You might think this is a clever take but it's really not far from the truth. They NEED a revamp on a modern tech stack so they can use the trains, electronics, and technology trains in the rest of the world run on.
You might think this is a clever take but it's really not far from the truth. They NEED a revamp on a modern tech stack so they can use the trains, electronics, and technology trains in the rest of the world run on.
In other words: the things that are currently falling apart (the physical relays, for example) are almost completely disconnected from fare collection (which is what the article’s about). The latter runs pretty well; replacing it with a modern tech stack rather than the current incremental approach wouldn’t have many benefits.
Arguably, the most advanced "tech stack" for moving trains around rail systems today (at scale, with the highest safety rating) is based around the Sicas ECC electronic interlocking by Siemens.
However, this article is merely about the technology used for collection of fares for the NYC metro rail system.
> Most subway services cannot significantly increase their frequencies during rush hours, except for the 1, G, J/Z, L, and M trains (the L service already is automated with CBTC).
> However, even without CBTC, the system is currently retrofitted to operate at frequencies of up to 60 trains per hour (tph) on the IND Queens Boulevard Line (30 tph on each of the local and express pairs of tracks made possible by the Jamaica–179th Street terminal, which has four sidings past the terminal for each set of tracks) and 33 tph on the IRT Flushing Line.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signaling_of_the_New_York_City...