
Much of the technology in the NY subway hasn't been updated in over 100 years - dankohn1
http://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-why-the-new-york-city-subway-is-always-delayed-2015-7
======
Animats
Business Insider copied that from another article in Gothamist [1] several
months ago. It was even discussed on HN back then.

Most of the NYC subway signaling technology is relay-based from the 1950s, so
it's not quite a century old. Those lever machines at West 4th St shown by
Business Insider are rare; almost everything is electrical.[2] The 1950s
technology from General Railway Signal is quite good; it's just high-
maintenance. Here's a 1950s era panel, running automatically and unattended
during off peak hours.[3]

That technology really is quite good. All vital relays are open in the stop
condition. All broken wires result in red signals. This is a basic design
principle of classic railroad signaling. The mechanism for stopping trains[2]
is brutally simple; a steel train stop comes up at red signals which, if a
train tries to pass it, will be hit by a valve lever on each subway car which
will directly trip the air brakes. The position of those levers is monitored
by circuits which insure that there are always train stops in the up position
between trains. If a train stop lever won't go up (ice, mechanical breakage,
somebody or something holding it down) the previous train stop won't go down,
maintaining protection, and signals will be forced red until the problem is
fixed.

One reason it hasn't been replaced is that the newer technologies don't have
as good a track record. The old stuff is very rugged, and is known to survive
dirt, ice, snow, vandalism, traction power, vibration, rocks, water, and
idiots.

[1]
[http://gothamist.com/2015/07/28/subway_steampunk_video.php](http://gothamist.com/2015/07/28/subway_steampunk_video.php)
[2]
[http://nycsubway.org/wiki/Subway_Signals:_Train_Stops](http://nycsubway.org/wiki/Subway_Signals:_Train_Stops)
[3]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RStJ621auaU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RStJ621auaU)

~~~
spacecowboy_lon
A few years ago my Dad did some consulting (HAVC power) for the Tube in the UK
and he was amused to find that the 1930's vintage equipment was lasting much
better than the new 1970's gear.

~~~
humanrebar
On the contrary, that should be expected.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias)

...now, we should figure out _why_ the older stuff lasts longer. But it's
inevitable that the older stuff is more durable. If it weren't, it wouldn't
exist.

~~~
falcolas
In general, the things which survive are over-engineered. The wires are
several guages larger than they need to be, there are backups for the backups,
and the underlying technology (magnetism, switching) is hundreds of years old.
In contrast, many of our electronics use components which are barely larger
than they need to be (if at all), and rely on technology which is younger than
a single generation.

Now then, we do still create technology which lasts - it's just not as
frequently found in consumer tech. Take stoplight timing switches as an
example. They use electronics, and work in some incredibly extreme
environments, and are reliable more often than not.

~~~
spacecowboy_lon
Exactly it was only 15 or so years ago that one electrical firm local to me
stopped producing knife switches - thats the big switches (steam punk style)
you see in Frankensteins lab film sets.

------
danso
This isn't 100 years old, but a few years ago, during the 25th birthday of
OS/2, it was said that OS/2 is still the software for the Metrocard swiping
machines:

[http://techland.time.com/2012/04/02/25-years-of-ibms-
os2-the...](http://techland.time.com/2012/04/02/25-years-of-ibms-os2-the-
birth-death-and-afterlife-of-a-legendary-operating-system/3/)

> Try though it might, IBM couldn’t force an unwilling world to use OS/2 as
> its primary operating system. But it also couldn’t extinguish demand for the
> system simply by declaring that it wasn’t going to sell or support it
> anymore, an announcement it made in 2005. In 2012, OS/2 is invisible to the
> naked eye, but it’s still out there, in more places than you’d think.

> In New York City’s subway system, for instance, the travelers who gain
> entrance by swiping their MetroCards over 5 million times each weekday do so
> with the assistance of IBM’s theoretically defunct software. “While OS/2 is
> not running any visible part of the system, it does serve an essential
> purpose, and there are hundreds of OS/2 computers in service,” says Neil
> Waldhauer, a consultant who helps New York City Transit and other clients
> keep their OS/2 applications running.

