Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > sci.electronics.design > #488750 > unrolled thread

OT: Muppets

Started bybitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>
First post2017-12-19 07:00 -0500
Last post2017-12-23 15:09 -0500
Articles 20 on this page of 175 — 17 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design


Contents

  OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-19 07:00 -0500
    Re: OT: Muppets amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-12-19 08:37 -0600
      Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 09:49 -0500
        Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-19 10:00 -0500
      Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-19 09:56 -0500
      Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-12-19 08:53 -0800
        Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 12:20 -0500
          Re: OT: Muppets whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 14:27 -0800
            Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-12-19 15:24 -0800
            Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 18:39 -0500
          Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-19 20:53 -0500
            Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-12-20 10:08 -0800
              Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 13:19 -0500
                Re: OT: Muppets Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-12-20 10:32 -0800
                  Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-12-20 12:11 -0800
                Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-20 21:52 -0500
                  Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-12-21 10:56 -0800
                    Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-21 19:24 -0500
    Re: Muppets "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-12-19 16:48 -0600
      Re: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-19 18:08 -0500
        Re: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-19 18:26 -0500
    Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-19 15:01 -0800
      Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 18:46 -0500
        Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-19 15:56 -0800
          Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 19:25 -0500
            Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-19 16:44 -0800
              Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 20:01 -0500
                Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-20 07:59 -0800
                  Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 13:07 -0500
                    Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-21 10:31 -0800
                      Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-21 14:33 -0500
                        Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-21 12:00 -0800
                          Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-21 16:06 -0500
                      Re: OT: Muppets John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-12-21 12:14 -0800
                        Re: OT: Muppets whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-12-21 17:58 -0800
                          Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-22 12:58 -0800
                            Re: OT: Muppets whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-12-22 15:21 -0800
                              Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-22 16:12 -0800
              Re: OT: Muppets Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-12-20 01:32 +0000
                Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 20:40 -0500
                Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-20 08:02 -0800
                  Re: OT: Muppets Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-12-20 16:47 +0000
                    Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 13:16 -0500
                      Re: OT: Muppets whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 10:50 -0800
                        Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 14:17 -0500
                    Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-20 22:00 -0500
              Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 08:08 -0500
                Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-20 08:09 -0800
                  Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-12-20 09:17 -0800
                    Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 13:26 -0500
                    Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-21 10:37 -0800
                      Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-12-21 10:58 -0800
                        Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-21 11:17 -0800
                  Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 14:14 -0500
                    Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 14:18 -0500
                      Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 14:48 -0500
                        Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 16:04 -0500
                          Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 16:55 -0500
                            Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 16:59 -0500
                              Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 18:30 -0500
                                Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 19:40 -0500
                      Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-20 22:03 -0500
                      Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-21 10:41 -0800
                    Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-20 22:03 -0500
                      Re: OT: Muppets Michael A Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 22:38 -0500
                      Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-21 10:52 -0800
                        Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-21 14:53 -0500
                          Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-21 12:32 -0800
                        Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-21 19:30 -0500
                          Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-21 16:37 -0800
                            Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-22 08:57 -0500
                              Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-22 10:23 -0800
                              Re: OT: Muppets Michael A Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-12-22 17:23 -0500
                                Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-22 14:53 -0800
                                  Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-22 18:57 -0500
                                    Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-22 20:10 -0500
                                      Re: OT: Muppets Michael A Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-12-22 20:57 -0500
                                        Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-22 19:07 -0800
                                      Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-22 19:04 -0800
                                        Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-23 07:39 -0800
                                          Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-23 15:03 -0500
                                            Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-23 12:09 -0800
                                              Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-23 15:17 -0500
                                                Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-23 15:27 -0500
                                                  Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-23 20:49 -0500
                                                    Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-24 07:50 -0800
                                                      Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-24 16:56 -0500
                                                        Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-24 14:37 -0800
                                                          Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-24 17:51 -0500
                                                            Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-24 15:15 -0800
                                                              Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-24 18:41 -0500
                                                              Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-24 23:33 -0500
                                                                Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-25 05:48 -0800
                                                                  Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-25 09:57 -0500
                                                                    Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-25 17:29 -0800
                                                                      Re: OT: Muppets Joseph Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> - 2017-12-25 20:38 -0500
                                                                        Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-25 21:23 -0500
                                                                          Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-25 18:47 -0800
                                                                        Re: OT: Muppets whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-12-25 19:09 -0800
                                                                          Re: OT: Muppets Michael A Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-12-26 00:33 -0500
                                                                            Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-26 15:13 -0800
                                                                        Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-25 22:10 -0500
                                                                  Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-25 07:18 -0800
                                                                    Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-25 18:25 -0800
                                                                    Re: OT: Muppets Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-12-29 02:01 +0000
                                                                      Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-28 21:42 -0500
                                                                        Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-28 19:47 -0800
                                                                      Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-29 01:04 -0500
                                                                        Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-28 23:56 -0800
                                                                Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-25 10:55 -0500
                                                                Re: OT: Muppets Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-12-28 21:41 +0000
                                                          Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-24 18:39 -0500
                                                  Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-24 07:46 -0800
                                                    Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-24 12:23 -0500
                                                    Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-25 21:57 -0500
                                            Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-23 20:47 -0500
                Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 13:31 -0500
                  Re: OT: Muppets Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-12-20 18:36 +0000
                    Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 14:10 -0500
                      Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-12-20 12:13 -0800
                        Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 16:41 -0500
                          Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 16:42 -0500
                            Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-12-20 14:16 -0800
                              Re: OT: Muppets Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-12-20 22:56 +0000
                              Re: OT: Muppets whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 15:12 -0800
                                Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-12-20 15:26 -0800
                                  Re: OT: Muppets Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-12-20 23:37 +0000
                                  Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 18:42 -0500
                                    Re: OT: Muppets whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 16:26 -0800
                                      Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-12-21 08:45 -0800
                                    Re: OT: Muppets Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-12-21 09:29 +0000
                                Re: OT: Muppets John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-12-20 15:30 -0800
                                Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-20 22:08 -0500
                              Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 18:36 -0500
                                Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-20 22:09 -0500
                      Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 15:28 -0500
                  Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 14:02 -0500
                  Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-20 16:33 -0800
                    Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 21:09 -0500
                      Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-20 22:55 -0800
                        Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-21 09:38 -0500
                          Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-21 18:06 -0800
                            Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-21 21:59 -0500
                              Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-22 02:56 -0800
                                Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-22 11:45 -0500
                                  Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-22 18:02 -0800
                                    Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-22 22:39 -0500
                                      Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-22 23:01 -0500
                                      Re: OT: Muppets Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-12-23 09:05 +0000
                                        Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-23 10:04 -0500
                                          Re: OT: Muppets Michael A Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-12-23 14:00 -0500
                                            Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-23 20:51 -0500
                                      Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-23 06:15 -0800
                                        Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-23 14:38 -0500
                                          Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-23 17:43 -0800
                                            Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-23 21:25 -0500
                                              Re: OT: Muppets Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-12-24 09:58 +0000
                                                Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-24 08:29 -0500
                                                  Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-24 06:06 -0800
                                                  Re: OT: Muppets Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-12-24 17:53 +0000
                                              Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-24 03:41 -0800
                                                Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-24 09:12 -0500
                                                  Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-24 15:32 -0800
                                    Re: OT: Muppets Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-12-23 08:52 +0000
                                      Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-23 14:40 -0500
                                        Re: OT: Muppets Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-12-23 19:49 +0000
                                          Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-23 14:55 -0500
                                            Re: OT: Muppets Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-12-23 20:03 +0000
                                        Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-23 17:53 -0800
                              Re: OT: Muppets Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-12-22 20:49 +0000
                                Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-22 16:26 -0500
                                Re: OT: Muppets whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-12-22 15:36 -0800
                            Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-23 08:19 -0500
                              Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-23 06:30 -0800
                                Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-23 15:09 -0500

Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9  Next page →


#488863

FromJoerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
Date2017-12-20 08:02 -0800
Message-ID<f9vfsdFf8hfU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#488828
On 2017-12-19 17:32, Steve Wilson wrote:
> Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-12-19 16:25, rickman wrote:
>>> Joerg wrote on 12/19/2017 6:56 PM:
>>>> On 2017-12-19 15:46, rickman wrote:


[...]

>>>>> I recall riding the subway and looking up the tunnel I could just see
>>>>> the tail of a train that left the station and was preventing the next
>>>>> train from coming to pick us up.
>
>>>> Subways often have good automation in the US. It's the railroads that
>>>> are on
>>>> Flintstonian technology.
>
> [...]
>
>> Well, in this case we do have a clue how to do the job better. Since
>> more than half a century.
>
> I recall a system where the blocks were electrically isolated from each
> other.
>
> The resistance between the rails was monitored. When a train entered the
> block, the axles shorted the rails together and the resistance dropped.
> You could tell which direction the train was moving by watching the
> resistance increase or decrease. You could tell how long the train was by
> seeing how many blocks were shorted.
>
> This seems to be an ideal way to detect where the train is, which
> direction it is moving, and how fast.
>
> I wonder if this system was ever used, and what happened to it.
>

No idea. The German system works inductively and non-contact is usually 
the best method when you have to deal with contaminants such as oily 
sludge, snow, water and so on. Vandalism or dangerous pranks are another 
issue. Thing is, you also have to curb the number of false alarms 
because any delay has painful consequences.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#488866

FromSteve Wilson <no@spam.com>
Date2017-12-20 16:47 +0000
Message-ID<XnsA85177DFD1168idtokenpost@69.16.179.22>
In reply to#488863
Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> wrote:

>> I recall a system where the blocks were electrically isolated from each
>> other. 

>> The resistance between the rails was monitored. When a train entered
>> the block, the axles shorted the rails together and the resistance
>> dropped. You could tell which direction the train was moving by
>> watching the resistance increase or decrease. You could tell how long
>> the train was by seeing how many blocks were shorted.

>> This seems to be an ideal way to detect where the train is, which
>> direction it is moving, and how fast.

>> I wonder if this system was ever used, and what happened to it.
 
> No idea. The German system works inductively and non-contact is usually 
> the best method when you have to deal with contaminants such as oily 
> sludge, snow, water and so on. Vandalism or dangerous pranks are another
> issue. Thing is, you also have to curb the number of false alarms 
> because any delay has painful consequences.

Some people have been recommending GPS, which has its own set or pros and
cons. Multipath, jamming, doesn't work in tunnels without repeaters: 

https://www.gps-repeaters.com/applications/gps-repeaters-for-tunnels/

On the other hand, it is cheap, easily installed, and can transmit
location back to central control. 

It looks like Amtrack is already starting to use GPS to track train
location: 

https://www.liveviewgps.com/blog/amtrak-passengers-track-trains-gps-trackin
g/ 

If this is true, it wouldn't take much to have it reduce speed in slow
sections. Cheap GPS receivers could be replaced with airline navigation
receivers which monitor the GPS signal and issue an alert if it becomes
unreliable. 

