Re: Flushing Line to B Division? (516610)

[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[ First in Thread | Next in Thread ]

Posted by Jon on Sun Jun 22 22:49:33 2003, in response to Re: Flushing Line to B Division?,
posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jun 17 22:51:28 2003.

Some questions that the topic and your outstanding memory prompt:

1. Can you better define "organizational ability"?

2. Has the time for a trip, say, the express run from Times Square to Main Street remained constant? If not, then what has the change been?

3. Has the minimum distance between trains at all points remained (significantly) the same since the decrease in service? If not, then what has the change been? In terms of signalling, I guess the question would be, has the number of blocks separating trains remained the same, i.e., are those safety standards constant? This is prompted by the reported changes the MTA made following the 1990s that they were bringing to "modern standards" the distance between trains.

4. On that last point of "modern standards" of safety I admit to some confusion. The reasoning as I understand it (which may be wrong) is that trains are heavier and take longer to stop than they once did. On the former, though, trains seem to be lighter than they were (the NTSB report for instance that the MTA purports to rely on in making a long term change to CBTC mentions that in the late-1960s a prime design requirement of trains was that they be lightweight). I cannot wite on the latter, although I would be (somewhat) surprised to learn that braking had not improved any in over fifty years (IIRC, they used the R-1 or R-10 or some other like model to establish the mean distance between signals, which is they say, too low for today's faster, slower to stop and heavier trains to consistently meet). Can anyone explain what seems like a paradox?


Replying to posts on SubTalk are disabled at this time.