Slashdot Mirror
New York Computerizes its Subway System
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?"
Worry more about the failsafes. Are they independent systems, or would a single point of failure allow to trains to attempt to pass through each other? A good failsafe system should keep passengers safe from accident even if some cracker gets in. Hopefully it won't be a matter of life and death because some programmer who actually worked on the system suffered a brain-fart and assumed 1 based instead of 0.
As for the 20 year estimate, that sounds more the result of negotiations with the transit workers union than ability to get things switch over. You know City Hall, when it comes to a budget, they suddenly know the value of each penny and would switch the whole thing over in a couple years, tops.
On the subject of anniversaries... 2005 will be the 50th of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
They probably already have.
Only if DVD-Jon has an MTA-Bob counterpart
The `L' Line of the MTA
Man, that just brought back horrific memories of sendmail M4 syntax.
Yes No Cancel
In New York, train dwell times--time spent in stations--can be frustratingly long, especially during rush hours. Besides people pushing and shoving to get on the train, you've also got the jokers who hold the doors for their friends who're still running down the stairs.
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?
I was in Jr High when BART was being built. Our school's computer classes were given access to the SINGER computer that was setup to run BART.
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.
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.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
seems that recently a portion of the subway burnt down and when the guys went down to repair it they found that the hardware driving the system dated back to the 1930's. After more digging they found that the original systems laid in the early 1900's till 1920 were still operating and actually in daily use in many other parts of the subway. point is that thing is working well that they dont want to touch the thing. the other fact is that there is no way they are going to get the thing changed without majorly affecting the daily workings of the system.
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.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
"I dont know about you but I'm more comfortable with things the old way."
Wait, why?
How is hacking the train system and having people in predetermined locations any less complicated than holding up the engineer driving the train and forcing him to stop it?
Your plan:
1. Hack Train System.
2. Stop Train at Pre-determined location
3. Have baddies with guns at location to hold hostages.
My plan:
1. Use gun to stop train.
2. Use gun to hold hostages.
Not sure why you'd want to go through the trouble of all that hacking for essentially no gain.
Take a look at the way the power grid works (or is intended to work). The big North America power shutdown two summers ago was that a power plant in north eastern United States sent bad data to the grid, which triggered a shutdown. It's better to be safe than sorry.
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
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
What the MTA really needs to do is publish realtime subway position info. On billboards in the stations, on their website, on automated phone lines, as a pager/sms subscription/request service. Millions of us use it daily, wasting millions of hours of America's most productive workforce as we wait for trains, miss express connections, clog stations. The uncertainty keeps many people using cars and taxis, which make the roads even worse. Automating subways will save a few million a year in conductor costs, out of an $8B budget, which will be lost every day in the productivity of our workers. But I guess MTA contractors don't get a cut of the productivity gains from sensible priorities. Thanks Mayor Bloomberg, and Governor Pataki (who controls the MTA), and Sir Giuliani, who blew the only real chance of taking the subway back from the state for the people who it actually serves.
--
make install -not war
Computers don't:
1) get drunk.
2) get distracted. (Chicago collision recently)
3) fall asleep.
All of which have killed people in the past. People can whine all they want about how dangerous it is not to have a person running the trains. Personally, I'm happier. Controlling trains in 1D isn't that hard folks. Not at all like flying an airplane, where autopilot has been accepted for decades.
On the BART or DC's Metro, the displays that tell you when the next train is coming are really just there to calm your impatience- normally the train you're waiting for is the only one you can take anyhow.
In New York City, which has an enormously complex subway system, it's different. If you're standing in the Times Square subway station, you can choose from at least seven different subway lines, radiating in all directions.
Without a status display, New Yorkers are reduced to leaning over the edge of the platform to peer down a darkened tunnel for the telltale glint of subway headlights when deciding to wait for the 3 or jump on the 1. Forget about running upstairs to check for the R- you have to go with your gut that the IRT generally comes more frequently than the BMT (how's that for some old school NY goodness?)