PTC on a shoestring.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#488873

Fromrickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date2017-12-20 13:16 -0500
Message-ID<p1e9dp$h7n$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#488866
Steve Wilson wrote on 12/20/2017 11:47 AM:
> Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> wrote:
>
>>> I recall a system where the blocks were electrically isolated from each
>>> other.
>
>>> The resistance between the rails was monitored. When a train entered
>>> the block, the axles shorted the rails together and the resistance
>>> dropped. You could tell which direction the train was moving by
>>> watching the resistance increase or decrease. You could tell how long
>>> the train was by seeing how many blocks were shorted.
>
>>> This seems to be an ideal way to detect where the train is, which
>>> direction it is moving, and how fast.
>
>>> I wonder if this system was ever used, and what happened to it.
>
>> No idea. The German system works inductively and non-contact is usually
>> the best method when you have to deal with contaminants such as oily
>> sludge, snow, water and so on. Vandalism or dangerous pranks are another
>> issue. Thing is, you also have to curb the number of false alarms
>> because any delay has painful consequences.
>
> Some people have been recommending GPS, which has its own set or pros and
> cons. Multipath, jamming, doesn't work in tunnels without repeaters:
>
> https://www.gps-repeaters.com/applications/gps-repeaters-for-tunnels/

What good does that do?  Your reported location will be that of the antenna!


> On the other hand, it is cheap, easily installed, and can transmit
> location back to central control.

But not completely reliable.  GPS has issues where you don't have a clear 
view of a large area of the sky such as in mountainous or urban environments.


> It looks like Amtrack is already starting to use GPS to track train
> location:
>
> https://www.liveviewgps.com/blog/amtrak-passengers-track-trains-gps-tracking/

This is a passenger convenience system!  It doesn't address any of the 
safety issues involved in using GPS to control the speed of a train.


> If this is true, it wouldn't take much to have it reduce speed in slow
> sections. Cheap GPS receivers could be replaced with airline navigation
> receivers which monitor the GPS signal and issue an alert if it becomes
> unreliable.

What do you do with an alert?


> PTC on a shoestring.

Yes, that's what people want, a PTC system that works *most* of the time.

-- 

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#488881

Fromwhit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
Date2017-12-20 10:50 -0800
Message-ID<c2d39f28-ca13-4c40-9541-03d931936fa0@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#488873
On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 10:16:32 AM UTC-8, rickman wrote:
> Steve Wilson wrote on 12/20/2017 11:47 AM:

> > Some people have been recommending GPS, which has its own set or pros and
> > cons. Multipath, jamming, doesn't work in tunnels without repeaters:
> >
> > https://www.gps-repeaters.com/applications/gps-repeaters-for-tunnels/
> 
> What good does that do?  Your reported location will be that of the antenna!

It's like having an 'occupied' flag on a restroom.   You know the location,
'in the tunnel', well enough not to ram another train into it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#488886

Fromrickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date2017-12-20 14:17 -0500
Message-ID<p1ed06$cpn$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#488881
whit3rd wrote on 12/20/2017 1:50 PM:
> On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 10:16:32 AM UTC-8, rickman wrote:
>> Steve Wilson wrote on 12/20/2017 11:47 AM:
>
>>> Some people have been recommending GPS, which has its own set or pros and
>>> cons. Multipath, jamming, doesn't work in tunnels without repeaters:
>>>
>>> https://www.gps-repeaters.com/applications/gps-repeaters-for-tunnels/
>>
>> What good does that do?  Your reported location will be that of the antenna!
>
> It's like having an 'occupied' flag on a restroom.   You know the location,
> 'in the tunnel', well enough not to ram another train into it.

I don't need to have a GPS tell me I'm in the tunnel!  There is no more 
information in using the GPS repeater than just knowing you lost sight of 
the sats as you entered the tunnel.  In fact, the repeaters might interfere 
with the GPS signal at the edges of the tunnel slightly reducing the 
precision of the fix as the train enters the tunnel.

-- 

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#488926

Fromkrw@notreal.com
Date2017-12-20 22:00 -0500
Message-ID<5l8m3dd696esalb4rjnkl9kcfuqhcfho0f@4ax.com>
In reply to#488866
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:47:02 GMT, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote:

>Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> wrote:
>
>>> I recall a system where the blocks were electrically isolated from each
>>> other. 
>
>>> The resistance between the rails was monitored. When a train entered
>>> the block, the axles shorted the rails together and the resistance
>>> dropped. You could tell which direction the train was moving by
>>> watching the resistance increase or decrease. You could tell how long
>>> the train was by seeing how many blocks were shorted.
>
>>> This seems to be an ideal way to detect where the train is, which
>>> direction it is moving, and how fast.
>
>>> I wonder if this system was ever used, and what happened to it.
> 
>> No idea. The German system works inductively and non-contact is usually 
>> the best method when you have to deal with contaminants such as oily 
>> sludge, snow, water and so on. Vandalism or dangerous pranks are another
>> issue. Thing is, you also have to curb the number of false alarms 
>> because any delay has painful consequences.
>
>Some people have been recommending GPS, which has its own set or pros and
>cons. Multipath, jamming, doesn't work in tunnels without repeaters: 
>
>https://www.gps-repeaters.com/applications/gps-repeaters-for-tunnels/

Nonsense.  Dead reckoning would work fine for tunnels.  It's not like
you're digging them as you go.  Since the path is so constrained, it
would correct reflections and other issues, as well.

