Talk:Signaling of the New York City Subway

Merge (2006)
No merge with the regular L line page please. If anything this article on subway automation will gradually be expanded as the CBTC system is installed on more subway lines in New York and the tie in to the L line will be diminished. At that point it won't make sense to have in as L line page, so why move it there now? It's a distinct enough subject to remain seperated form the regular L line page. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rock nj (talk &bull; contribs).


 * CBTC is NOT in effect yet, it it will take a considerable amount of time before it it widely implemented. Secondly, if you check here, it's covered there as well. And finally, the tittle of the article conflicts to the naming conventions established by WP:NYCS. Pacific Coast Highway |Spam me!


 * Maybe I should change the focus of this page to CBTC and away from the focus on the L line. I really wanted to focus on the implementation of CBTC in the New York Subway system and the L line is where it is being tested.  Of course as more lines go CBTC the L line's importance will diminish.  Plus, we could discuss other CBTC subways.  I believe BART and Washington Metro are both CBTC. Rock nj 01:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I'd call it Automation in the New York City Subway | Pacific Coast Highway  |Leave a message ($.25)


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Propaniac (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Rename (May 2010)
BMT Canarsie Line automation → Automation of the New York City Subway — With this article being expanded to include the automation of the IRT Flushing Line, it is no longer at the right title. I propose we move this article. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support-As the article expands to cover automation efforts throughout the entire New York City Subway system, the article title should include the name of the full system. And because I'm beginning to think we should just drop the now-almost-meaningless former division names from all NYCS articles where they are used as part of the line name, as no currently-operating lines have the same name. (The demolished El's were usually called "Sixth Avenue Elevated", for example, and so WP:CN tells us they should be at names including the word "elevated".) oknazevad (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support As per above, the topic of the article has been expanded, so the Canarsie Line is only one aspect of the systemwide automation. It also gives a chance to detail the opposition of eliminating conductors from trains even though the lines can be operated from a central location. Tinlinkin (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

We need references
The article seems biased toward CBTC. Perhaps references to differing opinions are in order, eh? 98.113.229.245 (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Current signaling system info
Well, since my removal of this material was reverted, time to discuss this. I removed it for three reasons. First, it's completely unreferenced, so there's no real way to verify if it's accurate. Secondly, because this material is too detailed for an encyclopedia article, being essentially straight from an operators manual.

Thirdly, it's not really that relevant; it doesn't describe anything about the planned system, nor anyting about its implementation, which is the focus of the article. It is sufficient to say that the current system is a version of automatic wayside signals, as the article already does, and link to an appropriate article, as again, it already does. Maybe if there were an article on current sgnalling of the subway, these charts woud bring there, but that is it here. And again, it's completely unsourced. oknazevad (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 22 January 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved. larryv (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Automation of the New York City Subway → Signaling of the New York City Subway – I suggest this for the following reasons:

1. This page includes a substantial amount of information about the old wayside block signaling system in place throughout most of the system.

2. The rest of this page is about CBTC, and CBTC is not simply automation- it is a new signaling system which enables partial automation. CBTC in the MTA's current and planned installations still requires operating personnel onboard the trains.

3. There is no page for NYCS Signals, which is certainly a broader and more notable subject than an "automation" which is not really happening. Furthermore, such is the topic that this page is currently describing, despite its title. 2604:2000:C6AC:D00:31E8:786D:9719:6806 (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. This is the sole article we have on signaling. It does describe the current wayside signaling, not just the CBTC system, and as you note, that's not a fully automated system. Makes sense to rename the article. oknazevad (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. There are sources on the signals as well as the automation. This article is not wholly about automation, and there's no article about NYC Subway signals. epicgenius (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I amended the RM, as "signaling", not "signalling" is the correct spelling in American English. See American and British English spelling differences. oknazevad (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Canarsie Line CBTC
The main article says 28 tph, this says 26. Is the 26 the actual and 28 the possible? Lex line already runs close to 30 and that hasn't been updated yet, headways are as low as two minutes though that may be due to rounding error. CBCT and other ATO-related articles, including individual metro aritcles, don't give enough info let alone in a concise manner such as more mention of actual service headways, not just tph. I've heard of headways on a heavy metro as low as 105 seconds, and possibly even 1.5 minutes, 90 seconds, but I think train length and also dwell time is the limiting factor on NYC subway. B137 (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Signals with digital readouts
I'm not the only person who has taken pics of one of these, but I spotted this signal at Hunters Point Avenue (IRT Flushing Line) back in November. I hope I'm not wrong in assuming this is a countdown clock, like on pedestrian signals. -User:DanTD (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * That is the speed required not to be tripped. It should be 20 here.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Timer recalibration/speed increases
I feel as though that this section will become bloated and too large, with too much of a focus on recent events, if it hasn't already. Maybe it could be cut back here and moved to 2017 New York City transit crisis? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. We should probably leave out the specific details about which lines would be fixed. The last three paragraphs of "Signal modifications", starting with the paragraph that begins with "In summer 2018, the SPEED Unit ..." could probably cut back to one paragraph. epicgenius (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I took a shot at trimming it. Looks like much of the relevant info is already in the 2017 transit crisis article. epicgenius (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

June 2019 Updates
, how would you recommend adding information concerning the CBTC Equipment Supplier Interoperability project and the Ultra-Wideband pilots on the Flushing and Canarsie Lines? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I personally wouldn't include details about the CBTC projects unless there were significant updates, such as the contract being awarded or the timetable being pushed back. The UWB project should be included, however - this in itself constitutes a significant update since it is the first time we're hearing about a specific location and timeline. I'll take a closer look tomorrow. epicgenius (talk) 02:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Signalling
In UK get lots of signal failures. Track Circuits fail often. If 2 Track Circuits are connected together with a pair of wires, create a false feed, signal will show clear aspect, train will rear end another one. Ian C Burnett (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Signaling of the IND
@Kew Gardens 613, I found this source when looking for something unrelated:



This source has a bunch of info about the original signaling system of the IND, such as details about grade-time signals, bidirectional signaling on the central track of the Concourse Line, and signal towers. There might also be another article about the Eighth Avenue Line's signaling in the October 1932 article of the same magazine, though I haven't looked into it yet. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I have seen this before actually-this was one thing far in the back of my head that I had wanted to add. Thanks for the ping. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem. Incidentally, I also found this source about the Fulton Street Line's signaling:
 * Though I'm not sure if we should instead add these to the IND Concourse Line and IND Fulton Street Line articles, respectively. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Though I'm not sure if we should instead add these to the IND Concourse Line and IND Fulton Street Line articles, respectively. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)