The most exciting thing the article mentions are the status displays (grafitti resistant, I hope) that give you a running diplay of approaching trains and their time to arrival.
New Yorkers are notoriously impatient, and a large part of why we're so rude is having to deal with the daily hassles of getting from one end of the stinkin' island to another. I guarantee these status screens will attract so many eyeballs that they'll pay for themselves with supplemental advertising within months.
Marc Siry || interactive media professional, motorcycle enthusiast ||
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.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
I wonder if instead of using radio, if they could devise a way to send the signals down the track? That way the hacker would have to risk their life to try to take over the train.
SYSOP ('sih-sop) n.: the guy laughing at your typing.
Did I just read those two words in a story about the new York subway system?
I'm not sure how useful this fancy automated system is. The current automatic block system with mechanical stops is VERY reliable, having had 100 years to be refined. It also has been shown to be fail-safe, and has capacity for 30 trains per hour (and up to 40 in more refined variants). The fail-safe mechanisms on railroad signal logic are amazing. Relays have weights on them rather than springs, because springs are more likely to fail. Everything is very very carefully designed to not fail, or if it does fail, to do so in the way that is safest.
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.
Like every few years, when a rainstorm paralyzes the City by shutting down the poorly maintained railways, or the occasional blackout? Why fear terrorists, when the MTA maintenance incompetence actually screws us up our lives fairly often?
--
make install -not war
I heard of an incident, I think in London, where there were two safeguards in the driver's cab: the deadman's switch had to be held and the door had to be shut. Pretty soon, the drivers figured to tape up the switch and open/shut the door as a control mechanism. This was fine until a driver stepped out of the cab at a station and let the door slide shut. Train goes off with no driver!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
That line was up and running again in weeks, not months, mostly because a) big political bureaucracies like the NYC MTA always overstate the time/budget needed (aka the 'Scotty effect'), and b) the system wasn't so overly complicated that replacing the gear, recreating the settings, etc, didn't take as long or cost as much as it would've if the system was using modern electronics.
Some of the equipment destroyed was actually from the 1930s; the MTA took advantage of the unplanned downtime to patch the system to more recent vinntage gear and bring it more in line with the whole of the system.
Is it slick, no, but it runs, and most days it runs pretty damn well. Better than what CALTRANS can do with a few billion dollars and a private ATM switched network -- and the NYC subway carries more people further every day.
I would like to point out that in Moscow subway system, a fully computerised line (grey line) was introduced in early 80's. The rest of the subway stayed with proper drivers. In early 90's there were two crashes (within several months of each other) on the computerised line. The reason was that due to technical problems one train stopped, and the train behind it slammed into it. The curious thing is that the traffic lights in the tunnels correctly lighted red (since they are redundant, in case of such emergency to display red just behind the train), but the computerised train (without a driver) carried on. If the driver was there to stop it, it wouldn't have happenned. I beleive that grey line is still the only one that is computerised and they have drivers on every other line. For more information on Moscow Metro see photos here: Metro map Cheers, Alex.
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.
Nuremberg will introduce a completely driverless subway next year. Good article with lots of pictures. See (partially English) PDF
I for one welcome New York to 20'th century technology while we live in the 21'st century.
but how long until a hacker manages to crack it?
Or cracker manages to hack it?
With the complexity of the subway system in NYC, I don't think that it would be a good idea to computerize the subway system. Aside from the human aspect (conductors losing their jobs), there's the question of practicality. I take the subway to and from work every day and most of the time there are so many people jam packed in the train that you end up pressed against other people in most intimate configurations. There are probably anywhere from 1000 to 2000 people riding on each train during rush hour. Also, people act irrationally: some rush into the train as the doors are closing; some hang out very close to the edge of the platform; people try to leave as others are coming in, and so forth. All in all, it's pure chaos. On top of it, there's constant changes, repairs, modifications in service, floods. I'm sorry, I just don't see a computer being able to manage all this chaos. Given how progressive the city is in other aspects, the subway system is fairly antiquated but given its enormity and complexity, that may be the only practical way to operate it?