>On the other hand, it is cheap, easily installed, and can transmit
>location back to central control. 
>
>It looks like Amtrack is already starting to use GPS to track train
>location: 
>
>https://www.liveviewgps.com/blog/amtrak-passengers-track-trains-gps-trackin
>g/ 
>
>If this is true, it wouldn't take much to have it reduce speed in slow
>sections. Cheap GPS receivers could be replaced with airline navigation
>receivers which monitor the GPS signal and issue an alert if it becomes
>unreliable. 
>
>PTC on a shoestring.

Use it as another tool for the engineer.  Hell, my GPS tells me when
I'm speeding, warns of school zones, and even railroad tracks.  It
would be a trivial exercise to add the maps of the entire NA rail
system.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#488848

Frombitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>
Date2017-12-20 08:08 -0500
Message-ID<Dht_B.7438$qV5.3144@fx37.iad>
In reply to#488825
On 12/19/2017 07:44 PM, Joerg wrote:
> On 2017-12-19 16:25, rickman wrote:
>> Joerg wrote on 12/19/2017 6:56 PM:
>>> On 2017-12-19 15:46, rickman wrote:
>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/19/2017 6:01 PM:
>>>>> On 2017-12-19 04:00, bitrex wrote:
>>>>>> <https://jalopnik.com/what-causes-amtrak-trains-to-derail-1821404755>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> $800 million spent on the project you'd think they could spend a few
>>>>>> bucks on a crew that knew how to slow down going around a curve.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The really sad news is that the technology to avoid this has been
>>>>> around and
>>>>> successfully used in Germany since before World War II. They call it
>>>>> Inductive Train Safeguarding or Indusi. That slows down and even 
>>>>> brings
>>>>> trains to a full stop, overriding an offending operator. It is not
>>>>> rocket
>>>>> science.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet we have all those so-called "licensed engineers" who are
>>>>> supposed to
>>>>> "safeguard the public" and blah-blah, then fail on the simplest and
>>>>> most
>>>>> obvious points. They should never have signed and stamped such 
>>>>> "system"
>>>>> designs. Yet they did and that has killed people over and over again.
>>>>
>>>> The DC metro was fully automated until the accident that killed nine
>>>> people by a train hitting a stopped train that wasn't seen by the
>>>> system.
>>>
>>>
>>> Did they ever find out why the system did not register the stopped 
>>> train?
>>
>> I posted that in another comment.
> 
> 
> Must have been in another thread.
> 
> 
>>                           ... The device in that block had a weird
>> rapid intermittent that the system didn't recognize as a failure, but it
>> didn't report the train.  Maybe the system should provide some feedback
>> to the train operator so if the system looses track of a train, at least
>> the operator knows and can alert someone to manually flag it's position.
>>
> 
> There are better ways than that, see further below.
> 
> 
>> That is what is different between train dispatch and air traffic
>> control, at least with an automated system.  The train dropped off the
>> map and the system didn't flag an error.  I think it operates at a more
>> fundamental level based on always knowing when a train is in a block and
>> not letting traffic into that block or any adjacent block.  No thought
>> to tracking anything.
>>
> 
> That is a serious system design error.
> 
>>
>>>   One of the nine was the operator who didn't put on the brakes
>>>> until the train was less than 500 feet from the back of the other
>>>> train.  I didn't follow the series of Post articles to find out how 
>>>> much
>>>> sooner she could have seen the stopped train.  One train should never
>>>> see another, stopped or not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is one of the accidents that the German Indusi system prevents. It
>>> disects pretty much their whole rail system into blocks. A train will
>>> not be
>>> allowed to enter a block in which another train is present, moving or
>>> not.
>>> If the operator won't apply the brakes in time the Indusi system
>>> overrides.
>>> I believe nowadays that event is being recorded and the operator 
>>> would be
>>> required to do some explaining.
>>
>> How is this different from the US system?  Sounds just like what was
>> described in the paper.
>>
> 
> As I said it divides a track into blocks of sections. There are WW-II 
> movies where the resistance and sabotage groups mess with the Nazi train 
> system (which they had partly equipped with this Indusi system). You can 
> see the big screens that show where the trains were. Big white boards 
> with lights in them. That's pretty much how my grandpa who was a train 
> engineer described it to me.
> 
>>
>>> It is not 100% fail-safe and there are some lonely single-line sections
>>> without this automation but it would have prevented most of the serious
>>> train wrecks we had in the US.
>>
>> How does a German system prevent US wrecks?
>>
> 
> If a detector into sector 16 misses a train then this train is assumed 
> not to have left sector 15 even if it did. That means that a train 
> traveling through sector 14 will be stopped via a sign which cannot be 
> set to "GO" until sector 15 is signaled as clear. If the train operator 
> fails to engage the brakes the train will be stopped automatically. Sort 
> of a double-safety. This can result in a huge traffic clog but that is 
> better than people dying.
> 
> 
>>
>>>> I recall riding the subway and looking up the tunnel I could just see
>>>> the tail of a train that left the station and was preventing the next
>>>> train from coming to pick us up.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Subways often have good automation in the US. It's the railroads that
>>> are on
>>> Flintstonian technology.
>>
>> They still have a great safety record.  It's only being discussed here
>> because it is sensational.
> 
> 
> Many train wrecks were avoidable with rather simpe, technology. Like 
> this one:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chatsworth_train_collision
> 
> 
>>                        ... The real disaster is autos.  But everyone
>> accepts that.
> 
> 
> True. That's in part because our nation is glued to the automobile and 
> in part because most people don't have any other options.

