> Reading Richard's analysis, there is another conclusion that seems
> to me more and more attractive: the ATCS system should be
> scrapped (however embarassing this may be for the politicians and
> managers in charge), and replaced by a manual interlocking for the MMT.
> Longer trains for the Metro seem a better solution than lots of
> frequent small trains, as numerous people have pointed out. I'd
> rather wait a minute or two longer for a roomier train than be crammed
> into an overcrowded small train.
I hope that I am wrong, but my suspician is that MUNI's
"thinking" went something like this: If we can run enough
single-car trains, we would never have to solve the problem
of changing designations at Embarcadero to create a smooth
alternation of (at least outbound) trains. That is, if
trains came at n-second intervals, nobody will care that
there were five Js in a row, before their L came along.
On the other hand, since it is impossible to control the
entry of inbound trains into the tunnels (because of
traffic, et cetera), I suppose that this makes a small
amount of sense, at least in MUNI-Land.
-- Donald
_________________________
Donald F. Robertson
San Francisco
donaldrf@hooked.net
Donald's Space Exploration page:
http://www.hooked.net/~donaldrf/index.html
The known is finite, the unknown is infinite; intellectually
we stand on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of
inexplicability. Our business in every generation is to
reclaim a little more land. -- Thomas Huxley.