Gerry6309 wrote:Remember in 1897, the tunnel was populated by 25' wooden closed cars and 9 bench opens!!!, running very close to each other and depending on hand brakes to stop. There were no signals. Accidents were unheard of.
CRail wrote:Top speeds were also a bit lower, and I would suspect that acceleration was as well.
Cosmo wrote:Gerry6309 wrote:Remember in 1897, the tunnel was populated by 25' wooden closed cars and 9 bench opens!!!, running very close to each other and depending on hand brakes to stop. There were no signals. Accidents were unheard of.
"Unheard of" or just not heard about?
diburning wrote:Right, because if the train, for example a 3 or 4 car train, straddles more than one block, a trip cock can cause delays because it would probably trip the last car.
As it is right now, even with two car trains, the signal drops to red after about half of the first car passes the signal. If they added timers, it might slow things down. Right now, the signals along with line-of-sight operations seems to work. Why fix it?
CRail wrote:*See Bowdoin Station eastbound, or just about any subway station of the NYCTA, where trip arm equipped block signals are positioned half way down platforms. In the cases of NYC, there are sometimes multiple signals within the length of a platform.
Gerry6309 wrote: Another point: The Elevated designed its cars for a top speed of 25 MPH. Type 7 and 8 cars can do fifty - and they do - even in the subway!
CRail wrote: the T forces trains to stop at various locations regardless of whether or not the conditions require it. My stance has been that, in lieu of something better, this is the correct procedure to ensure an accident doesn't happen.
bostontrainguy wrote:CRail wrote: the T forces trains to stop at various locations regardless of whether or not the conditions require it. My stance has been that, in lieu of something better, this is the correct procedure to ensure an accident doesn't happen.
Let's look at this thing logically. There was a collision on your subway system at a spot that has a blind curve and a downgrade. Maybe it was driver inattention, maybe it was brake failure, maybe it was a faulty signal, maybe it was slippery rail. Whatever the case, a train-on-train accident occurred and you have to do something.
So you decide to make it mandatory for EVERY train to STOP at this location in the future. Now realistically, do you think you have DECREASED the possibility of a collision at that spot or INCREASED it? I firmly believe that the more times you stop the trains in the subway, the more you increase collision potential. If there isn't a stopped train ahead to run into, there is no collision.
In addition you need to consider the real problem of elderly and disabled passengers, uninitiated tourists and inebriated or inattentive passengers especially standing in Type 8s with stairs. Passengers are already subjected to the unexpected and often violent Greenline justling and jerking. Adding artificial stops and starts again increases the potential of accidents, and the T considers it an "accident" if someone simply falls and injures themselves on a train.
The constant starting and stopping on the Greenline increases the potential for all types of "accidents" and creates the impression that it is a ride on the Toonerville Trolley and not a modern efficient transit system. It's time for the T to take a real long hard look at the Greenline and see what can be done to make it a better passenger experience,
Mbta fan wrote:Here's a bright idea call a cab there's hundreds of them in the city. The signals are for safety not to keep ur sorry butt happy.
deathtopumpkins wrote:Mbta fan wrote:Here's a bright idea call a cab there's hundreds of them in the city. The signals are for safety not to keep ur sorry butt happy.
Telling someone unhappy with the quality of T service to "take a cab" is not an acceptable solution. A cab ride across the city would cost you $20 at a bare minimum. That's 10 times as much as a T ride. And many of these passengers bostontrainguy was complaining about having issues (elderly, disabled, etc.) can't afford to depend on cab rides for basic transportation. I don't think 95% of the people who ride the T could simply always take a cab instead. I know you're young and have probably never paid for a cab ride before, but they are expensive.
And for the record I agree with him completely. Multiple times I've seen an elderly or disabled passenger fall due to a sudden start or stop on the Green Line. In fact, a handful of those incidents have been serious enough to alert the driver. To be fair to the T though, if drivers actually accelerated and braked gently rather than flooring it up to 45 mph and then immediately slamming on the brakes this wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem.
Mbta fan wrote:Agreed, but it's better then everyone on here explaining over and over again to him why they are needed. The signals are for safety and if he doesn't like it then tough luck, they are there for a reason and the T isn't going to get rid of them anytime soon.
Gerry6309 wrote:Most of these safety stops deal with obstructed views. The two at Muddy River where every train stops but nobody ever boards, are due to the curves entering Hynes and Kenmore Interlocking respectively. Both of these locations are just around the curve and often have occupied blocks. Stopping insures these curves are entered at safe speeds. They are a pain but are there for YOUR safety. The same got for Charles Crossover westbound and Kenmore Eastbound from Beacon. Others are because of steep grades or interlocking approaches or both. Take them out and an accident WILL happen.
Return to Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)
Users browsing this forum: railgeekteen and 11 guests