Remember when Amtrak tried to get into the freight hauling business for 
a while?

Trains like these were a common sight in the Northeast in the 1990s, 
couple coaches and about 10 intermodal freight and boxcars:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmINmRLAJr0>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#488864

FromJoerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
Date2017-12-20 08:09 -0800
Message-ID<f9vga8Ffb4tU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#488848
On 2017-12-20 05:08, bitrex wrote:
> On 12/19/2017 07:44 PM, Joerg wrote:

[...]

>> True. That's in part because our nation is glued to the automobile and
>> in part because most people don't have any other options.
>
> Remember when Amtrak tried to get into the freight hauling business for
> a while?
>
> Trains like these were a common sight in the Northeast in the 1990s,
> couple coaches and about 10 intermodal freight and boxcars:
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmINmRLAJr0>


It would make sense. I remember the passenger trains from my younger 
days in Germany. They usually had at least one freight car, sometimes 
more. Not only did this allow you to "check in" large baggage, it also 
made for a fast shipment option. Once we had an issue with a custom 
power supply made near Munich. Problem was, we were about 350mi or so 
north and time was of the essence. So I looked at the train schedules, 
drove it to the next station, gave it to the guy that loaded an 
Intercity train and about 5h later it was in Munich where an engineer 
from the supplier also drove to the station to pick it up. We had their 
measurement results and a mod suggestion the same day. That wouldn't 
even have been possible with Fedex, and this was in the 80's.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#488867

FromJohn Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com>
Date2017-12-20 09:17 -0800
Message-ID<qg6l3dti4lif6j7122dd997ie579nhbc42@4ax.com>
In reply to#488864
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 08:09:51 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

>On 2017-12-20 05:08, bitrex wrote:
>> On 12/19/2017 07:44 PM, Joerg wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>> True. That's in part because our nation is glued to the automobile and
>>> in part because most people don't have any other options.
>>
>> Remember when Amtrak tried to get into the freight hauling business for
>> a while?
>>
>> Trains like these were a common sight in the Northeast in the 1990s,
>> couple coaches and about 10 intermodal freight and boxcars:
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmINmRLAJr0>
>
>
>It would make sense. I remember the passenger trains from my younger 
>days in Germany. They usually had at least one freight car, sometimes 
>more. Not only did this allow you to "check in" large baggage, it also 
>made for a fast shipment option. Once we had an issue with a custom 
>power supply made near Munich. Problem was, we were about 350mi or so 
>north and time was of the essence. So I looked at the train schedules, 
>drove it to the next station, gave it to the guy that loaded an 
>Intercity train and about 5h later it was in Munich where an engineer 
>from the supplier also drove to the station to pick it up. We had their 
>measurement results and a mod suggestion the same day. That wouldn't 
>even have been possible with Fedex, and this was in the 80's.

You can do the equivalent with airplanes: have people go to airports
on both ends. But it travels 600 MPH, not 60.

The USA is big. Surface shipping coast to coast will take days.

I can order from Digikey at 5PM and have parts on my desk by the time
I show up the next morning. That's amazing.




-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#488876

Fromrickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date2017-12-20 13:26 -0500
Message-ID<p1ea15$h7n$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to#488867
John Larkin wrote on 12/20/2017 12:17 PM:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 08:09:51 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-12-20 05:08, bitrex wrote:
>>> On 12/19/2017 07:44 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> True. That's in part because our nation is glued to the automobile and
>>>> in part because most people don't have any other options.
>>>
>>> Remember when Amtrak tried to get into the freight hauling business for
>>> a while?
>>>
>>> Trains like these were a common sight in the Northeast in the 1990s,
>>> couple coaches and about 10 intermodal freight and boxcars:
>>>
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmINmRLAJr0>
>>
>>
>> It would make sense. I remember the passenger trains from my younger
>> days in Germany. They usually had at least one freight car, sometimes
>> more. Not only did this allow you to "check in" large baggage, it also
>> made for a fast shipment option. Once we had an issue with a custom
>> power supply made near Munich. Problem was, we were about 350mi or so
>> north and time was of the essence. So I looked at the train schedules,
>> drove it to the next station, gave it to the guy that loaded an
>> Intercity train and about 5h later it was in Munich where an engineer
>>from the supplier also drove to the station to pick it up. We had their
>> measurement results and a mod suggestion the same day. That wouldn't
>> even have been possible with Fedex, and this was in the 80's.
>
> You can do the equivalent with airplanes: have people go to airports
> on both ends. But it travels 600 MPH, not 60.
>
> The USA is big. Surface shipping coast to coast will take days.
>
> I can order from Digikey at 5PM and have parts on my desk by the time
> I show up the next morning. That's amazing.

The amazing part is that Digikey can inventory, pick and ship so many items 
to so many customers in such a short time.  Their warehouse must be an 
amazing example of automation.

