Unattended Train Operation for the Interborough Express

By John Pegram[1]

I have concluded that the Interborough Express (IBX) line should use “Unattended Train Operation” (UTO) railcars,[2] also called “autonomous” railcars.[3] Indeed, by the time the IBX line is built, not providing for UTO will be considered a bad mistake. The technology exists, is relatively inexpensive and widely used now. A Wiikipedia article lists over 170 UTO train lines.[4]

UTO Railcar on Paris Line 14

Unattended train operation has many advantages, some of which are listed in this article. In particular, UTO would permit a doubling in frequency of operation of shorter trains on the IBX line at a reduced operating cost, making the line much more attractive to riders.

In this article, I will summarize the MTA’s decision not to use Unattended Train Operation (UTO) on the IBX line, briefly explain Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) and UTO, and identify some of the reasons for using UTO railcars, referring especially to those identified in a 2015 Imperial College Study[5] and a 2021 Florida Study.[6] Future articles will consider some of the details.

The IBX Proposal

Unattended train operation was initially considered for the IBX line, under the name “Automated Guideway Transit” or “AGT,” but was rejected.[7] UTO should be reconsidered and adopted for the IBX line now.

The MTA’s January 2022 IBX feasibility study “Interim Report” considered six modes for the IBX line.[8] In particular, that report rejected the Automated Guideway mode and the Heavy Rail (subway) mode, because of limited right-of-way (ROW) width and perceived conflicts with freight trains in the ROW.[9] Light Rail Transit (LRT) was favored, even at that stage, primarily because it could run at street level for several miles, mostly on an elevated structure over the freight tracks, and it could run on streets around All-Faiths Cemetery.[10]

A year later, in January 2023, the MTA announced its selection of the LRT mode for the IBX line, with a twist.[11] The consultants had found that the right-of-way could be widened to permit transit tracks to share the right-of-way with a freight track for all except 500 feet of the proposed IBX line.[12] A tunnel under All-Faiths Cemetery was too narrow for one freight track plus two transit tracks. The principal reason for selection of the Light Rail Transit (LRT) mode then became that Light Rail vehicles could run in the street around the cemetery.[13] The report assumed that Commuter Rail (like Automated Guideway and subway) trains could not run in the street, primarily because of their use of a third rail.[14] A new tunnel was considered too expensive.[15] (I have posted several articles on this site about the All Faiths cemetery tunnel, light rail issues and public comments, most of which oppose light rail for the IBX line).

There has been no public reconsideration of the Heavy Rail mode (subway-type) or the Automated Guideway Transit mode for the IBX line, in spite of the inappropriateness of the selected, Light Rail Transit mode. The contract for the current IBX environmental review project specifies that the Consultant shall use the Interim Report and PEL Report as its basis for analysis, noting that the Light Rail Transit mode had been identified as the “locally preferred alternative.”[16] However, the MTA appears to remain open to considering more suitable alternatives. 

What Is “Automated Guideway Transit”?

Some people have the impression that Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) must be different from a system of subway-like trains, for example, with small, people-mover cars, or with linear motor power, or with a monorail. Or they believe the guideway is somehow automated to guide the trains. Almost all of that is wrong. (AGT vehicles do interact with a signaling system associated with the guideway, such as rail tracks). AGT systems span a variety of conceptual designs, including subway-like rapid transit systems.[17]

Driverless transit systems using conventional, steel wheel, standard gauge technology include the PATCO line between Philadelphia and New Jersey (America’s oldest driverless metro line);[18] the Dubai Metro (one of the world’s largest driverless metro networks);[19]  and São Paulo’s Metro Line 4, which handles 800 thousand passengers per day.[20] PATCO, which runs underground in Philadelphia, operates railcars very similar to other older subway cars, powered by a third rail.

PATCO Railcar

Another AGT category is best described as light metro. Examples include the JFK AirTrain, and the Expo and Millenium SkyTrain lines in Vancouver.[21]

Exactly What Is “Unattended Train Operation”?

The highest “Grade of Automation” (GoA) for metros in the International Electrotechnical Commission’s standard IEC-62290 is GoA4, which is defined as capable of unattended autonomous train operation (UTO). (The next highest category is GoA3, which ordinarily is “driverless,” requires an attendant to perform some critical function, such as controlling doors).[22]

While at one time, a UTO system might have required significant additional equipment and cost, most new subway cars today—including those of NYC Transit—are being equipped with a computer and the basic enabling technology, which is Communications-based train control (CBTC). That “is a railway signaling system that uses telecommunications between the train and track equipment for traffic management and infrastructure control.”[23] Therefore, providing for UTO on the IBX line probably would be primarily a matter of adding software. The increased cost over modern, non-UTO railcars is likely to be small and much less that the resulting cost advantages.

Advantages of Unattended Operation

A 2021 study, funded by the Florida Department of Transportation,[24] discussed advantages of autonomous trains, including:

·       Eliminating human sources of errors

·       Increasing capacity by stronger utilization of existing rail tracks

·       Reduction of operational costs.

·       Increased system capacity

·       Increasing overall service reliability

·       Improving fleet management and service flexibility

·       Increasing energy efficiency

·       Reduction in emissions produced;

Conversions to UTO Demonstrate the Recognition of Its Value

Initially, it appears that most UTO systems were of the “greenfield” type, meaning UTO was included when building new lines. Now, however, many cities are converting existing metro lines to UTO, demonstrating a (belated) recognition of UTO’s value. Such conversions can be disruptive and more expensive than “greenfield UTO systems, and can involve complicated staff issues.

Two examples of past and pending conversions follow.

