate,
high-quality automation that many old-timers would have a hard time
dreaming of would eventually become something they come to admire, and
most likely (if they try) understand. Among the reasons for their not
dreaming of it are that they didn't grow up near Silicon Valley as I
did, and among the reasons they would admire the technology is that it
would improve the efficiency of the region, helping far more than it
would ever hurt. I'm sure these same old-timers (as well as others)
have many appropriate examples of misapplied technology, and probably
appropriately applied technology as well.
A lot of this rests on policies and administrative decisions.
For instance, finding places for the displaced tower workers to work
would be of paramount importance. Some of them will retire naturally.
Some of them will adapt to become consultants to the builders and
operators of the new controlling systems, hopefully learning how to
think like networked computers so that they can help interface with
the entire system, integrated with all the automation, their
knowledge, etc, and hopefully some of those will become permanent
employees. The rest: what to do with them? I always worry that
firing hard working people is a bad jinx on the system, and I'm a very
logical sort (logic as well as experience can easily realize that a
mad person can cause harm, even if not direct and not illegal).
And for the building of the system: I'm sure that the MTA and its
forebearers have a long history that I'm not privy to, of searching
for those who are good at technology. However, keep in mind the
successes and failures to date, and realize that a control system
needs superior intellect and attention (as well as emotion, which
helps fuel the necessary intellect and attention in the humans
necessary to the design). It is a lot of work and very difficult, and
requires a lot of imagination and precision, but certainly attainable,
to put together an excellent automation system. What doesn't make it
any easier is that many people can do the job, and many cannot, and
many of those that can are not available and many of those that cannot
are available; at least many who can are available (and many who
cannot are not). While I don't know whether NYC deserves or requires
an excellent as opposed to simply a very good control system, I do
believe whatever it needs is clearly possible, while it is even more
possible to do it wrong. To someone deficient in technology, it is so
possible to authorize a wrong, substandard, inefficient,
unimaginative, imprecise, or(/and?!) unsafe system that it is
absolutely horrifying to think that any such person would have any
impact on any such automation system. However, to (many, certain)
people highly proficient in technology, it should be run-of-the-mill,
something they can do in their sleep but they would have more fun
doing awake. Integrating this administratively within the current
reality, I'm sure, is as much work per individuals involved in that
aspect as it is work per individuals who design the new system,
however more important the measurement precisions by the latter must
be.
All of this is my opinion, and is founded on my 26 years of exploring
technology and society from various vantage points. Because of some
of the potential insult I caused, I must sign this (I'll use
traditional PGP) so that my words are not mischiviously mangled; sorry
for the extra bits.
Path: DeepThought.Armory.Com!qdotnet!ulmo
Newsgroups: nyc.transit
Subject: Re: Computerized Switching B Div
References: <19970525161...@ladder01.news.aol.com> <19970525233...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
reply-to: ul...@armory.Com
cc: ul...@armory.com
From: Bradley Ward Allen <ul...@Q.Net>
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.4.37/XEmacs 19.15
In-Reply-To: micha...@aol.com's message of 25 May 1997 23:38:11 GMT
Date: 26 May 1997 16:11:15 -0400
Message-ID: <#4.3h67w6...@Q.Net>
Lines: 113
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQEVAwUBM4nv55xWhFYc6x9VAQE0QQgAsVwc/j1U3S2noyEzuQwwjnQGYUReiGQz
aAmHF+mHOVJho73T+VnZ+WBBFo5akL9OOuflHygexBRTgBRTQRlflq4HVscNX8Ug
9/GxVWjztG57ZB6VOI4t9odkA9506Iihz1nUlH8RMDjzHD/T2yp5wBEGN59AsAzX
nyBvr7X9vDeVTYHV0D9WkU2QFLrQdQi3dI/FwNo2N1KUcmPqC+uW0ZZcUPRMBTPD
flJOV/yekeKBwJ5g9BWqw8C2NYxEnLmJrVMSMS39k7DiTiAMpH0cohOjBQ8UGMs4
n20lQ/zTmPOHXKOtaKxIjvyV2S3XUHlDcKVC2VKlEinXkOV1Y/TCMQ==
=cc7X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
UeBklyn
You misunderstood my posting re: Queensboro Computerizaton. The
existing Master Tower Board @ QBPL is to be taken down and replaced with a
Mega-Model Board which will include all of the Astoria Line(which it now
controls) and additional S/B control to 57/7,the CourtSquare, Queens
Plaza, and Roosevelt Ave.interlockings, and the Q line interlockings from
Queensboro to Rockefeller Center as well as the yet to be completed 36st
tunnel.
What makes this different from other Master Towers is the lack of
physical controls (buttons,levers,etc) on the model board. The current
blueprints call for 4 individual computer workstations in front of the
model board consisting of dual monitors at each position capable of
calling up any interlocking on the board.
Moves will be initiated via keyboard and mouse.
Me, I still look to see which end of the pencil I'm using before I make a
move.
Hugh
Faughnan
Tower
Operator 'B'
John M Mullervy
Is there still local control towers build.
And where can one find a map of what towers control what track
John
Bradley Ward Allen
I see.
I suppose it can have advantages over the older push-pull controls,
however I guess it doesn't take advantage of neat things that it could
like knowing exactly what train is where and on what schedule, etc.
that with a(n) (e.g.) radio triangulation system would be matter-of-fact.
Colin R. Leech
Lisa or Jeff (hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com) wrote:
> I submit _evolutionary_, not _revolutionary_ improvements are the best.
> The late great Pennsylvania Railroad slowly built upon technical successes
> over the years, allowing for efficiency yet reliability. But when they
> rushed out the original Metroliner MU trains without sufficient testing, they
> had massive failures.
>
> In NYC subway history, major breaks with the past often had serious problems.
> The new trucks on the R-10. The R-46. But subway trains of today are much
> more efficient than the R-10s. Through the 1950s and early 1960s, minor
> improvements were applied and built upon, such as things like dynamic
> brakes, married pairs sharing compressors/mg sets, and lightweight battery
> boxes. Air conditioning was finally perfected.
Hence the extensive testing program that went on with the R-110 trains
before the decision to purchase hundreds of new cars. Customer reactions
to changes were also evaluated (what a novel concept!) Many of the
technological enhancements on the R-110s are already in use elsewhere in
the industry, but now the NYCTA is convinced that they work as they are
supposed to.
--
#### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag414 or crl...@freenet.carleton.ca
#### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
#### > < Opinions are my own. You may consider them shareware.
#### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown