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

181–190 of 243 posts

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

#181

Post by kelnos »

guardiangod wrote: post #12
arzt wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More importantly, they used the overcrowding excuse as a means to raise $800mm+ from New York taxpayers. If this capital wasn't necessary given the problems they cited were non-existent, this amounts to fraud.

That's not a really fair way to put it as the signaling system is still the root cause of the slowdown. 1. Outdated signaling system cannot handle current load at high safety threshold 2. Network could not upgrade signaling system due to lack of money 3. Network responses by slowing down critical paths and putting in more locks 4. System capacity drops So yeah, you still need the money to fix slow things.

That rationale implies that your assumption in #1 is true, which seems not to be the case.

Yes, the signals system needs to be upgraded if they want to increase the number of trains (and their speed) on the lines, but even without the signals system upgrades, they can still run the current loads at acceptably-high levels of safety.

Put another way, they are slowing the trains down and increasing delays while not actually increasing the capacity of the system.

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

#182

Post by ptaipale »

jpatokal wrote: post #144
masklinn wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Docklands opened in 1987 but is only GOA3 (the train runs automatically but requires a staff member responsible for departure & emergency situations). Port Island Line (Kobe) opened as GOA4 (fully automated) in 1981 followed by Lille Metro in 1983 and Vancouver's SkyTrain in 1985. The US has several GOA4 systems, though they're mostly airport shuttles and people movers (AeroTrain at Dulles, Monorail at Tampa, STS at…

The main cause of the cancellation was political: there were difficulties with the supplier (Siemens) and the price spiralled up to the point where it would never have paid off. http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/helsinki... The Helsinki Metro is also a bit unusual in that it uses Russian wide gauge track (for compatability with the rest of the rail system) but Western tech otherwise, meaning basical…

I don't really think the rail gauge causes any difficulties for automating the system, though. Tram gauges vary a lot and what manufacturers do is just use the same design and put underneath a different width bogie (wheelset).

(The Finnish rail gauge is in fact nominally different from the current one in Russia, because USSR changed from "imperialist" 1524 mm to "metric" 1520 mm between 1970 and 1990; the trains are in practice compatible, though.)

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

#183

Post by PhasmaFelis »

vnj23iwe wrote: post #147
DiabloD3 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You fire everyone. However, if I remember correctly, they're unionized, which is why this hasn't happened yet.

Fire everyone at Agency A for shitty behavior. Then turn around and realize everyone at Agency B is cooking the books, so fire them. And so on. Then turn around and realize basically every large institution humans have ever built relies on shady, selfish, behavior and stop caring about reforming individuals since thousands of years of policing have done jack and squat to remove the behavior from the species. Seriousl…

It seems like you're saying "it's impossible to achieve perfection, therefore you should never even try to improve."

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

#184

Post by rangibaby »

ryankupyn wrote: post #93
sushisource wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those of us who aren't familiar with the price history what's the lie here?

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).

I surprised that they don't have a commuter ticket system. In my city the commuter ticket price is calculated to be somewhat cheaper than return fare*20 as well as being a tax deductible.

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

#185

Post by davedx »

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…

Wow. In the Netherlands, intercity trains can go up to 135 km/h (83 mph), and they’ve successfully increased the frequency of these trains on some lines this year. Suffice to say with Dutch population density, the train network is also quite dense. Quite an achievement I think.

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

#186

Post by Symbiote »

taneq wrote: post #148
ovi256 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If nothing moves, there can be no collision. If no train on the line moves, sure. But stoping just the one train won't improve safety, and was historically the cause of many accidents. I remember just the one in Shanghai in 201x. One train stopped, the following train hit it.

If stopping doesn't fix things, you're not using enough of it. Time for networked emergency brakes on all trains!

Europe may has that, with the GSM-R system. I remember reading of at least one minor accident that stayed minor because the driver to discover the landslide over the track at low speed passed the button, stopping the incoming faster train on the other track.

http://www.szdc.cz/en/pro-media/tiskove-zpravy/funkce-gsm-r-...

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

#187

Post by bsder »

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…

> And this isn't even getting into the longer term prospects of the very real danger of the efficiency and scale of China starting to eat into the core economies of other nations as they move away from simple manufacturing and beginning moving up the value chain, as we are now seeing.

I wasn't really that worried about China as they are automating extremely quickly and have shown no better ability to utilize the displaced people any better than anybody in the West--see the recent layoffs in steel and coal in China along with the corresponding strikes and protests.

Now with Xi Jinping being President for Life, I'm even less worried. Xi Jingping will regard striking and protesting workers as a threat to his power and he will suppress them. This will break what little feedback there is in China between the working class and the ruling class and the decisions will become increasingly unmoored from external reality.

If I were TSMC, I would start moving fab lines out of Taiwan.

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

#188

Post by CPLX »

JackFr wrote: post #118
sushisource wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those of us who aren't familiar with the price history what's the lie here?

The obvious part of the lie to me is that they would raise fares to increase revenue, and claim that because of the 30-day and 7-day discounts you wouldn't be paying any more. Huh? How are you going to increase revenue if no one is paying more.

Tourists. We have quite a few of them here.

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

#189

Post by CPLX »

bogomipz wrote: post #149
bobthepanda wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main issue is that the MTA and its predecessors have always been dependent on one person (now the Governor, formerly the Mayor). The actual board members have no credibility and no accountability, hence why we are here today. The MTA would be much better off if the appointed representative of the county was replaced with the actual elected executive of said county (so county executives, borough presidents, mayor/…

It's never been "entirely" dependent of one person, although the majority control seems to be the Governor. Either through his direct 5 seat appointments or indirectly through the 7 other non-NYC seats. I don't believe it was ever under Mayoral control. The current governance structure came under then Gvernor Nelson Rockefeller. But anyway Nassau, Suffolk, Westcheste, Dutchess, Orange, Rockland, and Putnam counties e…

The MTA isn't just the subways it's the regional rail and transit system too, including Metro North, LIRR, and so on. It's not obviously irrational for all the constituent counties to be involved.

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

#190

Post by klodolph »

davedx wrote: post #185
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…

Wow. In the Netherlands, intercity trains can go up to 135 km/h (83 mph), and they’ve successfully increased the frequency of these trains on some lines this year. Suffice to say with Dutch population density, the train network is also quite dense. Quite an achievement I think.

The MTA subway isn't really intercity, unless you think of the boroughs as different cities. Although the express trains should be able to go much faster than they do, like the A from 59 St to 125 St, which takes ~8 minutes for 5.3 km even though there are no stops and no other trains on the track.

This kind of thing makes a huge impact on the quality of life for people living in the city.

Post reply on HN