Could CBTC be in CTA's future?

[Pink Jazz]

I wonder, does anyone see CTA introducing CBTC in the future?  The NYC Subway has introduced it on its (L) line, and is now in the process of converting the (7) line.

For CTA, I would think probably the Yellow Line would be a good choice to test CBTC, since it is an isolated line.  The Pink Line may also be a good choice for CBTC as well.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Pink Jazz

[briman94]

I wonder, does anyone see CTA introducing CBTC in the future?  The NYC Subway has introduced it on its (L) line, and is now in the process of converting the (7) line.

For CTA, I would think probably the Yellow Line would be a good choice to test CBTC, since it is an isolated line.  The Pink Line may also be a good choice for CBTC as well.

​It depends on what extent it would be implemented. It can either control the speed of the train automatically or enforce the driver's permitted speed better. The NTSB is highly recommending that the CTA implement some form of it to avoid future incidents such as the one at O'Hare, as CBTC would have detected that the train was entering the station far too fast and emergency-stopped it long before the track trip would have (and tried to).

[BusHunter]

Now at O'Hare in the center pocket trains don't come closer than 2 full car lengths from the bump post.

[andrethebusman]

Now at O'Hare in the center pocket trains don't come closer than 2 full car lengths from the bump post.

​I was kind of surprised the day O'Hare opened how fast trains were coming into the station, just as fast as if it was an intermediate station. Every other terminal station, even thru ones like Howard, are 15mph, and usually a "safety stop" before you come in. Why was this one so different all these years? Afraid of "inconveniencing" the flying public?

[Busjack]

I wonder, does anyone see CTA introducing CBTC in the future?  The NYC Subway has introduced it on its (L) line, and is now in the process of converting the (7) line.

For CTA, I would think probably the Yellow Line would be a good choice to test CBTC, since it is an isolated line.  The Pink Line may also be a good choice for CBTC as well.

​

​It depends on what extent it would be implemented. It can either control the speed of the train automatically or enforce the driver's permitted speed better. The NTSB is highly recommending that the CTA implement some form of it to avoid future incidents such as the one at O'Hare, as CBTC would have detected that the train was entering the station far too fast and emergency-stopped it long before the track trip would have (and tried to).

​Briman had some idea what it was, and it should have been defined.

Googling showed this description from a London perspective, and a Siemens product.It appears to be automated control, but in addition to what was at WMATA, uses central radio control for the signal system and moving signal blocks. Somehow,  I fear that if CTA can't get the current signal system to prevent accidents as represented, such as the NTSB finding that the trains were coming into O'Hare too fast, and hasn't gotten computer bus dispatching down yet, I don't know if one could trust CTA with this. There are also some similarities to Positive Train Control (except there will still be engineers, and that depends on satellite communications), and the railroads are having problems implementing that.

On Pink Jazz's point on what lines, the London piece indicates problems if there are junction or multiple lines on the same track, indicating that on the Pink one would have to consider the effect on other Loop lines, and Yellow at the Howard junction. Conversely, those two lines run on such long headways that the benefit of automating them to try to get more trains "through the pipe" as Siemens indicates would be minimal.

[briman94]

​

​Briman had some idea what it was, and it should have been defined.

Googling showed this description from a London perspective, and a Siemens product.It appears to be automated control, but in addition to what was at WMATA, uses central radio control for the signal system and moving signal blocks. Somehow,  I fear that if CTA can't get the current signal system to prevent accidents as represented, such as the NTSB finding that the trains were coming into O'Hare too fast, and hasn't gotten computer bus dispatching down yet, I don't know if one could trust CTA with this. There are also some similarities to Positive Train Control (except there will still be engineers, and that depends on satellite communications), and the railroads are having problems implementing that.

On Pink Jazz's point on what lines, the London piece indicates problems if there are junction or multiple lines on the same track, indicating that on the Pink one would have to consider the effect on other Loop lines, and Yellow at the Howard junction. Conversely, those two lines run on such long headways that the benefit of automating them to try to get more trains "through the pipe" as Siemens indicates would be minimal.

​The NTSB actually recommended CBTC in response to the O'Hare crash, so I think they're at least partly confident that the CTA could implement it properly if they cared enough.

[Busjack]

​The NTSB actually recommended CBTC in response to the O'Hare crash, so I think they're at least partly confident that the CTA could implement it properly if they cared enough.

​Story referred to transmission based train control. This source indicates that it, CBTC, and Positive Train Control are terms for the same thing, but apparently the only commonality is doing away with fixed block signals using track circuits. It also notes that an issue is the nature of the radio link.

[ArcherRider]

Maybe CTA should do it but I will not  see in my lifetime I do not think so because does CTA have the money for it and may I will dead before see CBTC here in Chicago.

[juelzkellz]

I can't see CTA adopting ANY new technology much less CBTC unless they are forced to do so. The only reason they NYC is moving forward with CBTC is because their ridership is growing and there's no money to build more lines and/or significantly expand them. I remember the original spec of what was to become the 5000 series was basically a slightly improved 3200 series. The only reason that did not come about was that no one makes DC equipment anymore so they were forced to get with the times so to say. Even with Ventra, the only reason CTA/Metra/Pace adopted it was because the state put into law for them to do so, thus forcing their hand. The problem is that the people who run CTA and other transit agencies across the country are too conservative. They stick to what they know and stay far away from what they don't know. Even if what they know sucks. Heck, when you think about it, on the whole, the CTA really hasn't changed since the late 1800's when most of the structures were built. The only real changes have largely been evolutionary changes nothing revolutionary. Which sucks but this is what we have.

Edited May 11, 2015 by juelzkellz

[trainman8119]

I think the NTSB is in their own world when it comes to PTC. As the O'Hare and Forest Park incidents showed,

it is not a total foolproof system. And when it does fail, their only response is to look for agencies to spend

more money they don't have. Another political BS taking too many people in.