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
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 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.
This happened with a train I was riding on the SF Muni. The train is supposed to leave after the computerized control system clears the train out of the station, and after the driver hits the door close button, and after the doors actually close. Well, this train was malfunctioning (thanks, Breda!) and the door wouldn't close. But the train had been cleared and the driver had hit the door close switch. So the driver gets out of the cab, walks out the door onto the platform, and dislodges the door, which closes. The train takes off and he's still on the platform. Comedy, I tell you.
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.
People have tried to hack the metrocard system for years. The closest they came was a decidedly non-l33t solution involving demagnetising part of the strip relating to card expiration date. It gave access for a week, only because they MTA had the system set for "be generous". Some NYers, led by the local tabloid "The Daily News" tend to be moderate to extremely luddite when it comes to technology, and the metrocard was not welcomed with open arms. When it was first released the MTA went to great lengths to ensure that no one felt the metro card system was "ripping them off". So rather than properly rejecting expired cards (that may have had money on them, you see), they let them through. Some smartass realised that by erasing the part of the strip that contained the expiration date, the reader would automatically decide the card was expired. Since the system was set to ignore that on initial release, they got through. Once the exploit got out, they stopped it, iirc within 3 days of the first occurance (the system tracks this too, you see).
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.
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.
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.
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