New York Computerizes its Subway System 492
Iphtashu Fitz writes "New York City's Metropolitan Transit Authority launched it's first fully computer controlled subway line this month. The `L' Line of the MTA that connects the southern part of Manhattan with Brooklyn was picked for this pilot program because of its relatively short length and the fact that it doesn't share tracks with any other lines. Trains on this line no longer have conductors on board, and only a single driver in the front to monitor all the systems.
What's the big deal, you may ask? After all, cities like San Francisco and Paris already have computerized subway lines. Well, having recently celebrated its 100th anniversary the MTA is one of the oldest subway systems in the United States, and one of the largest in the world. If all goes well, the MTA will continue to expand automated service to the rest of the subway system over the next 20 years. But just how safe and secure will these new automated lines be? The radio links that provide data communication between the trains and the control center are encrypted, but how long until a hacker manages to crack it?"
Potential problems (Score:5, Interesting)
Without a conductor, who's going to yell at everyone to stop holding the doors? How does this work in other automated systems, like Paris's Météor?
When BART was a SINGER (Score:3, Interesting)
We as students had great funny trying out the different options avaiable at the time. We tried to get into train control programs to see what we could do.
I think the guys at BART were using us to test security on system. One week we would be able to run train control and "race" trains (actually just the train objects, the tracks were not even layed yet!) and the following week we weren't.
MTA in should let students help in debugging the logic... because we as students did not know what was or was to work... we just played.
When I was a kid... (Score:3, Interesting)
You might be able to ID each train by its engine's impedance to current flow on a segment of track, though that might be affected by the load on the electric motor.
just read this on ieee spectrum (Score:4, Interesting)
I was reading the it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Trains on this line no longer have conductors on board
I dunno about the rest of you, but I want a conductor on the train. Things like having a human look outside the train to make sure nobody is about to get on when the doors close, having someone on the train in case of an emergancy, having someone on the train that is a detterent to crime (just imagine, would a would-be rapist be more or less likely to rape a woman if a conductor was walking up and down the cars).
And part of me feels bad for the guy losing the job, the conductor.
Continue reading the news story:
To have a truly integrated system, the city would have to continue buying all its equipment from Siemens AG, effectively giving it a monopoly.
This also raises a red flag. One company that will in effect control the whole parts system? How can we know we won't get hosed with the price?
Even if they do autimate, lets keep the conductor. Someone who knows how the train runs. Someone who can over-ride the computers if needed. Every vessel needs her captin.
Power Grid Setup (Score:4, Interesting)
While I agree it could have probably tried to isolate the problem more rather than a full shutdown, I'm sure it was designed this way for good reason with more serious problems in mind.
If signaling gets interrupted, really all trains should assume the worst- that there is another train or object right in front of them and stop. Now this means that anyone with a jammer above ground of some sort could shut down the subway line... but again the lesser of two evils.
They should really consider instead some sort of 'data' rail or something. I wonder if data over the power rail works with such high voltage?
How are they going to take into account kids on the tracks and stuff. I realize this is underground and a subway, but there have been cases where kids explore the tunnels late in the evenings when the trains are sparse. You can get to most of them through various access points taht are often pretty accessable to those with some intuition and a willingness to climb.
-M
Railroaded (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Subways big targets? (Score:3, Interesting)
I am seeing a trend that cities are doing. They are installing tons of camera's, in the 1000's range. I think Chicago now has over 3000 camera's the police can use. I got a ticket in the mail a few weeks ago, it was a camera attached to a radar gun. They are removing people, and adding technology. Technology can't think, it can just do what it's programmed to do. And you are right, if terrorists knock out these systems, or hack them, then what? They will be watching us, controling our trains, and controling our electricity. Maybe law enforecement is making a honey pot, I dunno.
But I doubt terrorists would hack the system to hijack a train. They would just program them to run into each other at high speed. Terrorists don't care about stopping one train, they want to make people afraid to use the trains at all.
There is some psychological comfort of having a conductor. A conductor would force terrorists to come on the train, because if he saw an oncomming train on the same track, he could stop his train. It would take a boat load of osama's to hijack the train I would be on. Then the train passengers could get revenge for 9/11. But it would take one hacker to reprogram the train route and what tracks it uses.
the tracks, jim! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Railroaded (Score:2, Interesting)
Useless Fanciness (Score:2, Interesting)
The new system, however, is based on computers. The way it detects trains is by ping latency. So a train basically has to tell the system where it is, and the system tells the train how far it can go. As for hackability, I think the system is based either on plain 802.11b or some derivative of it. It's really plenty hackable.
Does it provide anything in terms of safety? Not really. The only reason that accidents happened was because the signal system was badly designed or the train's brakes failed to work correctly. Also, the BART signal system was known for its spectacular failures in the early years. However, at roughly the same time, the all-automated PATCO system opened which used primarily coded track circuits rather than a computerized packet network, and has not had any problems since then. Same goes for many other systems, such as Boston, Washington, etc.
Finally, there's definitely quite a revolving door between the MTA and the various consultancies pushing these CBTC systems.