> “OS/2 is not a superior solution in the places where it is still in use,” he
> explains. “Rather, it is a vital part of a larger system. Many enterprises
> have big investments in OS/2 programs that have no equivalent on other
> operating system … For many users, it would be expensive or inconvenient to
> move years or decades of their data and programs to a new platform.
> Replacing OS/2 would mean replacing their entire system.”

~~~
vortico
OS/2 emulators exist, so if there is an actual need to switch to modern
hardware (e.g. old hardware is failing), switching to emulators would be
cheap.

~~~
stuaxo
Do they ?

It's a shame the OSFree project has never got much support, it would be great
if it got to the point where it could run gui apps.

~~~
i336_
I understand Parallels was formed by a bunch of Russian hackers who were
originally contracted to make a huge bank's OS/2-based software system run on
new computers without OS/2 drivers.

The big issue was that OS/2's kernel operated in Ring 0, and no existing
virtualization/emulation systems supported the relevant CPU instructions.

I wonder if that bank is still running on OS/2... :P

~~~
PhantomGremlin
I heard that Parallels got a head start by, ahem, inheriting a substantial
amount of code from VMware. It's something I read online a while ago but
haven't been able to google any confirmation to.

Anybody know anything they're willing to share publicly?

------
yummyfajitas
This article promulgates the myth that the MTA is underfunded. In fact the MTA
has lots of money which is spent incredibly wastefully. For example, it costs
the MTA $1B/km to build underground, compared to $100-200M/km in the rest of
the world.

I discuss in more detail here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10247109](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10247109)

This article even hints at it: _Installing the system on the L train took over
six years, with multiple delays and cost overruns reaching $288 million. The
so-called "robot trains" require far fewer operators, too, which drew ire from
the Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union of America._

~~~
mattzito
I'd be interested in seeing a better comparison - it seems odd to compare a
metro commuter rail vs. one stop through one of the most congested, densely
populated infrastructures in the world. Presumably there are economies of
scale at building a long metro commuter train that extends aboveground outside
of the city.

It's hard to compare construction and maintenance costs between two different
cities where one has 30% more track and 10x the square mileage AND is 24hours
in operation.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Building underground in the most congested, densely populated infrastructures
in the world? You mean like the undergrounds of Hong Kong ($500M/km), Fukuoka
($300M/km), Singapore ($500M/km), Cairo ($300M/km), Sao Paolo ($250M/km) and
Seoul ($100M/km)?

[https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/comp...](https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/comparative-
subway-construction-costs-revised/)

(Admittedly, one of the Sao Paolo lines is 16% above ground.)

~~~
zeroxfe
But the cost of labor in those countries is much lower than in the US, no? (It
actually makes sound $1B/km in the US sound way better than $500M/km in HK.)

~~~
yummyfajitas
On average, no. If you adjust for PPP (as my source did), Hong Kong and
Singapore are wealthier than the US.

[https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&...](https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_pp_kd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:HKG:SGP:KOR:USA&ifdim=region&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false)

However, due to exceedingly powerful transit unions, labor costs are higher
_in the specific case of infrastructure_. As I said, waste.

------
Symbiote
"Every signal on each line is mapped on this board, which looks more like a an
old board game"

It looks a lot like a physical version of a new signalling centre in the UK
[1], except that uses monitors, which presumably make it easier to update the
"board". Many of the diagrams are visible online, since there's an open data
feed [2] (this one is about half the London Overground in London, orange on
the familiar map).

[1] [http://www.railengineer.uk/wp-
content/uploads/Sig04-online-9...](http://www.railengineer.uk/wp-
content/uploads/Sig04-online-940x390.jpg)

[2]
[https://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/signalling/NLL](https://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/signalling/NLL)

------
Rifu
Here's a link to the video that this article pretty much summarized [0]

[0] [https://youtu.be/Mjx3S3UjmnA](https://youtu.be/Mjx3S3UjmnA)

------
dankohn1
Why do the floors of the subway have to be much so worse than the floors of
Grand Central Station, or for that matter, the ground in Bryant Park? All are
open to the public and incredibly heavily trafficked.

The only difference is funding. NYC subways remain woefully underfunded.
There's no big secret of what it would take to fully fund a clean subway
system. The answer is $100 M a year [1]. Now, should the capital
infrastructure cost less? Of course. But there is no reason for the economic
arterial system of the whole region to remain so filthy in the meantime.

The only potential revenue source that could credibly provide the MTA with the
money it needs to bring all stations to a "State of Good Repair" [2], install
valuable upgrades like train locator screens and sliding platform doors, and
keep the stations clean is a congestion tax like Move NY [3].

A congestion tax would also have the benefit of making Manhattan a much more
walkable and ridable city and would even make rush hour taxis move faster. But
until there's political will to implement a congestion tax, I don't expect any
meaningful improvements in the subways.

[1] [http://secondavenuesagas.com/2008/09/30/cleaning-the-
system-...](http://secondavenuesagas.com/2008/09/30/cleaning-the-system-would-
cost-100-million/) [2] [http://secondavenuesagas.com/2015/09/10/cbc-mtas-
state-of-go...](http://secondavenuesagas.com/2015/09/10/cbc-mtas-state-of-
good-repair-remains-forever-elusive/) [3]
[http://iheartmoveny.org/](http://iheartmoveny.org/)

~~~
CPLX
One of the reasons is that they have giant trains running next to them, in a
way your other two examples don't. Trains create a lot of dirt and dust from
wheels and brakes among other things. If you compare the actual platforms at
Grand Central to a subway station they're pretty similar actually. Also both
of your other examples close at night, the subway does not.

The subways are generally not that different in cleanliness from the
corresponding streets and sidewalks above them. You could ask a different
question, which is why NYC as a whole is not very clean, but that's a much
more involved and complicated question than this facile complaint.

~~~
dankohn1
Better example then is PATH, which is 24 hours and has markedly cleaner
stations. However, its costs are closer to a commuter railroad at $10 per
rider [1].

[1]
[http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/01/whats_the_real_reas...](http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/01/whats_the_real_reason_the_port_authority_is_targeting_the_path.html)

------
somberi
New Yorker and a straphanger for decades here. Commenting on the "{City}
subway system is clean. Why not NYC's?". The subway is cheap, and runs 24
hours a day. This limits how much one can clean it - Washington DC subway
system washes all its platforms with hot water and bleach every night, when
the subway system is closed. I believe it is a combination of non-stop,
utilitarian and ancient system that brings bad rap to NYC subway. I personally
favor it over cabs for a reliable, cheap ride.

~~~
jrockway
They also wash the platforms with water and bleach in NYC, while people are
waiting for the train.

The times I've watched it, they do an incredibly lazy job, so the net result
is not much cleaning. If the goal was "clean the platform" instead of "look
like you're cleaning the platform", the system would probably be a lot
cleaner.

The MTA has a large number of labor relations problems they need to fix.
That's what's really holding them back.

(I also watched an interesting exchange recently. Someone jumps the turnstile.
Someone reports that to the station agent, who just watched it happen. She
replies "are you sure, I didn't see that", and went back to playing with her
phone. This attitude of neglect completely kills the "if you see something,
say something" culture the MTA tries to instill. If I see something, I'll keep
it to myself to avoid the ridicule I'd receive from the employees or police.)

------
jakozaur
Ppl in software are familiar with tech debt.

There is also organizational debt:
[http://steveblank.com/2015/05/19/organizational-debt-is-
like...](http://steveblank.com/2015/05/19/organizational-debt-is-like-
technical-debt-but-worse/)

This article seems to be an example infrastructure debt.

~~~
datenwolf
Actually I'd not call this "debt" but "assets". It's a proofed system with an
incredible track record. Please go ahead and show me _any_ freely programmable
system that has been in continuous operation for that long.

Think about it that way: It's a system where over time all the "bugs" have
been identified, resolved and failure modes mitigated. If you were to replace
the system with something new, you'd likely introduce the same old bugs, and
new ones, without zero operational gain. Train tracks are rather fixed in
their operation; in fact their design is dictated by the train movements.
Changes in possible train movements come with changes to the tracks, and those
changes are easily reflected by hardwired circuitry.

~~~
Symbiote
There would be operational gain. Modern signalling systems can reduce the time
between trains to 30s or less, and computer-controlled acceleration and
braking is more efficient and smoother for passengers. Also, at some point
trains do wear out — i.e significant parts are worn out, like the chassis,
that it makes sense to replace the whole train.

I'm just repeating the press statements of London Underground, who have been
investing in new trains and signalling systems for the past 10-15 years. (It
follows a long period of under-investment.)

New equipment does bring new bugs, which is why they introduce new trains on
'spare' track at night (without passengers), then with passengers on Sunday
nights, then Sunday mornings, etc.

~~~
datenwolf
We're talking about the track system here, not the trains. For trains it makes
of course a lot of sense to use modern locomotion control technology.

However when it comes to the tracks and signaling, there's only very little to
be gained to have the actual signalling being computerized on a standard two
track railway with the occassional switch track.

The distance between trains, both in time and space, is determined by the
blocking of the tracks. There's a hard constraint on the minimum distance
between blocks: For any given train running a track, it must be able to come
to a full stop within the length of a block. And for safety reasons there must
be at least _two_ free blocks between trains (exercise to the reader: why two
blocks? Hint: Emergency braking).

Now there is of course the possibility to subdivide a track into microblocks,
where a fixed number of microblocks make up a "block" and the "block" borders
are dynamically moving along with the trains on a track, so that there's
always two blocks of distance between them. But again, this does not require a
programmable computer to implement. It can be done using hardwired circuitry
(and I'd feel much safer using such a system); just throw a few 74HCT… ICs
onto a PCB and mass manufacture that.

------
zongitsrinzler
Visited NYC for the first time last week and god, I have been to a lot of
subways and NYC's metro system was one of the creepiest.

Relative to how much it is used I wonder why they just don't throw money at
the problem to make it a more attractive way of transportation instead of
being only a necessity.

~~~
duaneb
It's a way to get from point a to point b, I don't think creepiness is a big
factor for me. Good lighting is a different story.

~~~
briandear
When there are homeless people taking a dump on the platform and hundreds of
positively disgusting surfaces.. Creepy doesn't even begin to describe it.
Dirty, disgusting and dungeon like isn't a virtue. Combine that with the
horrid lack of accessibility and you have the NYC subway. Even PATH looks like
luxury compared to riding the metro. Funny how NYC claims to be 'progressive'
yet someone in a wheelchair or a mom with small children can't safely use much
of the system. Seoul has double the population, yet their system is twice as
clean.

~~~
rmxt
Talk about sour grapes... It's anecdote against anecdote, but have you ever
_actually_ seen someone taking a crap on a platform? I've ridden the subway
several thousands of times in the past decade and I've _never_ seen someone
take a dump on the platform or train. That's one of those stories that
everyone talks about, imagines, and hits the front page of Gothamist, but is
in all likelihood farther and fewer between in reality, than in the stories we
tell.

A "progressive" city can still have legacy parts, and those legacy parts are
supplemented by custom features. All regular NYC Buses are handicap
accessible. There are 24/7, door-to-door, paratransit services for handicapped
people that cost the same as a subway fare [0]. Sure, the NYC Subway isn't
Seoul or Singapore's, but it runs 24/7 (Seoul's only runs 5:30-Midnight) and
the stations on average are probably ~20-30 years older than the oldest parts
of the Seoul Metro (early 70s). The unofficial handicapped accessible subway
map is depressingly sparse [1], but it seems on par with London's [2] and
better than Paris' [3]. (Neither of which are 24 hour systems, BTW.)

