"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Ken Taylor wrote:
wrote in message
...

On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 17:19:42 -0400, Ari Silversteinn
wrote:


DHS has proposed a change in scenario. They want an on locomotive
alerting
system that could be commandeered and driven at, near or about a
disaster
site. Everything else stays more or less the same, overbroadcasting on
local AM/FM, power off the locomotive, selective or full frequency
broadcasting, train (s) to be in motion at all times. 20-30 second
messages
that would also combine a message to be aware that a locomotive (at
speed)
will be flying by the at grade crossings.

Comments?

Tracks across Lake Ponchartrain fell in.

Granted they were put back in service faster than anything the
government had connection to.


Why a loco anyway? It would appear to be the mistaken assumption that
anything that big must have power to burn on anything plugged in by a
user. Not the case - the power from a loco is, not surprisingly, applied
to the tracks. The electric generators used for powering gear other than
the train's vitals are not high power.

Guys, don't ya know that this guy is trolling and caught way more than the
daily creel limit?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Well, he's not a troll in that he's making it up as he goes - it appears he
really is hoping to do for his company what he says (source: Google).

However it's a job which really equates to:
Government fleeces tax-payers
Bureaucrat gets hold of budget allocation
Bureaucrat needs to succeed - ie. unload allocation
Ari and co. want to be under the hopper when the jackpot payout commences

A valid way of doing business, but still a crock.

Ken

On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 13:03:57 +1300, Ken Taylor wrote:

Well, he's not a troll in that he's making it up as he goes - it appears he
really is hoping to do for his company what he says (source: Google).

I have a clear history for anyone to Google.

However it's a job which really equates to:
Government fleeces tax-payers
Bureaucrat gets hold of budget allocation
Bureaucrat needs to succeed - ie. unload allocation
Ari and co. want to be under the hopper when the jackpot payout commences

Not too much wrong with that synopsis, Ken.

A valid way of doing business, but still a crock.

Ken

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.
--
Drop the alphabet for email

"Ari Silversteinn" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 13:03:57 +1300, Ken Taylor wrote:

Well, he's not a troll in that he's making it up as he goes - it appears
he
really is hoping to do for his company what he says (source: Google).

I have a clear history for anyone to Google.

Sure do, I was pointing that out. Hence I don't think you're a troll.

However it's a job which really equates to:
Government fleeces tax-payers
Bureaucrat gets hold of budget allocation
Bureaucrat needs to succeed - ie. unload allocation
Ari and co. want to be under the hopper when the jackpot payout
commences

Not too much wrong with that synopsis, Ken.

A valid way of doing business, but still a crock.

Ken

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

You refer elsewhere to this being an auxiliary warning system on a loco -
level crossing lights/bells/boom gates not enough? They usually are, so why
the worry now? (Okay, we know it's the moolah....).

You also refer to 1,000W being available - it's just not enough for what you
want to do. Period.

Good luck with them getting their act (I would have said something else!)
together, but don't bet the bank on it. I'm actually an ex-bureaucrat myself
and to call me cynical of governmental abilities would be an understatement.
But if you do come up with something useful (I bet it ends up being a
spin-off rather than the initial concept seen here), I hope you get
something out of it.

Cheers.

Ken

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.

You refer elsewhere to this being an auxiliary warning system on a loco -
level crossing lights/bells/boom gates not enough? They usually are, so why
the worry now? (Okay, we know it's the moolah....).

The number of unmarked or unworkable crossings is greater than the ones
quadrant marked and useable.

You also refer to 1,000W being available - it's just not enough for what you
want to do. Period.

3 watts per frequency?

Good luck with them getting their act (I would have said something else!)
together, but don't bet the bank on it. I'm actually an ex-bureaucrat myself
and to call me cynical of governmental abilities would be an understatement.

Well, if in the process we get paid, then wtf, you know?

But if you do come up with something useful (I bet it ends up being a
spin-off rather than the initial concept seen here), I hope you get
something out of it.

Cheers.

Ken

Thanks, Ken, it would be nice to do something that would save lives and
limbs and also make a few asspennies
--
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 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

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.

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

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