After successfully opening Metro line 14 as a fully automated line in 1998, the Parisian transit authorities completed conversion of line 1 to automated operation in 2012. Line 1 is the busiest of all of the Paris subway lines and also the line most frequented by tourists.[25]

Madrid is planning to automate metro lines 3 and 6.[26] According to Railway Gazette, “The first line to be converted would be the 23 km[27] circular Line 6, which has 28 stations and is the busiest on the network with an average of 618,000 passengers on weekdays.” The President of the Community of Madrid was reported to have said, “automation would enable trains to run every 2 min, save energy, increase operational flexibility and reduce journey times.”

Conclusion

The Interborough Express Line should be designed for Unattended Train Operation from the start. Otherwise, it probably be obsolete when it opens.

This article expresses the personal views of the author and does not express the views of his employer, or any client or organization. The author has degrees in law and physics, and has taken several engineering courses. After five years of work as an engineer, he has practiced law primarily in the field of patents for over 50 years, dealing with a wide variety of technologies. He is a life-long railfan and user of public transportation in the United States, Europe and Japan.

As usual a PDF copy of this article is attached.

Unattended Train Operation For The Interborough Express

207KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

---

[1]           © John Pegram, 2024.

[2]           See Cohen, J. M.; Barron, A. S.; Anderson, R. J.; Graham, D. J., UK National Academy of Sciences, "Impacts of Unattended Train Operations (UTO) on Productivity and Efficiency in Metropolitan Railways" (2015) (Imperial College Study). Available at https://core.ac.uk/ download/pdf/77007368.pdf.

[3]           See Singh, Prashant; Dulebenets, Maxim A.; Pasha, Junayed; Gonzalez, Ernesto D. R. Santibanez; Lau, Yui-Yip; Kampmann, Raphael, "Deployment of Autonomous Trains in Rail Transportation: Current Trends and Existing Challenges," IEEE Access. 9: 91427–91461 (2021) (Florida Study), available at https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9462161. See generally Wiikipedia, “Automatic train operation,” available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Automatic_train_operation.

[4]           Wiikipedia, “List of driverless train systems,” GoA4 section, available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_driverless_train_systems.

[5]           Supra, note 2.

[6]           Supra, note 3.

[7]           See generally, Wiikipedia, “Automated Guideway Transit,” available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_guideway_transit (“AGT covers a wide variety of systems, from limited people mover systems commonly found at airports, to more complex automated train systems like the Vancouver SkyTrain. … . Larger systems span a variety of conceptual designs, [including] subway-like advanced rapid transit (ART) systems….”).

[8]           MTA, Interborough Express – Feasibility Study and Alternatives Analysis – Interim
Report (Jan. 2022) (Interim Report) See id. at p. 8 (The AGT mode “would build a fully automated rail line, similar to the JFK AirTrain”). This report, without appendices, is available from the MTA here.  The most complete version  available to the public, with appendices, produced to me in response to my Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request, is available for download here.

[9]           Id. at Appendix 1.7, § 9.2.3.

[10]         Id. at pp. 9, 12-13, 16.  

[11]         MTA, Interborough Express Planning & Environmental Linkages Study (Jan. 2023) (PEL Report), available from the MTA here. Appendix 1.11, “Capital Cost Estimate,” is missing from that version. The most complete version available to the public, including all appendices, was produced to me by the MTA in response to my Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request and is available for download here.

[12]         Id. at pp. 18, 22, 30.

[13]         Id. at p. 22.

[14]         Id. at p. 14. In fact, there is no reason why Conventional Rail, subway or Automated Guideway trains could not be operated in street if made with an appropriate turning radius for the required turns and overhead power collection system, rather than a third rail on the ground. A driverless train might create less potential problems in a street than the driverless automobiles and trucks now coming into use in some places.

[15]         Id. at pp. 24, 30.

[16]         “For this Project, the Consultant shall use as its basis for analysis the Interborough Express Feasibility Study, as well as a Planning& Environmental Linkages (“PEL”) Study, which were prepared by the MTA in 2020-2023 in anticipation of the Project. Based on these Studies, Light Rail Transit (LRT) was identified as the locally preferred alternative (“LPA”).” Work Assignment No. 15553-15 dated as of July 31, 2023 between MTA and WSP USA, Inc., Attachment A, Scope of Work, p. 1. A copy obtained from the MTA is in the author’s files.

[17]         Wiikipedia, “Automated guideway transit,” available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Automated_guideway_transit. 

[18]         Wikipedia, “PATCO Speedline,” available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ PATCO_Speedline.

[19]         Wiikipedia, “Dubai Metro,” available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_Metro. 

[20]         Wiikipedia, “Line 4 (São Paulo Metro),” available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Line_4_(S%C3%A3o_Paulo_Metro); see Florida Study, supra note 3 at p. 91444.

[21]         See Wiikipedia, “AirTrain JFK,” available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirTrain_JFK; “SkyTrain (Vancouver), available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_(Vancouver);  “Innovia Metro,” available at  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovia_Metro.

[22]         See Imperial College Study, supra note 2, Section 2, commenting “the word ‘driverless’ reads as a synonym for ‘unattended’ but is elsewhere defined as referring to trains that do not have a driver’s cab but do require on-board staff (7), creating potential for confusion.”

[23]         Wiikipedia, “Communications-based train control,” available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications-based_train_control.; “Signaling of the New York City Subway,” available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signaling_of_the_New_York_City_ Subway.

[24]         Florida Study, supra note 3.

[25]         Wiikipedia, “Paris Métro Line 1,” available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Paris_M%C3%A9tro_Line_1; Wiikipedia, “Paris Métro Line 14,” available at  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_M%C3%A9tro_Line_14. 

[26]         Railway Gazette, Metro News, “Madrid Metro Automation Planned” (March 6, 2024), available at https://www.railwaygazette.com/metros/madrid-metro-automation-planned/66052.article

[27]         17.5 miles, similar to the IBX line length.