I'll admit that the surfaces are gross and the subway collects the most
unfortunate, down on their luck members of society, but your post reads as a
total condemnation of the best mass transit system in the US. It's dirty and
depressing at times, but it's also one of the great equalizers in New York
City life.

[0]
[http://web.mta.info/nyct/paratran/guide.htm#what_is](http://web.mta.info/nyct/paratran/guide.htm#what_is)

[1] [https://subwayrecord.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/ada-
subway-...](https://subwayrecord.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/ada-subway-map-w-
key.jpg)

[2] [http://content.tfl.gov.uk/step-free-tube-guide-
map.pdf](http://content.tfl.gov.uk/step-free-tube-guide-map.pdf)

[3] [http://parisbytrain.com/wp-
content/uploads/2008/09/plan_pbs....](http://parisbytrain.com/wp-
content/uploads/2008/09/plan_pbs.pdf)

~~~
go1979
I did see someone pooping once. The train car cleared out pretty fast. I also
got threatened twice during rush hour. When I first moved to NY, I tried
talking to the good people at the counter ... never made that mistake again.
After a bit, I just started taking cabs. I did encounter traffic jams
periodically but felt a better experience overall. Btw .. I also have respect
for NYC cabbies. They are the opposite of Bay area cabbies. I try to not use
Uber when I am in NY. Anyways ... the NYC subway sucks when compared to
international standards. If you travel a bit internationally, you'll know what
I'm talking about.

~~~
rmxt
Travelling internationally has reinforced my positive opinions of NYC's mass
transit. Sure, it's occasionally gross, and certainly less polished than
London or Paris, but it's 24 hour presence is truly special. It's redundancy
and express/local service patterns are also unique. You seem to be able to
afford cabs -- that isn't the case for a good portion of NYC's population.
That I can go from Williamsburg to Inwood in ~1 hr. 15 min. for $2.50 at 2am
Sunday morning....that's something special that other cities can't compare on.

I'm not excusing the cost overruns and budget mishaps the MTA is prone to, but
these stereotypes of a cesspool-like NYC mass transit are dated and a
disservice to their actual typical operating conditions.

~~~
Symbiote
Several cities in Europe that don't run 24h/day every day at least run
overnight on Friday and Saturday nights. (London doesn't, since the unions are
currently blocking it.)

But your point would work if you'd chosen 2am on Monday.

Copenhagen's metro runs 24 hours a day, every day, but it's small and new (and
entirely automated).

------
cs702
Yikes!

Those photos are depressing -- especially the one showing people in a dinky
office waiting to pull metal levers manually so trains in the network can pass
safely.

Anyone would agree the NYC subway system is mission-critical (without it, NYC
would slow down to a crawl), yet its technology infrastructure has obviously
been neglected for decades, due to lack of money, lousy management,
corruption, or a combination of all these factors.

And no one wants to pay higher fares or greater taxes.

~~~
greenyoda
_" due to lack of money..."_

There's actually billions of dollars being spent on projects like the 2nd
Avenue line and the recently completed extension of the #7 train. For some
reason, the powers that be consider this more essential than updating the
ancient signalling infrastructure and maintaining the crumbling stations.

~~~
rdtsc
Perhaps not different than software world -- people want to be known for
"created and built ..." on their resume, rather than for "mainted and
supported ...".

It is of course fun and exciting if we are talking about spotify for dogs, not
as fun when talking about critical infrastructure.

~~~
greenyoda
Agreed, but also nobody wants to be known for "the whole system fell apart
while I was in charge".

------
jdalgetty
This is amazing and I hope it stays that way for another 100 years!

------
i336_
Note the acting-for-the-camera fail with the spanner at 8:28-8:32.5.

------
jug5
Much of the technology in US infrastructure hasn't been updated in over 100
years