Re:When BART was a SINGER (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't recall hearing abuot a Singer computer used for running BART, but they did have quite a collection of rare hardware. One example was that they had three of the four of a certain model of Philco computers in existence (ca 1975). They also had some Westinghouse Prodac 2000 boxes.
I've also heard that there was a small bug in the simulation program that led them to think capacity was going to be higher than in the real world.
FWIW, first time I rode BART was when the Richmond line was opened on Jan 29, 1973 - was a freshmen at the big U at the time.
Computerised lines cause train crashes (Score:2, Interesting)
The L train Is a Disaster (Score:4, Interesting)
This morning I had one of the most peaceful commutes in quite a while. I attribute it fully to the conductor, urging us at every stop to "Step aside, let others off before you get on. If you can't fit on the train there is another train right behind this one."
The new system will not do this.
Even if it works flawlessly, many will still resent it for a long time. The installation phase has been shutting down sections of the line for 3 years every weekend, often for months at a time. It was pretty annoying to have to wait in a station for 35 minutes because only one train is running, only to see an empty car go by you on the" closed" track, carrying a few engineers with 15" powerbooks and some other random equipment.
Re:How long until its cracked? (Score:5, Interesting)
Things have changed since then, and in light of a recent subway fire that caused great inconvenience, NYers have gone the other way, wishing that the entire system was computerized. Yea, even the Daily News quite vociferously raised the cry for greater computerization in the MTA switching network.
The MTA is underfunded but not stupid or poorly run. The system is well designed and the underlying databases are also redundant and protected. The hardest part of the job for them is getting funding approved for their various efforts, they usually do a good job of executing once they get it. They've worked quite hard on this new system, it'll be a step forward in spite of the pundits.
Not sure this is a good idea (Score:2, Interesting)
--
http://unk1911.blogspot.com [blogspot.com]
Re:Potential problems (Score:3, Interesting)
I've just moved down here from NJ and I'm quite impressed with the DC Metrorail. It's clean because they enforce the "no food" policy too.
Re:Computerised lines cause train crashes (Score:1, Interesting)
Also, there are NO computerized lines in Moscow. Lines 3 and 4 still have the old-style block signals with trip-stops, while all the other lines have cab signals/automatic speed control (ALS/ARS in russian). The crashes on the grey line were most likely human error: the driver overrode the zero-speed signal indication and didn't notice the taillights of the train in front of him. No computers involved anywhere.
Savings passed onto customers or corporate pockets (Score:3, Interesting)
This also raises a red flag. One company that will in effect control the whole parts system? How can we know we won't get hosed with the price?
You bring up a very good point. In some cases, it is abundently clear that technology has made the price of many goods dirt cheap. Examples include online stores (little overhead), web-based customer service (FAQs, forums, etc), and credit cards (all electronic). But in all of these cases, there has been lots of competition to drive the price down (usually to the point of disallowing ANY profit to be made from said technology). When there is so much competition, the revenue from automated technology often goes away because competitors will lower their prices to attract customers. Many business will start to just give away their computerized services for free.
But back to my point... If the only place NYC can obtain new parts and service from is Siemens AG, you can bet that the state is going to pay a premium for ANYTHING because they are locked in. The competition to force lower prices is eliminated, and it basically becomes another government beurocracy that just drains money from an otherwise good system. They need open standards for the new subway, so they change suppliers without a problem.
*Dealership mechanics will chagre $75 for computer-chiped keys, and also charge a fortune to diagnose the car's problem. A regular mechanic can tell you "its this, this, or this," but because they don't have the software and access to the car's computer, they can't tell you the exact problem the car is reporting. They usually want $50-100 just to plug your car into the computer to tell you the problem.
Re:I was reading the it... (Score:4, Interesting)
Need I say more?
yes, i need to
What makes you think that the trains don't have manual controls? The fully computerized Skytrain in Vancouver BC, that has run since 1986 without a crash, has manual controls on each train hidden behind locked panels in case they are needed.
What makes you think that a closing door is somehow going to hurt someone? The skytrain doors have this magical bizarre ability to stop closing if resistance is met, say by a person entering late, incredible isnt it! Heck, I've blocked the doors on rare occasion to help disabled or elderly people get on, and the doors didnt kill me!
I dont feel bad for one second about any conductor loosing his job. Why should I pay twice the fare so that some fat union bastard can sit there doing a pointless job? How do you know he's paying attention? How do you know he's awake, or whether or not he's drunk like the one in 1991?
Re:Potential problems (Score:1, Interesting)
Now that's just wrong IMO, how are people supposed to eat breakfast in a hurry if they can't eat on the train?
You need computers for that? (Score:3, Interesting)
In Russia subway trains are controlled by humans, but they still manage to ensure safe and reliable operation. The trains go with the interval as small as 90 seconds and still they manage to avoid congestion. Of course, the subways here are not 100-years old - more like 50-years old, but still.
NXSYS - NYC subway signalling simulator (Score:5, Interesting)
This is an incredibly detailed simulator, going all the way down to the relay level. You can work the control panels, look at the relay schematics, and see the signals from the train operator's perspective in OpenGL.
