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

Jim,

I don't recognize the name, but did you ever work out of the
SF GOB? I spent 30 years there myself.

FWIW, I also hear from Brijet occasionally. You probably know
her (wherever you worked) as she was in charge of CDC for some years.
I spent a decent amount of time down there troubleshooting problems on
the remote lines to the zone offices.



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.

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

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 11:59:01 +1300, Ken Taylor wrote:

Thanks Jim, but I wouldn't bet on the facts getting in the way of this
'project'.

Cheers.

Ken

Why do you say that?

Here's a "heads up" for you, Ken. There are over ten FedGov agencies,
several legal teams and the rail lines that are working with diligence on
this, and similar, projects with the full intent of attempting to pull this
off.

While you sit on the sidelines and nay-say.

If I had a dime for cheap comments like yours, I could fund this project
out of petty cash. So goes the nature of those who do and those who comment
about the doers.
--
Drop the alphabet for email

wrote:

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


Jim,

I don't recognize the name, but did you ever work out of the
SF GOB? I spent 30 years there myself.

FWIW, I also hear from Brijet occasionally. You probably know
her (wherever you worked) as she was in charge of CDC for some years.
I spent a decent amount of time down there troubleshooting problems on
the remote lines to the zone offices.

Never down in Oakland/the CITY, worked in K.Falls for years,
started in Eugene, in '68. Finally moved here to Sparks, about
12 years ago. Yeh, remember Brigit- bet she doing better than
most - had Dave Stubbles in Roseville, until they laid him off
about 7 years ago then he went to makeing big $$$!!-- and the
two Mikes-- Rosemond - he back in Eugene, and Barnecascle- he
in Elko, NV- got a year until retirement! Guess Bob Hall
still retired in K.Falls, and Jim Haas also there (he took my
job when came to Sparks). All retired (except for the two mikes).
Think you Kaiser D ?? have fun-- Jim (A.J. Foster) NN7K

Ari- The power of a locomotive can be converted but, there are
certain problems, like going downhill, not only are brakes applied
to the cars, but the diesels go into "Dynamic Breaking", a complicated
way to say "Let the driver wheels run the motor (as a generator), and
them dump their output to banks of RESISTORS!! Provides great breaking,
but lousey voltage regulation! The radios on these units are powered
by (as stated,) 72 Volts, tho the radios also work on 12 volts (which
was the standard in Cabooses). The main point tho, remains that there
are considerable electronics (the new G.E. A.C.engines , from what
I have been told, are computer operated)! and that anything that
interfers with other items causes considerable greif to the operation
of a railroad- even turning a relay upside down can cause a derailment!



They are STILL looking for such a foolproof device!


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


Well, Ari-- the big deal is (Primarily in mountainous country- even
a grade of .5 degree, is considered quite steep). Now, suppose a
Maintainence of Way employees (push car, Motor Car, Hi-Railer (a
pickup equipped for rail travel) accidentally get loose- these can
be doing considerable speed- several MILES later-- worse, these
dont trip the signals, and further, the work crews have the track
from the dispatcher, so these can sneak up on workers with fatal
consequences. A similar thing happened on the old Siskiyou line,
when the powers that be were testing one of the old style of
remote controlled helpers-, going down-hill, on 5 Mile /Hour track
they called the remote to go to dynamic brakeing- but it went to
8-throttle instead (full throttle)! When they got it to control,
that train was doing 20 MPH! Had a bunch of scared people on it!
as you can see, it is not for the faint of heart! I sure wouldn't have
wanted to be anywhere near that track-- would you ??
I know it looks simple, and most times it is, but it doesn't take
much for things to get out of control! Have fun -- Jim

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 18:31:17 GMT, Jim - NN7K wrote:

Ari- The power of a locomotive can be converted but, there are
certain problems, like going downhill, not only are brakes applied
to the cars, but the diesels go into "Dynamic Breaking", a complicated
way to say "Let the driver wheels run the motor (as a generator), and
them dump their output to banks of RESISTORS!! Provides great breaking,
but lousey voltage regulation! The radios on these units are powered
by (as stated,) 72 Volts, tho the radios also work on 12 volts (which
was the standard in Cabooses). The main point tho, remains that there
are considerable electronics (the new G.E. A.C.engines , from what
I have been told, are computer operated)!

Just saw one, yep, looks exactly that way.

and that anything that
interfers with other items causes considerable greif to the operation
of a railroad- even turning a relay upside down can cause a derailment!

Ah, I see what you mean, thanks again for the heads up. Are you then
suggesting that we create our own, clean power removed from the loco elec
grid?
--
Drop the alphabet for email

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 18:31:17 GMT, Jim - NN7K wrote:

They are STILL looking for such a foolproof device for run away train notification!