-- 

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#488967

FromJoerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
Date2017-12-21 10:37 -0800
Message-ID<fa2db8F5l8uU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#488867
On 2017-12-20 09:17, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 08:09:51 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-12-20 05:08, bitrex wrote:
>>> On 12/19/2017 07:44 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> True. That's in part because our nation is glued to the automobile and
>>>> in part because most people don't have any other options.
>>>
>>> Remember when Amtrak tried to get into the freight hauling business for
>>> a while?
>>>
>>> Trains like these were a common sight in the Northeast in the 1990s,
>>> couple coaches and about 10 intermodal freight and boxcars:
>>>
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmINmRLAJr0>
>>
>>
>> It would make sense. I remember the passenger trains from my younger
>> days in Germany. They usually had at least one freight car, sometimes
>> more. Not only did this allow you to "check in" large baggage, it also
>> made for a fast shipment option. Once we had an issue with a custom
>> power supply made near Munich. Problem was, we were about 350mi or so
>> north and time was of the essence. So I looked at the train schedules,
>> drove it to the next station, gave it to the guy that loaded an
>> Intercity train and about 5h later it was in Munich where an engineer
>>from the supplier also drove to the station to pick it up. We had their
>> measurement results and a mod suggestion the same day. That wouldn't
>> even have been possible with Fedex, and this was in the 80's.
>
> You can do the equivalent with airplanes: have people go to airports
> on both ends. But it travels 600 MPH, not 60.
>

However, the days of handing a box to a pilot so he can stuff it under 
the seat are long gone. I think nowadays they'd arrest you for even trying.


> The USA is big. Surface shipping coast to coast will take days.
>
> I can order from Digikey at 5PM and have parts on my desk by the time
> I show up the next morning. That's amazing.
>

Yes, it is amazing. I didn't mean for parts shipment. We used the 
railroad method for shorter distances and often picked our suppliers 
within such reach on purpose. Think California Coast. If that had a 
decent railroad system like much of Europe does you can have a buggy 
unit in L.A. in three hours or so, someone could debug it there and have 
it back to you by evening. All within one day.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#488971

FromJohn Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com>
Date2017-12-21 10:58 -0800
Message-ID<v11o3d5c3ju8vrrfop4tc90a12q41qr6nk@4ax.com>
In reply to#488967
On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 10:37:36 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

>On 2017-12-20 09:17, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 08:09:51 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-12-20 05:08, bitrex wrote:
>>>> On 12/19/2017 07:44 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> True. That's in part because our nation is glued to the automobile and
>>>>> in part because most people don't have any other options.
>>>>
>>>> Remember when Amtrak tried to get into the freight hauling business for
>>>> a while?
>>>>
>>>> Trains like these were a common sight in the Northeast in the 1990s,
>>>> couple coaches and about 10 intermodal freight and boxcars:
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmINmRLAJr0>
>>>
>>>
>>> It would make sense. I remember the passenger trains from my younger
>>> days in Germany. They usually had at least one freight car, sometimes
>>> more. Not only did this allow you to "check in" large baggage, it also
>>> made for a fast shipment option. Once we had an issue with a custom
>>> power supply made near Munich. Problem was, we were about 350mi or so
>>> north and time was of the essence. So I looked at the train schedules,
>>> drove it to the next station, gave it to the guy that loaded an
>>> Intercity train and about 5h later it was in Munich where an engineer
>>>from the supplier also drove to the station to pick it up. We had their
>>> measurement results and a mod suggestion the same day. That wouldn't
>>> even have been possible with Fedex, and this was in the 80's.
>>
>> You can do the equivalent with airplanes: have people go to airports
>> on both ends. But it travels 600 MPH, not 60.
>>
>
>However, the days of handing a box to a pilot so he can stuff it under 
>the seat are long gone. I think nowadays they'd arrest you for even trying.
>
>
>> The USA is big. Surface shipping coast to coast will take days.
>>
>> I can order from Digikey at 5PM and have parts on my desk by the time
>> I show up the next morning. That's amazing.
>>
>
>Yes, it is amazing. I didn't mean for parts shipment. We used the 
>railroad method for shorter distances and often picked our suppliers 
>within such reach on purpose. Think California Coast. If that had a 
>decent railroad system like much of Europe does you can have a buggy 
>unit in L.A. in three hours or so, someone could debug it there and have 
>it back to you by evening. All within one day.

I prefer my customers to keep a lot of spares around.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing   precision measurement 

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#488973

FromJoerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
Date2017-12-21 11:17 -0800
Message-ID<fa2fmqF66l9U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#488971
On 2017-12-21 10:58, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 10:37:36 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-12-20 09:17, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 08:09:51 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2017-12-20 05:08, bitrex wrote:
>>>>> On 12/19/2017 07:44 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>> True. That's in part because our nation is glued to the automobile and
>>>>>> in part because most people don't have any other options.
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember when Amtrak tried to get into the freight hauling business for
>>>>> a while?
>>>>>
>>>>> Trains like these were a common sight in the Northeast in the 1990s,
>>>>> couple coaches and about 10 intermodal freight and boxcars:
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmINmRLAJr0>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It would make sense. I remember the passenger trains from my younger
>>>> days in Germany. They usually had at least one freight car, sometimes
>>>> more. Not only did this allow you to "check in" large baggage, it also
>>>> made for a fast shipment option. Once we had an issue with a custom
>>>> power supply made near Munich. Problem was, we were about 350mi or so
>>>> north and time was of the essence. So I looked at the train schedules,
>>>> drove it to the next station, gave it to the guy that loaded an
>>>> Intercity train and about 5h later it was in Munich where an engineer
>>> >from the supplier also drove to the station to pick it up. We had their
>>>> measurement results and a mod suggestion the same day. That wouldn't
>>>> even have been possible with Fedex, and this was in the 80's.
>>>
>>> You can do the equivalent with airplanes: have people go to airports
>>> on both ends. But it travels 600 MPH, not 60.
>>>
>>
>> However, the days of handing a box to a pilot so he can stuff it under
>> the seat are long gone. I think nowadays they'd arrest you for even trying.
>>
>>
>>> The USA is big. Surface shipping coast to coast will take days.
>>>
>>> I can order from Digikey at 5PM and have parts on my desk by the time
>>> I show up the next morning. That's amazing.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it is amazing. I didn't mean for parts shipment. We used the
>> railroad method for shorter distances and often picked our suppliers
>> within such reach on purpose. Think California Coast. If that had a
>> decent railroad system like much of Europe does you can have a buggy
>> unit in L.A. in three hours or so, someone could debug it there and have
>> it back to you by evening. All within one day.
>
> I prefer my customers to keep a lot of spares around.
>