The system simulated, developed by General Railway Signal in the 1940s, is the first "intelligent user interface" ever developed. There were many earlier signal systems, and by 1914 or so they were routinely interlocked against operator errors for safety. But this one, NX, for "entry-exit" signalling, was the first one that offered intelligent assistance to the signal operator.
The train dispatcher selects a train entering a junction full of switches, signals, and trains. The NX system will then light up all the currently valid "exits", places the train can exit the junction, checking for conflicts with other trains and timing constraints. When the operator selects an "exit", with one button push, the NX system does everything else. It sets the track switches, verifies that they're in position and locked, turns the appropriate signals green, lowers the appropriate train stops (alongside the track are mechanical devices that, if raised, will be hit by an air brake valve on any passing subway car, bringing the train to a stop), and tracks the train as it moves through the junction. As the train clears each signal, switch or crossover, that resource is released so another train can use it.
The train stops come back up behind each train (and the signalling system verifies that they do so), so that separation between trains is maintained. Even speed control is enforced. There are timers all through the system, so that when a train passes one signal, there's a minimum time before it can pass the next one. An overspeeding train will be tripped and stopped.
It's all done with relays. Big relays, with silver contacts to prevent corrosion. It's fail-safe in a formal sense - no relay coil failure, power failure, or broken wire will result in an unsafe condition. Everything is designed to "fail to red". The designers trusted gravity and solid metal, and not much else.
Situations programmer types never think of are handled. For example, a train stop might become jammed due to ice. That's not only detected, it's handled properly. If a train stop protecting a switch won't go to the up (stop) position, the signalling system won't let the switch move. (And the gear is rugged enough that when someone goes out with a blowtorch to unfreeze the thing, it will be unharmed.)
This is a very safe technology. But it requires a huge, highly trained maintenance force.
Re:The L train Is a Disaster (Score:2, Interesting)
A few years back San Francisco switched away from shoddy Boeing rail cars to shoddy Italian made and styled (Pinanfarina styled even) Breda cars. This isn't really of much interest or comparison to NY, except for one tidbit. SF planned to use an Alcatel provided control system.
While MUNI is an amazing example of government waste and incompetence (employees were only required to actually show up to their jobs starting a few years ago)... the Breda job just takes the cake.
The Alcatel system was entirely untested, the Breda cars were too long, the Alcatel system couldn't handle Breda and Boeing cars on the same track, etc, etc. Even now, where the previous manual system would have allowed 4+ car trains, the new computerized system limits them to, I think, 3 cars per train because of their length. More trains per minute, fewer people per minute. It's pretty absurd. Blame it on Breda for not building cars to spec (they were custom built for SF). Blame SF for continuing to buy these $3 mil cars despite the known problems. This is on top of the fact that the suspension on the Breda cars was originally deafening. You could hear the trains coming for at least 1/2 mile. The Italian build quality was just abysmal. Subpar welds, etc, etc.
That said, I like the electronic control for those nifty signs in the downtown stations that allow one to estimate when a train is coming. Also, check out nextmuni.com.
The transponders are also used in some of the busses to great effect. Sure that means you can track some of them online. More useful tho is the sign within the bus that will tell you the next stop. Very handy at night when you can't see what stop and the driver of the bus is too drunk to call out the stops.
Of course all this is great fun, and it's been about five years since the Breda cars were bought. Guess what I saw today? A stopped MUNI LRV (light rail vehicle). Well, not just one. About every car that was supposed to run on the L-Tarval line. That's right folks. MUNI cars dead on the tracks from 19th ave to 28th ave on Taraval St. Sometimes you just need the human touch.
For Those Who Are Interested (Score:2, Interesting)
The book, which is available at Amazon, covers the types of mass transit systems that existed in NYC before the advent of the subway, and also covers the politics of getting big changes made, etc.
Another truly fascinating aspect of the book is where the author talks about how much of an impact the subway had on the development of the city.
A great read.
Anyway, in case anyone's interested.
Re:Keeping the motorman (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How long until its cracked? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Potential problems (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically, the conductor HAS to reopen the door to attempt to resolve the situation so the train can move out of the station.
I've been in trains before where the door actually failed to work right and the train couldn't leave. The conductor had to come down, use the key and disable the door in the closed position. After that, the train could go.
Re:Potential problems (Score:3, Interesting)
You haven't been to lower Manhattan where there's a subway stop on a sharp curve (Google tells me I might be thinking of South Ferry station). When the train stops at the station, the platform extends to close the gap. I thought that was kind of neat...
Or there's Bank station on the London Underground with a similar curve. They haven't bothered with extending platforms - they just have the (in)famous "Mind the Gap" annoucements to remind you not to fall to your death. The gap must be around 9 inches in some places...
The curvature of the track at Bank also caused a high-pitched squealing from the wheels/track that reached 107db, apparently. It was painful... It's not as bad as it was, so maybe they managed to grind the track back or something. Or maybe i'm going deaf from passing through there twice a day.