Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Ari Silversteinn" wrote in message
.. . 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 It may be a fine project which will produce the goods, but let's look at the way you've brought it he - you wanted help to get up a truck-mounted transmitted to over-ride all AM/FM communications in an area. You wanted to drive the truck at up to 70mph through a disaster/emergency area, for no adequately explained reason (the RF is going for a mile or two outside the area, so why drive the truck?). You got told why it's impractical as described. - you suddenly changed it to a loco mounted project. You struck gold on this one as there are people here who clearly have industry experience. You're not poo-poo'ing their skepticism, but certainly not fazed (may not be a bad thing....). Why not pour the funds into controlling all these uncontrolled level crossings instead of producing a 'box' to go on every loco that may drive through the US? - you are trying to get commercial advice in a Ham group - is this the right venue?? I'd have thought not, though it's certainly cheap. - having ten agencies etc etc on your side may get the project through, but is it the right solution to whichever problem it's attacking? - 'nay-sayers' are a pain-in-the-arse, agreed - no-one likes them! - but sometimes you need to hear the other side. Cheers. Ken |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:07:51 +1300, "Ken Taylor"
wrote: It may be a fine project which will produce the goods, but let's look at the way you've brought it he - you wanted help to get up a truck-mounted transmitted to over-ride all AM/FM communications in an area. You wanted to drive the truck at up to 70mph through a disaster/emergency area, for no adequately explained reason (the RF is going for a mile or two outside the area, so why drive the truck?). You got told why it's impractical as described. - you suddenly changed it to a loco mounted project. You struck gold on this one as there are people here who clearly have industry experience. You're not poo-poo'ing their skepticism, but certainly not fazed (may not be a bad thing....). Why not pour the funds into controlling all these uncontrolled level crossings instead of producing a 'box' to go on every loco that may drive through the US? It struck me from the very beginning as a solution looking for a problem. -- LRod Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999 http://www.woodbutcher.net Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997 |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
It struck me from the very beginning as a solution looking for a
problem.. Hummmm...I haven't read any of this thread, and after seeing the initial page, decided it wasn't worth my time..."Not related to any certain post". I was just curious , as the thread title started to remind me of a old "Jethro Tull" song... Resume... MK |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 21:52:26 +0100, LRod wrote:
It struck me from the very beginning as a solution looking for a problem. The you failed to read the thread. |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:45:05 -0400, w
wrote: On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 21:52:26 +0100, LRod wrote: It struck me from the very beginning as a solution looking for a problem. The you failed to read the thread. No, Ari, that was not a requisite to come to that understanding. |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:45:05 -0400, w
wrote: On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 21:52:26 +0100, LRod wrote: It struck me from the very beginning as a solution looking for a problem. The you failed to read the thread. I read every post. -- LRod Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999 http://www.woodbutcher.net Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997 |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
What Amateur Radio Emergency Communications? | General | |||
What Amateur Radio Emergency Communications? | Policy | |||
Emergency Messaging, AM/FM *On Locomotive* | Antenna | |||
Amateurs Handle Emergency Comms in Wake of Hurricane Ivan | Broadcasting | |||
Amateurs Handle Emergency Comms in Wake of Hurricane Ivan | Shortwave |