|
|
| Re: Merges (557391) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Merges |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Jan 21 19:50:10 2008, in response to Re: Merges, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 17:40:25 2008. Is there an available way for schedule makers to model the outcomes of their schedules before they are implemented?There are many simulators available for the trade. These are high priced, so the average hobbyist won't be running this on his home PC. However, it's fairly easy to write a spreadsheet to accomplish the same thing at zero cost. However, simulators are not really required to figure out merging conflicts. The merge points are known. Just look at them. The TA's schedule makers know this. They hide the merging conflicts. A few years ago, I discovered that an R and an N, leaving Queens and Queensboro Plazas respectively, were scheduled to meet at the 11th St switch at the same time. Lo, one train was scheduled to take 2 minutes longer reaching Lex Ave. what is the potential ability of CBTC to rebalance the system when service patterns deviate? CBTC avoids collisions, not merging conflicts. You probably mean ATS. No system can help a schedule that has built in merging conflicts. The trick to maintaining realizable schedules is to correct small deviations before they become big ones. This isn't a problem when service levels approach theoretical capacity. The signal system takes care of it. When service levels are less than theoretical capacity, then an independent ATS is required. This ATS does not require a central computer and megabucks to be effective. Both Moscow and Paris use simple clocks to provide feedback to the operating crew. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|