On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 22:51:50 GMT, Jim - NN7K wrote:

If ANY such is to be performed, for railroad equipment, it must be well
thought out, and, further, must face multiple Federal Agencies, and at
least one private one (A.A.R., The American Association of Railroads)
The additional federal agencies a Federal Railroad Administration,
O.S.H.A., and others-- One must also be aware of the facts that MANY
frequencies would have to be involved, because of safety concerns
(much like airlines), against interference. (No, it is NOT just about
Train to train/work crew, and Dispatcher communications that is
involved. Other equipment that railroads use a 1) Track Carriers,
for Crossing grade signals, dragging equipment, high-wide load,
hot box detectors, Broken Rail detection, not to mention some
telephony communications, 2) Remote controlled helper engines (unmanned
engines on the end of trains to push-assist, and brake), 3) "FREDS"
("Friggin Rear End Devices"), some of which provide telemetry to the
engineer of brake pressure, status of tail light, ect.- the new
generation is conversant -2 way, also capable of dumping the
brake pressure (emergency brake application, via remote control)
and, other options (control of Railroad Central Traffic Control,
or CTC. Also, on ALL track circuits, in signaled territory, the
use of Insulated Joints is mandated, by the Federal Railroad
Administration and can cause derailments, and other problems
if NOT adheared to!and, 4) G.P.S. equipment

Thanks, solid points. We have identified the FCC assigned to RR frequencies
and they are outside of the AM/FM bandwidth.

As to the Engines, tho, they have considerable power, they supply
unorthodox voltages (a typical engine uses 600 volt, circuits, and the
electronics used on them is in the 68-72 volt range- further, the newer
engines are A.C. , the older diesels were D.C.

All this is convertible though, correct?

In sum total, then, this isn't a job for sidewalk superintendents!

Nope, sure isn't.

ONE item the railroads is STILL looking for is a concensus, for
a Run-Away vehicle (by their work crews), that would alert a track
gang of that runaway comming at them, causing considerable injury!
They are STILL looking for such a foolproof device!

What's the issue, this appears not to be a huge deal?

Translation:
DON'T hold your breath, or you will get awful blue!! Jim NN7K
Retired Communication Tech, Southern Pacific, and Union Pacific
for over 30 years!!

Thanks, Jim, not holding any breaths. This isn't an in-house project, it's
a coordinated effort that has all the complications and need for input as
you have pointed out. We are asked to be Tech Central of sorts.

Ari Silversteinn wrote:

Indeed it is both. Considering we gave away a central DB technology to
DHS-NOLA, then they failed to use it, we are hoping to make money this
time
around *and* that they will get their acts together.

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 08:26:12 +1300, Ken Taylor wrote:

I'm really not criticizing you, per se, but I don't think the concept is
well thought out.

By it's very nature, it cannot be, it is a dynamically moving target and
will be for some time I would imagine.



--
Drop the alphabet for email