Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘The Trains Are Slower Because They Slowed the Trains Down’

villagevoice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 243 posts

Re: ‘The Trains Are Slower Because They Slowed the Trains Down’

#151

Post by isostatic »

twic wrote: post #140
the8472 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nitpick: self-propelling cars are not a distinguishing property for light rail. Some modern high speed trains use self-propelling cars[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Velaro

The technical term is "electric multiple unit", and it's becoming the default for high-speed trains use them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_multiple_unit#Example... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_395 High speed aside, in the UK, i think pretty much all inner and outer suburban main-line trains are electric or diesel multiple units (eg if you get a train from London to Cambridge that takes 4…

Loco hauled are very rare - HSTs from the 70s mainly being replaced on GWR mainline, a little use on WCML and cross country 2 or 3 sets?) and I think the east coast does them too. And Eurostar of course.

Aside from those it's freight and the sleepers isn't it?

Re: ‘The Trains Are Slower Because They Slowed the Trains Down’

#152

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

mistermann wrote: post #128
bsder wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as you agree with the optimization that the man in charge is implementing. If you don't, well, in China, sucks to be you.

It depends. You may not enjoy certain micro-optimizations, but to me it seems perfectly possible that even though living in a communist dictatorship has many negatives, the net benefits under a benevolent dictator could easily surpass the drawbacks, especially when compared to a free but largely corrupt Western society where the benefits may not make it outside the top 10%. And this isn't even getting into the longer…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign

Re: ‘The Trains Are Slower Because They Slowed the Trains Down’

#153

Post by bogomipz »

megy wrote: post #127
ryankupyn wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The MTA is comparing single-ride fares with "effective" cost per ride of a then-$81 30 day pass, which they amortize over around 70 rides, which is a bit high for the average person in my experience (though not ridiculous). It might be more accurate to compare the single-ride fare then with the single-ride fare at the time the photo was taken, which was either $2.00 or $2.25 (the price changed in 2009, I think).

Did they have multi-day passes back then? It might be reasonable to compare the cheapest options available then.

They did not. You actually bought metal subway tokens that you dropped into a coin slot on the turnstile.

See:

https://untappedcities.com/2011/07/06/subway-tokens-a-dose-o...

Re: ‘The Trains Are Slower Because They Slowed the Trains Down’

#154

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

mrbabbage wrote: post #115
stcredzero wrote: post #26

But there is one type of delay that’s gotten exponentially worse during that time: a catchall category blandly titled “insufficient capacity, excess dwell, unknown,” which captures every delay without an obvious cause. This smacks of corruption or of elements of society deciding that systems aren't going to simply work anymore. The population of New York City when I lived in Queens was 7.3 million when I lived there…

NYC's transit mode share for commute trips is above 50% [1]. Of the additional 1.2 million people, this means that this population growth probably produced at least 1.2 million additional daily rides, since 50% of the 1.2 million rides the subway twice a day, to and from work. 1.2 million additional daily riders is about double the entire Washington Metro daily ridership and triple that of BART's daily ridership! Ind…

The ridership was higher in 1948 and there was no crisis of sardine packed trains and crowded platforms then. MTA is intentionally running the system below capacity to cut costs.

Re: ‘The Trains Are Slower Because They Slowed the Trains Down’

#155

Post by bogomipz »

throwaway_80bf3 wrote: post #72
bogomipz wrote: post #22

This would not be the first time that the MTA has willfully deceived the public by maintaining two sets of facts - the private set which reflects the truth and another set of facts that are used in discussion with the public. 15 years ago the MTA was caught maintaining two different sets of books - one internal that showed the agency had a surplus of cash and another set of books for the public which showed the agenc…

About 8 years ago there were a few house ads in the cars that were effectively gaslighting riders. It was one of the craziest things I'd ever seen as a consumer -- borderline antagonistic. The agency, and the workers to some extent, can be pugilistic when criticized. http://cdn.journalism.cuny.edu/blogs.dir/176/files/2010/03/f...

Right and if they ran that ad today, 10 years later the single ride fare has more than doubled @ $2.75 a ride on a $131 dollar monthly pass.

