3 ms·

The article is referring to NYC subways which, while they run on a schedule in theory, the schedule is effectively irrelevant except for when it leaves its firs

The article is referring to NYC subways which, while they run on a schedule in theory, the schedule is effectively irrelevant except for when it leaves its first station. It won't speed up to compensate for delays, and it's never going to wait at a station because it's running ahead. So the countdown clocks don't report scheduled times, they are derived from the train's actual current distance. Obviously medium- and long-distance rain is different.

diggan 2y ago
> It won't speed up to compensate for delays, and it's never going to wait at a station because it's running ahead. The first part absolutely makes sense, but the second one I'm not so sure. They don't have any "Hold at station" or whatever it's called to get some even spacing if they're running ahead of schedule? Seems unnecessarily chaotic. Doesn't that mean sometimes you end up with 2 or 3 trains coming right after each other?
- xp84 2y ago
  > Doesn't that mean sometimes you end up with 2 or 3 trains coming right after each other? Kind of -- you definitely can have that happen, but probably never because Train #2 is way ahead of schedule, as it's nearly impossible for any American mass transit system's best case scenario to be any better than "on time". When a parade of trains all at once happens, it's more typical that, if trains are theoretically supposed to stop here at 11:10, 11:20, 11:30, and so on, train #1 would be arriving 29 minutes late at 11:39, followed by Train #2 22 minutes late at 11:42, and Train #3 running 14 minutes late at 11:44. For instance, due to "police activity" or worse, when someone dies by suicide on the tracks (pretty sure those delays are much longer than the above example in that case).
- jermaustin1 2y ago
  Only slightly sarcastic: In the history of the subway, has it ever been early?

3 ms·

The article is referring to NYC subways which, while they run on a schedule in theory, the schedule is effectively irrelevant except for when it leaves its firs

by crazygringo 2y ago

diggan 2y ago
> It won't speed up to compensate for delays, and it's never going to wait at a station because it's running ahead. The first part absolutely makes sense, but the second one I'm not so sure. They don't have any "Hold at station" or whatever it's called to get some even spacing if they're running ahead of schedule? Seems unnecessarily chaotic. Doesn't that mean sometimes you end up with 2 or 3 trains coming right after each other?
- xp84 2y ago
  > Doesn't that mean sometimes you end up with 2 or 3 trains coming right after each other? Kind of -- you definitely can have that happen, but probably never because Train #2 is way ahead of schedule, as it's nearly impossible for any American mass transit system's best case scenario to be any better than "on time". When a parade of trains all at once happens, it's more typical that, if trains are theoretically supposed to stop here at 11:10, 11:20, 11:30, and so on, train #1 would be arriving 29 minutes late at 11:39, followed by Train #2 22 minutes late at 11:42, and Train #3 running 14 minutes late at 11:44. For instance, due to "police activity" or worse, when someone dies by suicide on the tracks (pretty sure those delays are much longer than the above example in that case).
- jermaustin1 2y ago
  Only slightly sarcastic: In the history of the subway, has it ever been early?