Railroad Forums 

Discussion relating to the past and present operations of the NYC Subway, PATH, and Staten Island Railway (SIRT).

Moderator: GirlOnTheTrain

 #806329  by Kamen Rider
 
we skipped it in favor of CBTC/ATO
 #823934  by DaveBarraza
 
Yes.

Cab signaling was tested on the Sea Beach in the 1960's. There are pictures out there of an R-32 with equipment set up on a card table.

An ATC system was completely planned out in the early 1970's before the system completely ran out of money.

The R-44's came equipped for ATP/ATO using a cab carrier frequency of 990Hz in the track circuits, and Jamaica Yard had departure test loops for the R-44's.

The original controllers on the R-44's had the normal Switching/Series/Parallel positions on one side and on the other they had speeds in MPH, when the T/O would use this function, the train would drive the speed the controller was set to regardless of curvature or grade, as if there were a speed command for that speed coming in through the cab signal system. It was intended for use in non-resignaled portions of the system. The feature led to an uphill rear end collision between Lex/35rd and 5th/53rd and was then disabled. It disappeared altogether when the 44's were GOH'd.

The R-44's were bought for service on the 2nd ave line which was (famously) begun on the 1970's and the 2nd ave line was to be 100% ATP/ATO using cab coded track circuits.

(All of this information is first hand to me from my old boss who was working for the system at the time - so no griping about authenticity please.)
 #825376  by keyboardkat
 
DaveBarraza wrote:Yes.

Cab signaling was tested on the Sea Beach in the 1960's. There are pictures out there of an R-32 with equipment set up on a card table.

An ATC system was completely planned out in the early 1970's before the system completely ran out of money.

The R-44's came equipped for ATP/ATO using a cab carrier frequency of 990Hz in the track circuits, and Jamaica Yard had departure test loops for the R-44's.

The original controllers on the R-44's had the normal Switching/Series/Parallel positions on one side and on the other they had speeds in MPH, when the T/O would use this function, the train would drive the speed the controller was set to regardless of curvature or grade, as if there were a speed command for that speed coming in through the cab signal system. It was intended for use in non-resignaled portions of the system. The feature led to an uphill rear end collision between Lex/35rd and 5th/53rd and was then disabled. It disappeared altogether when the 44's were GOH'd.

The R-44's were bought for service on the 2nd ave line which was (famously) begun on the 1970's and the 2nd ave line was to be 100% ATP/ATO using cab coded track circuits.

(All of this information is first hand to me from my old boss who was working for the system at the time - so no griping about authenticity please.)
I believe the rear-ender between Lex/53rd and Fifth/53rd happened with R46 cars, not R44s. The 46s had a lot of improvements over the 44s. Their North American Rockwell air-bellows suspension equalized trucks gave a much smoother, isolated ride than the older type trucks used on all other contemporary subway cars. Yes, they began to crack, partly because the 46s were overweight compaired to spec, but I think that a beefier version of this truck, with thicker components, should have been substituted, rather than going backwards with the older, but proven, truck. I also never understood the flimsy single-point third rail shoe mounting, which let to countless pickup shoes being broken off. All this was a result of '70s era committee-think. The cars were not designed for the job in the real-world environment.

Yes, they had cab signals and all this wonderful equipment, but the track circuitry for the cab signals or for ATO was never implemented, and the space-age equipment was removed. What a waste of the taxpayers' money!

Those who design subway cars, or busses, or light rail vehicles, need to remember that this equipment will operate in a largely dirty, budget limited environment where it will be run into the ground and given all kinds of abuse, and given as little maintenance as they can get away with giving it. (One aerospace contractor designed a light rail vehicle where the door mechanism had over a hundred moving parts!).
 #831149  by jonnhrr
 
It's sad that the SAS construction has outlived the cars that were bought for it!

Jon
 #832041  by Tony Clifton
 
jonnhrr wrote:It's sad that the SAS construction has outlived the cars that were bought for it!

Jon
That is New York State politics, there will never be SAS in our lifetime. But let's stay on topic.
 #832282  by www123
 
DaveBarraza wrote:Yes.

