A long but interesting article on the problems of updating the
antiquated systems on the New York subway (warning, lots of ads
especially if you have flash player enabled):

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...ns-are/415152/

--
Clive Page

On 15.11.15 16:12, Clive Page wrote:
A long but interesting article on the problems of updating the
antiquated systems on the New York subway (warning, lots of ads
especially if you have flash player enabled):

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...ns-are/415152/


Good luck with that!

Parts of the New York City Subway's signalling system have not seen
upgrades since the 60s, if not earlier than that.

Parts of the signalling and control systems could likely fall into the
legal category of antique.

Many parts still use old analogue systems and use mechanical levers, and
there are still active signalboxes (towers)

I guess that is what continues to make it cool.

They've introduced moving block on the Canarsie line, with go-no-go
waysides only at danger points. There are plans to do same on the
Flushing Line as newer trains already have auto-pilot, though they are
not yet operating in that mode.

It will nonetheless be a while before they manage to modernise
signalling on a behemoth like the New York City Subway. I mean, OPTO is
only relatively a new phenomenon.

They are also still using magnetic strips for fare payment, and Smart
Card or CPC technology seems to be a ways off.

There was a pilot programme for CPC in 2006, but it was only at 42nd
Street - Grand Central on the Lexington and Flushing Lines.

Interesting to hear from across the Pond about this one.

On 15.11.15 21:36, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 16:12:06 +0000, Clive Page
wrote:

A long but interesting article on the problems of updating the
antiquated systems on the New York subway (warning, lots of ads
especially if you have flash player enabled):

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...ns-are/415152/

Very interesting in terms of the monumental mess the MTA have got
themselves into. Reminded me of some of the worst conflicts in LU but
I think TfL have smoothed a lot of things out although obviously the
SSR debacle is a case where they didn't. I think the funding
environment in New York is vastly worse than London experiences and
there are regular political turf wars causing ever changing political
priorities for the MTA. Causes all sorts of ridiculous problems - it's
a miracle the trains run.

There is that, yes.

It's also worth noting that the New York City Subway was once three
separate entities -- the Interborough Rapod Transit Company, the
Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation and Independent Subway System --
and the City of New York started only to actively merge them under its
own administration in 1940.

Parts of the system still carry their old respective names to this day,
AIUI, even though 75 years have passed since the merger.

The City of New York to this day makes a delineation between them in
operating terms and uses the terms A, B-1 and B-2, respectively IRT, BMT
and IND.

It would thus not surprise me to find out that each division has
retained a certain degree of its own cultures to this day.

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 16:12:06 +0000, Clive Page
wrote:

A long but interesting article on the problems of updating the
antiquated systems on the New York subway (warning, lots of ads
especially if you have flash player enabled):

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...ns-are/415152/

Very interesting in terms of the monumental mess the MTA have got
themselves into. Reminded me of some of the worst conflicts in LU but
I think TfL have smoothed a lot of things out although obviously the
SSR debacle is a case where they didn't. I think the funding
environment in New York is vastly worse than London experiences and
there are regular political turf wars causing ever changing political
priorities for the MTA. Causes all sorts of ridiculous problems - it's
a miracle the trains run.

Much as I am happy to gripe about much in Britain, transport in London
really is exceptionally good. The fact that whether or not the brand new
buses are a bit toasty on the rare hot day is considered a major issue
pretty well underscores that.

This is not an observation born of living in Bucharest either (our public
transport is pretty decent, even if the idea of an air conditioned bus
draws a hollow laugh in a country where it's routinely 40C in the summer) -
I vowed never again to complain about London transport when I moved to
Yorkshire and found out what the state of transport there was like.

(One amusing aside on Buc though - we have an equivalent of Oyster, the
Activ Card. Except the underground stopped accepting it because the bus &
tram operator (RATB) can't pay its debts to the tube operator (Metrorex).
Whether it's Ken or Boris or whoever else that's in charge, they and the
administration around them actually do a bloody good job in that London.)

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 15:13:30 +0000, wrote:

On 15.11.15 21:36, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 16:12:06 +0000, Clive Page wrote:

A long but interesting article on the problems of updating the
antiquated systems on the New York subway (warning, lots of ads
especially if you have flash player enabled):

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...1/why-dont-we-
know-where-all-the-trains-are/415152/

Very interesting in terms of the monumental mess the MTA have got
themselves into. Reminded me of some of the worst conflicts in LU but I
think TfL have smoothed a lot of things out although obviously the SSR
debacle is a case where they didn't. I think the funding environment in
New York is vastly worse than London experiences and there are regular
political turf wars causing ever changing political priorities for the
MTA. Causes all sorts of ridiculous problems - it's a miracle the
trains run.

There is that, yes.

It's also worth noting that the New York City Subway was once three
separate entities -- the Interborough Rapod Transit Company, the
Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation and Independent Subway System --
and the City of New York started only to actively merge them under its
own administration in 1940.

Parts of the system still carry their old respective names to this day,
AIUI, even though 75 years have passed since the merger.

The City of New York to this day makes a delineation between them in
operating terms and uses the terms A, B-1 and B-2, respectively IRT, BMT
and IND.

It would thus not surprise me to find out that each division has
retained a certain degree of its own cultures to this day.

Who gives a **** about those coutndown clocks. It would be nicers
without them, a lower fare, and to get the homeless off the train.