Something is wrong in technology pricing in the MTA, an auditor needs to look more closely at these cost break downs.

Getting to page 47, I see that the replacement of VHF radios come to $224 million. I simply do not see how 10,000 digital radios comes to a quarter billion. It sounds like MTA is trapped with a few vendors who are pricing them way too high, something like $20,000 per radio.

Something is wrong, and that something makes me very suspicious of the plan.

When signalling systems are expiring, it’s often worth it to jump to much newer technology — it doesn’t cost much more than replicating the old technology, and it’s quite expensive either way.

Recent news reports indicate that Denmark is replacing its *entire* nationwide railway signalling with ERTMS/ETCS, because its old signalling is reaching end-of-life. ERTMS/ETCS was orignally designed as an overlay on existing systems which would form a ‘new standard’ for European interoperability, to be used on lines with international connections. But because their systems are expiring, they’re going to shift *everything* to it.

I’m not familiar with the Moscow or Tokyo systems, but what you’re saying goes against everything I’ve heard, which is that ATO is often used to squeeze every last bit of capacity out of a system. For instance, see this article.

Your idea might be a good one if NYCT had unlimited resources, but, alas, it doesn’t. Besides, I’m not entirely up on my railroad acronymics, but I’m not sure those three things perform analogous functions. ATS (Automatic Train Supervision) is already in place on most of the IRT – it tracks the trains and moves the switches, but the same old signals are still in place, and the same old (and young) train operators operate the trains.

Really if I were running the MTA, I’d do an experiment. Try CBTC on one line, track circuit based ATC on another, and maybe an intermittent inductive ATS system on yet another line, and keep the rest of the system in its current state as a control. Then compare how well it works. Besides the 7 and L, a good test line would be Queens Blvd, because it’s busy and all the lines serving it are based out of the Jamaica Yard.

Also – what is the expected life of a new signal system (wayside or CBTC)?

It can be replaced with a new conventional wayside signal system. Or it can be replaced with CBTC.

Either way, signal jobs are very, very expensive. (And disruptive to the riders.)

I don’t know the comparative costs. Is CBTC substantially more expensive than a brand new wayside signal system? If not, then CBTC seems like the obvious choice.

It’s too bad the existing signal system can’t stick around until the late 2020′s. (Or can it?) I have a feeling one of the more expensive components of this project is the installation of CBTC packages in cars that were never designed for CBTC. If the project could wait until it’s time to replace the R-62A’s anyway, their replacements could be ordered with CBTC included. (And, for that matter, in a more 11-car-friendly design than in the R-142′s.)

The R-160′s on the L don’t have CBTC yet (and I don’t think the CBTC is working on all the R-143′s). The trains without CBTC are relying on a temporary makeshift wayside signal system hobbled together out of the antique signals original to the line. It’s a miracle that they can run as many trains as they do.

On the trains that do have CBTC, ATO only went live a few months ago. There are still some flukes that need to be worked out. Perhaps not all functions are active yet (either because they’re still buggy or because the powers that be don’t want to test everything at the same time).

How about waiting until the system is fully up and running before declaring it a failure?

CBTC is fundamentally a signal system. Rather than relying on (see http://www.nycsubway.org/tech/signals/ for the details) wayside signals and stop arms to enforce safe train separation based on fixed-length blocks and assuming, in most cases, that all trains are operating as fast as they can possibly go – an overly conservative approach that often keeps trains much farther apart than necessary (and, hence, reduces capacity) – a CBTC calculates how fast each train can safely go based on its location and its leader’s location (and, possibly, speed- I’m not sure about that). That speed is then relayed to the train.

That’s CBTC. Notice: No mention of whether the train is operated by a human or automatically.

It can be done either way (and on the Canarsie line, it’s done both ways). The safe speed can be shown to a human train operator, who proceeds to operate the train in accordance with the CBTC system’s instructions, or the train can be instructed to simply operate itself at the fastest possible safe speed.

CBTC is not the same thing as ATO. Trains in a CBTC system can be operated manually or automatically. And, for that matter, ATO is not contingent on CBTC – there are lots of ATO systems around the world that don’t use CBTC (e.g., WMATA).

The advantage of ATO? No more overly conservative train operators operating more slowly than necessary or hanging further back than necessary from their leaders. Every train has the same operating style, and it’s one that keeps trains moving as quickly and closely as they safely can.