Same here. It's more for R&D when you need something new done to a unit 
that can only be done at the mfg. We recently had that a lot on a sensor 
project and every Fedex transit meant at least one day. On days with 
very blustery weather or storms several days. Nice thing about this 
train method was that the trains ran no matter what, even when the 
airport was all frozen over. The drive to the train station could be 
iffier than anything else but at least that was only a few miles. The 
town also had heavy electric buses that were quite reliable in snow.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#488885

Frombitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>
Date2017-12-20 14:14 -0500
Message-ID<ZDy_B.7759$RV5.2071@fx11.iad>
In reply to#488864
On 12/20/2017 11:09 AM, Joerg wrote:
> On 2017-12-20 05:08, bitrex wrote:
>> On 12/19/2017 07:44 PM, Joerg wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> True. That's in part because our nation is glued to the automobile and
>>> in part because most people don't have any other options.
>>
>> Remember when Amtrak tried to get into the freight hauling business for
>> a while?
>>
>> Trains like these were a common sight in the Northeast in the 1990s,
>> couple coaches and about 10 intermodal freight and boxcars:
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmINmRLAJr0>
> 
> 
> It would make sense. I remember the passenger trains from my younger 
> days in Germany. They usually had at least one freight car, sometimes 
> more. Not only did this allow you to "check in" large baggage, it also 
> made for a fast shipment option. Once we had an issue with a custom 
> power supply made near Munich. Problem was, we were about 350mi or so 
> north and time was of the essence. So I looked at the train schedules, 
> drove it to the next station, gave it to the guy that loaded an 
> Intercity train and about 5h later it was in Munich where an engineer 
> from the supplier also drove to the station to pick it up. We had their 
> measurement results and a mod suggestion the same day. That wouldn't 
> even have been possible with Fedex, and this was in the 80's.
> 

Amtrak has one train you can get your car packed up on, you'd think one 
way to increase long-distance profitability would be to run auto racks 
on the major cross-country routes to let you take your vehicle along with.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#488887

Fromrickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date2017-12-20 14:18 -0500
Message-ID<p1ed2n$cpn$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#488885
bitrex wrote on 12/20/2017 2:14 PM:
> On 12/20/2017 11:09 AM, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2017-12-20 05:08, bitrex wrote:
>>> On 12/19/2017 07:44 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> True. That's in part because our nation is glued to the automobile and
>>>> in part because most people don't have any other options.
>>>
>>> Remember when Amtrak tried to get into the freight hauling business for
>>> a while?
>>>
>>> Trains like these were a common sight in the Northeast in the 1990s,
>>> couple coaches and about 10 intermodal freight and boxcars:
>>>
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmINmRLAJr0>
>>
>>
>> It would make sense. I remember the passenger trains from my younger days
>> in Germany. They usually had at least one freight car, sometimes more. Not
>> only did this allow you to "check in" large baggage, it also made for a
>> fast shipment option. Once we had an issue with a custom power supply made
>> near Munich. Problem was, we were about 350mi or so north and time was of
>> the essence. So I looked at the train schedules, drove it to the next
>> station, gave it to the guy that loaded an Intercity train and about 5h
>> later it was in Munich where an engineer from the supplier also drove to
>> the station to pick it up. We had their measurement results and a mod
>> suggestion the same day. That wouldn't even have been possible with Fedex,
>> and this was in the 80's.
>>
>
> Amtrak has one train you can get your car packed up on, you'd think one way
> to increase long-distance profitability would be to run auto racks on the
> major cross-country routes to let you take your vehicle along with.

My understanding is this is an expensive service.  If you are going on 
vacation you are better off either driving or renting a car when you get there.

-- 

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#488888

Frombitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>
Date2017-12-20 14:48 -0500
Message-ID<i8z_B.6636$EO4.2684@fx28.iad>
In reply to#488887
On 12/20/2017 02:18 PM, rickman wrote:
> bitrex wrote on 12/20/2017 2:14 PM:
>> On 12/20/2017 11:09 AM, Joerg wrote:
>>> On 2017-12-20 05:08, bitrex wrote:
>>>> On 12/19/2017 07:44 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> True. That's in part because our nation is glued to the automobile and
>>>>> in part because most people don't have any other options.
>>>>
>>>> Remember when Amtrak tried to get into the freight hauling business for
>>>> a while?
>>>>
>>>> Trains like these were a common sight in the Northeast in the 1990s,
>>>> couple coaches and about 10 intermodal freight and boxcars:
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmINmRLAJr0>
>>>
>>>
>>> It would make sense. I remember the passenger trains from my younger 
>>> days
>>> in Germany. They usually had at least one freight car, sometimes 
>>> more. Not
>>> only did this allow you to "check in" large baggage, it also made for a
>>> fast shipment option. Once we had an issue with a custom power supply 
>>> made
>>> near Munich. Problem was, we were about 350mi or so north and time 
>>> was of
>>> the essence. So I looked at the train schedules, drove it to the next
>>> station, gave it to the guy that loaded an Intercity train and about 5h
>>> later it was in Munich where an engineer from the supplier also drove to
>>> the station to pick it up. We had their measurement results and a mod
>>> suggestion the same day. That wouldn't even have been possible with 
>>> Fedex,
>>> and this was in the 80's.
>>>
>>
>> Amtrak has one train you can get your car packed up on, you'd think 
>> one way
>> to increase long-distance profitability would be to run auto racks on the
>> major cross-country routes to let you take your vehicle along with.
> 
> My understanding is this is an expensive service.  If you are going on 
> vacation you are better off either driving or renting a car when you get 
> there.
> 