--
http://unk1911.blogspot.com
The reason the L line (which I use every day) has been down on the weekends is precisely BECAUSE they've been installing this computer system.
So it will only "solve" the problem because its installation is the source of the problem.
I agree with all the people who have pointed out that:
1. The current system, while low-tech, works pretty damn well. It is a certainty that the new tech will have more bugs (because it's new) and more things that can go wrong (because it's far more expensive and complex).
2. Conductors do not just serve as announcers and door operators -- they are also a pair of eyes that can spot any "human" problems on or around the train. The MTA recently closed hundreds of token booths at less-used station entrances. Now they're eliminating conductors. God help us if NYC experiences another crime wave.
The real reason they are going to computer control is to cram more trains thru the system in the same amount of time. In theory, this will shorten waits, crowding, and ride times... assuming that the new gadgetry works, and that you don't get mugged.
If they upgrade to all brand new chineese import parts, the thing will fall apart in 3 years I bet. Just like everything else, those cheap headphones etc... wire breaking, tsk. Yes big bulky stuff can be ugly, but hey, it'll last a century, not that CEOs care for that these days, unless they sell it at 3000% profit to cover 100 years of lost sales ;)
What ever happened to the old attitude of build it tuff, build it strong to last, rather than build it to last just long enough until the next upgrade to increase perpetual sales?
Oh well, maybe the next inflation boom / economic down turn will turn people back into long term long life attitudes.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
You clearly were either not alive, or not conscious back when NYC ran the transit system, it was put under state control precisely because NYC mayors, at that time, lacked the ability to manage it and the state was tired of throwing money at NYC and watching it get misused. In short the transit system was filthy, falling apart and infinitely less reliable. Addicts lived in the subway system and forget mere muggings, you used to run a risk of getting stabbed or shot. I commuted past midnight every night for 5 years and have yet to have even been hit up for spare change in recent years. I didn't live in Manhattan either. I don't know where you live, but the subway system in NY is far superior today than it was 15 years ago. Your entire argument makes you sound like the relative of some failed politician who still has an old grudge. Whose coffers are being filled? What is the relation between Albany "fat cats" and this "failed defense contractor". In fact who is that contractor, do you even know? Who are said pimps? Whose jobs were taken away? I've heard of firemen and teachers losing jobs in NYC, but not many layoffs from the MTA? Who would ultimately fund the NYC Transit if not the working men and women of NYC and would that be different if NYC was running the system? Do you really think NYC politicians are less corrupt and more capable than Albany? I believe perhaps Giuliani was the better leader, but I'm not sure about Bloomberg (and Dinkins was a total nitwit). If you're just going to troll, troll better.
Conductors allow for the passage of power from a generation station to the trains that utilize said power to move the trains.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
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.
I grew up near NYC and have rode the subways often enough. When I was growing up during the 80s you would not even think of going into a subway without a cache of small arms at your disposal. The city has changed alot though lately. Is it safer? Yes Do muggings still happen? Yes. Also they dont make the news anymore. I think worrying about hackers is a little silly. And terrorists have literally thousands of targets that would be better in NYC. I think it does deminish safety on the trains. The conductors have a radio that if something happens on the train police can be waiting at the next stop. As far as what I think. When your on the train you dont care what is making it go as long as its on time and not out of control and on fire.
The L is so much better than it was 7 years ago when I first got to w'burg, half hour waits... as for your come lately friends and the "hipsters" who cant figure out the JMZ line or a car service... thats their problem.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." ~The Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan
sheesh... ever hear of the JMZ? the train that actually goes over the williamsburg bridge? why are all you other new yorkers sniveling about the L being the one and only... walk a couple of blocks and take the JMZ. you'll like it, its senic, a great view over the bridge... ok the towers are gone but still...
the jmz connects to the 456 and the NRQW at canal, get ya anywhere ya wanna go.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." ~The Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan
I am always glad about computerization, but it surprises me that you can't ensure uninterrupted traffic on a dedicated subway line.