Cab signaling was tested on the Sea Beach in the 1960's. There are pictures out there of an R-32 with equipment set up on a card table.

An ATC system was completely planned out in the early 1970's before the system completely ran out of money.

The R-44's came equipped for ATP/ATO using a cab carrier frequency of 990Hz in the track circuits, and Jamaica Yard had departure test loops for the R-44's.
Mezzanine of Court Square (supposedly) had a few cases with wayside cab signal equipment for training purposes, Archer Ave line has double rail track circuits (so cab could work), 63rd street connector initially had double rail tc too...
 #844177  by Robert Paniagua
 
It would have been indeed nice if all those B division routes had ATO/ATP installed on the R44/R46/R68/R68A and beyond so that operations could be better, very much like Boston's MBTA Red Line which did installed ATO/ATP in 1970 at about the same time the same thing would have been added on the NYC Subway Routes
 #935772  by keithsy
 
The R46's 700+ operated with wayside signal-regulated, where if the m/m backed off within running positions the brakes would apply slowing down the train. The first time that I rode car 700 on the point, it was pulling an N train on B'way at 68 mph! Sometimes, there would a red "CAB SIGNAL RULE 37N warning, but that had no effect on the operation, but it was fun. Cab siganlling would have been safer than ABS, but their were those who did not want it for fer of loss of jobs and just plain being backward.
 #935774  by keithsy
 
DaveBarraza wrote:Yes.

Cab signaling was tested on the Sea Beach in the 1960's. There are pictures out there of an R-32 with equipment set up on a card table.

An ATC system was completely planned out in the early 1970's before the system completely ran out of money.

The R-44's came equipped for ATP/ATO using a cab carrier frequency of 990Hz in the track circuits, and Jamaica Yard had departure test loops for the R-44's.

The original controllers on the R-44's had the normal Switching/Series/Parallel positions on one side and on the other they had speeds in MPH, when the T/O would use this function, the train would drive the speed the controller was set to regardless of curvature or grade, as if there were a speed command for that speed coming in through the cab signal system. It was intended for use in non-resignaled portions of the system. The feature led to an uphill rear end collision between Lex/35rd and 5th/53rd and was then disabled. It disappeared altogether when the 44's were GOH'd.

The R-44's were bought for service on the 2nd ave line which was (famously) begun on the 1970's and the 2nd ave line was to be 100% ATP/ATO using cab coded track circuits.

(All of this information is first hand to me from my old boss who was working for the system at the time - so no griping about authenticity please.)
You told it right. You are sharp.
 #936305  by railfan365
 
IIRC, ATO was being experimented with on the 42nd Street shuttle until the station at Grand Central was burned down, c 1970. Since then, the Canarsie Line was set up for it, but it has not been put into play due to vocalized safety concerns, so for the time being, the trains are still manually controlled by on board human train operators.
 #937068  by Howiew
 
The fire at the Grand Central station of the shuttle took place in 1964. I believe that the cause was never determined.
I did ride the "automated" shuttle on numerous occasions. It was a smooth ride along with the stop. The train still had to carry a Motorman, but that is another story.
 #938897  by NellieBly
 
The R46 cars were built with field shunts that allowed for 70 MPH operation, but only when the cab signal pickups were receiving a signal. Cab signals were originally going to be fitted on the two-track "super express" that was to parallel the IND Jamaica line out to Roosevelt Blvd. In non-cab territory, the field shunts were deactivated and max speed was 50 MPH just like all other NYCTA equipment.

The field shunts were removed from the R46 cars long ago.

I was not aware that the R44 order had been intended to have cab signal equipment. They spent most of the time I was at the TA (1982 - 87) out of service with their trucks under R46 cars, so maybe that's why I never heard of it. I do seriously doubt any stories of ANYTHING running at 68 MPH on NYCTA track. If you didn't derail, you'd be bouncing off the walls.

I'll confirm that both Archer Ave. and the 63rd Street Tunnel have two-rail circuits. That is now the standard when signal equipment is replaced (or was, back in the 1980s). I don't know if that has changed now that the decision has been made to go with CBTC.