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

Well, Ari-- the big deal is (Primarily in mountainous country- even
a grade of .5 degree, is considered quite steep). Now, suppose a
Maintainence of Way employees (push car, Motor Car, Hi-Railer (a
pickup equipped for rail travel) accidentally get loose- these can
be doing considerable speed- several MILES later-- worse, these
dont trip the signals, and further, the work crews have the track
from the dispatcher, so these can sneak up on workers with fatal
consequences. A similar thing happened on the old Siskiyou line,
when the powers that be were testing one of the old style of
remote controlled helpers-, going down-hill, on 5 Mile /Hour track
they called the remote to go to dynamic brakeing- but it went to
8-throttle instead (full throttle)! When they got it to control,
that train was doing 20 MPH! Had a bunch of scared people on it!
as you can see, it is not for the faint of heart! I sure wouldn't have
wanted to be anywhere near that track-- would you ??

Not a chance.

I know it looks simple, and most times it is, but it doesn't take
much for things to get out of control! Have fun -- Jim

I meant it seemed not to be, on first look, a difficult technology to
implement. For example, why not a sped sensitive device that set off an
alarm (vocal, radio, other) that could be preset "on" in situations where
these runaways are not manned?

I don't mean to downplay the potential complications but, technically,
getting an appropriate alarm system on a runaway doesn't sound like high
end technology.
--
Drop the alphabet for email

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 09:27:17 -0500, Richard Harrison wrote:

Disruption of all normal channels is unecessary and undesirable. Some
won`t be tuned-in and won`t immediately get the message. Nearly everyone
has eyes and ears. Sight and sound are useful to communicate.

Air horns as used on locomotives are designed to get attention. They are
heard at great distances.

Ever hear of The Quiet Zone rulings?
--
Drop the alphabet for email

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 17:51:49 GMT, Jim - NN7K
wrote:



wrote:

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


Jim,

I don't recognize the name, but did you ever work out of the
SF GOB? I spent 30 years there myself.

FWIW, I also hear from Brijet occasionally. You probably know
her (wherever you worked) as she was in charge of CDC for some years.
I spent a decent amount of time down there troubleshooting problems on
the remote lines to the zone offices.

Never down in Oakland/the CITY, worked in K.Falls for years,
started in Eugene, in '68. Finally moved here to Sparks, about
12 years ago. Yeh, remember Brigit- bet she doing better than
most - had Dave Stubbles in Roseville, until they laid him off
about 7 years ago then he went to makeing big $$$!!-- and the
two Mikes-- Rosemond - he back in Eugene, and Barnecascle- he
in Elko, NV- got a year until retirement! Guess Bob Hall
still retired in K.Falls, and Jim Haas also there (he took my
job when came to Sparks). All retired (except for the two mikes).
Think you Kaiser D ?? have fun-- Jim (A.J. Foster) NN7K

Oops, sorry, I meant to take this personal stuff offline.

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 18:38:04 -0400, Ari Silversteinn
wrote:

I don't know the details on how it works, but it seems to me that a
broadening of something akin to the On-Star technology might be a
solution work examining. I do not know if an On-Star operator can talk
to an equipped vehicle at On-Stars initiative, but certainly we have
the start of a system with a two-way radio with a satellite comms
link.

Admittedly, at the momeny On-Star is considered a luxury add-on option
and is currently available only in GM cars (to the best of my
knowledge.) But 23 years ago, I wrote a paper to my DOD bosses which
said this system the Swedes were developing called cellular phone
might have to be looked into. I was doing this as part of a survey on
new technologies which could have an impact upon intelligence
production. [I got a response from some Dilbert-type pinhead boss that
said it would go nowhere BTW]. Given a few years and some
competition, the On-Star paradigm could be as ubiquitous as
cell-phones are today. Even 23 years ago, I never forsaw the
possibility of virtually every teenager having a cell phone or that
there would be ten of them in just my immediate family [Wife, myself,
two adult children and their families. Son and his wife have two
systems each plus a Nextel.]

If an On-Star device, would be true two way, with GPS tracking, with
either end of the link able to activate the system. One could
broadcast a message to every active unit, either universally, or,
based upon GPS tracking to every unit with prescribed geo coordinates.
There already exists a somewhat similar system to broadcast weather
alerts to a passive receiver, although not normally deployed in cars.
Boaters already can have a Digital Selective Calling VHF radio in
their boats by which a coast guard can issue warnings. Such a system
is being mandated in the UK by a phase in process (e.g. new radios
with the old paradigm cannot be marketed unless they have DSC.)

And horror of horrors, one could alway investigate Broadband over
Powerlines (BPL). Wouldn't that give us hams some gas.

W3JT

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 09:27:17 -0500, Richard Harrison wrote:

Disruption of all normal channels is unecessary and undesirable. Some
won`t be tuned-in and won`t immediately get the message. Nearly everyone
has eyes and ears. Sight and sound are useful to communicate.

Air horns as used on locomotives are designed to get attention. They are
heard at great distances.

Ever hear of The Quiet Zone rulings?