On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:24:25 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:

they'd be better off with bells and lights at the crossing for the
latter...

Many crossings have none.


I was thinking of putting the bells and lights on the train...

More people have ears, than radios. Few of the ones without ears, use
radios

lol
--
Drop the alphabet for email

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 10:08:49 GMT, Wayne P. Muckleroy wrote:

I think you will find that the FCC has the FINAL call on frequency band
usage. I can't see them authorizing such intrusive use of the normal
broadcast bands, especially after the broadcast industry gets wind of your
proposal.

They got wind. Intrusive? Matter of subjectivity. A 30 sec message that
envelopes a 3500 sided square?

From a technical standpoint, broadband transmission of a signal is not hard.
A simple VFO sweep of all the normal broadcast bands is all that is
required. Obviously, the appropriate modulation techniques would have to be
used for each band.

That's the way we see it, more or less.

Another approach would be the use of a local (LOW power) sweeping UP/DOWN
converter. In this method, you could transmit a specific (authorized) signal
from the site. This signal would be received and detected by a local
receiver. This information would be used to modulate and rebroadcast the
signal within the vehicle. However, this would require onboard equipment.

Which mat make this impractical in the short run but there has been
discussion about mandating this type of installation. I have my doubts but
then we have seat belts and airbags.

I still think that your biggest hurdle will a legal one.

Wayne-
(KC8UIO)

I agree. Thanks, Wayne.
--
Drop the alphabet for email

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 10:08:49 GMT, Wayne P. Muckleroy wrote:

I can't see them authorizing such intrusive use of the normal
broadcast bands,

http://www.fcw.com/article88522-04-11-05-Print

*This* is intrusive.
--
Drop the alphabet for email

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 19:40:18 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

The Republicans are going to take care of all those problems! Darned
Democrats anyhow!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Now look who is the troll.
--
Drop the alphabet for email

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!!


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.

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

Cheers.

Ken

"Jim - NN7K" wrote in message
...
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!!


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
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