Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old October 5th 05, 11:51 PM
Jim - NN7K
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Old October 5th 05, 11:59 PM
Ken Taylor
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Old October 6th 05, 04:21 PM
Ari Silversteinn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Old October 9th 05, 09:07 PM
Ken Taylor
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
Old October 9th 05, 09:52 PM
LRod
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Old October 10th 05, 05:04 AM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #8   Report Post  
Old October 10th 05, 03:45 PM
w
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Old October 10th 05, 06:27 PM
Richard Clark
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Old October 10th 05, 06:31 PM
LRod
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What Amateur Radio Emergency Communications? TOM General 199 October 29th 05 03:29 PM
What Amateur Radio Emergency Communications? TOM Policy 199 October 29th 05 03:29 PM
Emergency Messaging, AM/FM *On Locomotive* Ari Silversteinn Antenna 86 October 25th 05 09:22 AM
Amateurs Handle Emergency Comms in Wake of Hurricane Ivan Mike Terry Broadcasting 6 September 29th 04 04:45 AM
Amateurs Handle Emergency Comms in Wake of Hurricane Ivan Mike Terry Shortwave 6 September 29th 04 04:45 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017