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.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Do not confuse CONDUCTOR and TRAIN OPERATOR (read on) What they're not doing: - They're not phasing out the train operators. It's no going to happen.
In Paris line 14 has no driver, no conductor, no train operator, nobody. You can even sit on the first wagon and watch the view! So there is no theoretical problem from removing drivers, of course I suppose the line is still monitored by humans.
and for the fact that many homeless tend to like to live in tunnels.
That's irrelevent, it's not the drivers job to keep homelesses out anyway.
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.
Look, I'm all for automation, but I have the same problem with this that I had with the city's plan to automate all metrocard purchases with an eye to getting rid of overnight booth workers.
If you need help late at night in the city, the one thing you can count on is having a human in a booth in the subway. They might be surly, but if you NEED help those people can be your best friends. A conductor focusing on the platform and keeping an eye out for trouble serves a purpose a computer can't possibly compete with. You wouldn't need 'em 99.99% of the time, but that one time you're getting your ass kicked and need help is no time to go looking for a police call box.
I mean, I know it's heretical to say this here, but computers can't do everything.
In London all the underground trains only have a driver, and all works pretty well. The doors open and close by themselves, other passengers will scream at you if you try to hold the doors open (not to mention that they are REALLY strong doors). The train automatically does the announcements without the need for a conductor and you can see when your next train is coming by looking at the electronic boards which show the time tot he next train and it's destination.
The DLR line even has driverless trains all computer controlled, it is great fun to sit in the front of the train where the driver normally would be and look out of the windscreen.
Things dont need to be that complex though, when I lived in Brussels the Metro there just had a map of the line hanging from the celing with little LED's along the route, they showed where the trains were so you could guess how long you would have to wait.
You want oyster cards next, now they really do rock....
It's My Tea and I'll Drink it if I Want To!
We have a number of automated lines. THe Docklands Light Railway is fully automated and runs really well. At least 3 of the lines on the Tube are computer controlled too with the drivers there to monitor the doors.
However the automation ahd led to some interesting and unforseen difficulties. The automated systems speed up and slow down at the same points in the track it is putting extra stresses on certain sections of track and sleepers which leads to degraded track safety.
Working for the (other) man
The London Docklands Light Railway is an example of such a system. In case the automatic system breaks down (which happened very often when LDLR was new) the conductor has the keys and skills needed to drive the train manually. Usually (s)he drives the train to the next station and restarts computer operated mode. The conductor's primary function is to close the doors and ensure safety on board of the trains and to assist passengers with boarding, alighting and information.
In automatic mode, the computer stops the train at each station and unlocks the doors. When the time to depart has arrived the RTD (Ready To Depart?) light comes on (there is one at every door). The conductor is then supposed to close the doors (using a key that can be used in a lock present on any of the doors). When all doors are closed the ADC (All Doors Closed?) light (also at every door) comes on and the train departs.
As there is no train driver cabin, the passengers have a nice view in all directions (LDLR runs mostly on elevated track). Having no driver cabin saves some space too. (The manual driving controls are behind a cover.)
There is a great book about the history of the NYC subway called "722 Miles", by Clifton Hood. (That being the length of install track - which if laid out in a straight line would take you all the way to Chicago!)
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.
Sigh. My id isn't prime. 2 2 2 2 2 3 5 313
Copenhagen's is pretty cool as well. They have quite a new system, and it's nice and fairly efficient. I take it a couple times a month to go shopping or to meet friends, and sitting at the front is great, especially on the above-ground tracks.
Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
Thanks! On the F train, this will be quite an improvement!
User Training for Busy Programmers