Twice as much for worse service.

Re: ‘The Trains Are Slower Because They Slowed the Trains Down’

#156

Post by isostatic »

mancerayder wrote: post #150
masklinn wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paris has been able to convert an existing line to fully automated (GOA4) and is currently working on a second one. Unions sound more like your personal bogeyman than an actual cause.

Excellent counterpoint, and deserving of greater visibility. London is another example - the transit workers are heavily unionized and regularly go on strike, and yet there've been massive improvements to the Tube, which predates NYC's subway by 50 some odd years. Ever notice how narrow those tubes are, and how deep down they're dug? To add insult to injury, construction costs for transit are much lower in Paris and…

Although some lines are automated in London, they still have a driver to push the button.

The DLR is fully automated, but has a member of staff on board, and the 4 times I used it this year the staff member was always in manual control.

If rail doesn't get automated before cars, I don't see branch lines surviving. But then I don't see them surviving automated cars either. Main lines, sure, but I'll be getting an auto-taxi to the mainline station rather than the hourly connecting train.

Re: ‘The Trains Are Slower Because They Slowed the Trains Down’

#157

Post by credit_guy »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #42
bogomipz wrote: post #22

This would not be the first time that the MTA has willfully deceived the public by maintaining two sets of facts - the private set which reflects the truth and another set of facts that are used in discussion with the public. 15 years ago the MTA was caught maintaining two different sets of books - one internal that showed the agency had a surplus of cash and another set of books for the public which showed the agenc…

> The culture of this agency is rotten and its corruption endemic How does one realistically reform something like this?

IANAL, but keeping double books should land you in prison, as simple as that.

Re: ‘The Trains Are Slower Because They Slowed the Trains Down’

#158

Post by Kelbit »

smilekzs wrote: post #14

Risking asking the obvious: What is stopping us from having autonomous subways, considering we are almost gonna have autonomous cars?

Vancouver SkyTrain opened in 1985 and was fully automated from day one. The rolling stock used on the majority of the system (Bombardier ART) was specifically designed for driverless operation.

Interestingly, at the time the Vancouver SkyTrain was undergoing construction, the same tech was being installed in Toronto for the Scarborough rapid transit line. The transit union in Toronto opposed automation, so the trains had to be specially modified to add operator cabins so the trains could be driven manually. Vancouver was able to get away with it because the system was a greenfield project, there was no union of subway workers around already to oppose automating the trains.

Re: ‘The Trains Are Slower Because They Slowed the Trains Down’

#159

Post by subpixel »

njarboe wrote: post #44

This article has a lot of text before getting to describing the problem. Summary: Train wreck 1995 and a installation of a safety-first, CYA response that slows down the trains and does not increase safety. Longer Summary: Train wreck in 1995. Maybe driver was asleep. Start installing new signals that not only automatically stop the trains when there is a train ahead (good idea and already in place), but also when go…

This may confirm my memory of 2/3 trains hurtling at what I recall as much faster speeds in the early 90s.

Re: ‘The Trains Are Slower Because They Slowed the Trains Down’

#160

Post by takno »

isostatic wrote: post #151
twic wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The technical term is "electric multiple unit", and it's becoming the default for high-speed trains use them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_multiple_unit#Example... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_395 High speed aside, in the UK, i think pretty much all inner and outer suburban main-line trains are electric or diesel multiple units (eg if you get a train from London to Cambridge that takes 4…

Loco hauled are very rare - HSTs from the 70s mainly being replaced on GWR mainline, a little use on WCML and cross country 2 or 3 sets?) and I think the east coast does them too. And Eurostar of course. Aside from those it's freight and the sleepers isn't it?

If you're counting HSTs then everything on the east coast, plus great Eastern main line, the sleepers, East Midlands HSTs, Chilterns trains, 4 xc sets, the new transpennine sets that are being built, a few Cumbrian coast services, and within a few weeks the great western pocket rocket HSTs and the scotrail ones. Less popular than they used to be, but very rare is overstating it a bit
Post reply on HN