Probably depends on how long you're staying, car rentals ain't cheap 
anymore particularly if you want to drive anything nice. Minimum $30/day 
for a subcompact in a metro area, plus fees.

The Auto Train is one of Amtrak's consistently most popular services 
year round, and one of the most profitable, too. They were looking at 
doing a second route from Chicago -> Phoenix but not sure if anything 
came of it

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#488893

Fromrickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date2017-12-20 16:04 -0500
Message-ID<p1ej8h$sdg$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#488888
bitrex wrote on 12/20/2017 2:48 PM:
> On 12/20/2017 02:18 PM, rickman wrote:
>> bitrex wrote on 12/20/2017 2:14 PM:
>>> On 12/20/2017 11:09 AM, Joerg wrote:
>>>> On 2017-12-20 05:08, bitrex wrote:
>>>>> On 12/19/2017 07:44 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>> True. That's in part because our nation is glued to the automobile and
>>>>>> in part because most people don't have any other options.
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember when Amtrak tried to get into the freight hauling business for
>>>>> a while?
>>>>>
>>>>> Trains like these were a common sight in the Northeast in the 1990s,
>>>>> couple coaches and about 10 intermodal freight and boxcars:
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmINmRLAJr0>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It would make sense. I remember the passenger trains from my younger days
>>>> in Germany. They usually had at least one freight car, sometimes more. Not
>>>> only did this allow you to "check in" large baggage, it also made for a
>>>> fast shipment option. Once we had an issue with a custom power supply made
>>>> near Munich. Problem was, we were about 350mi or so north and time was of
>>>> the essence. So I looked at the train schedules, drove it to the next
>>>> station, gave it to the guy that loaded an Intercity train and about 5h
>>>> later it was in Munich where an engineer from the supplier also drove to
>>>> the station to pick it up. We had their measurement results and a mod
>>>> suggestion the same day. That wouldn't even have been possible with Fedex,
>>>> and this was in the 80's.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Amtrak has one train you can get your car packed up on, you'd think one way
>>> to increase long-distance profitability would be to run auto racks on the
>>> major cross-country routes to let you take your vehicle along with.
>>
>> My understanding is this is an expensive service.  If you are going on
>> vacation you are better off either driving or renting a car when you get
>> there.
>>
>
> Probably depends on how long you're staying, car rentals ain't cheap anymore
> particularly if you want to drive anything nice. Minimum $30/day for a
> subcompact in a metro area, plus fees.
>
> The Auto Train is one of Amtrak's consistently most popular services year
> round, and one of the most profitable, too. They were looking at doing a
> second route from Chicago -> Phoenix but not sure if anything came of it

You do this a lot.  You say things you can't support.  I looked at prices on 
the autotrain and the only info I could find was a Post article.  They paid 
$573 one way.  I wasn't initially able to book anything on the Amtrak site. 
Then I found this less than flattering review

https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g34515-i19-k5234998-Amtrak_Auto_Train_Orlando_Washington-Orlando_Florida.html

which indicated the actual station in Orlando is Sanford and I was able to 
get a price from Amtrak, $920 round trip for two and one car.  Airfare is 
very inexpensive and this would pay for a lot of car rental.  My 
understanding is the auto train is mostly snow birds.

-- 

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#488896

Frombitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>
Date2017-12-20 16:55 -0500
Message-ID<1%A_B.50006$mG5.36126@fx10.iad>
In reply to#488893
On 12/20/2017 04:04 PM, rickman wrote:

>> Probably depends on how long you're staying, car rentals ain't cheap 
>> anymore
>> particularly if you want to drive anything nice. Minimum $30/day for a
>> subcompact in a metro area, plus fees.
>>
>> The Auto Train is one of Amtrak's consistently most popular services year
>> round, and one of the most profitable, too. They were looking at doing a
>> second route from Chicago -> Phoenix but not sure if anything came of it
> 
> You do this a lot.  You say things you can't support.  I looked at 
> prices on the autotrain and the only info I could find was a Post 
> article.  They paid $573 one way.  I wasn't initially able to book 
> anything on the Amtrak site. Then I found this less than flattering review
> 
> https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g34515-i19-k5234998-Amtrak_Auto_Train_Orlando_Washington-Orlando_Florida.html 
> 
> 
> which indicated the actual station in Orlando is Sanford and I was able 
> to get a price from Amtrak, $920 round trip for two and one car.  
> Airfare is very inexpensive and this would pay for a lot of car rental.  
> My understanding is the auto train is mostly snow birds.
> 

Oh, okay, some guy on the Internet didn't like it. Not big surprise, 
bitchin' is what those review sites are made for.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#488897

Fromrickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date2017-12-20 16:59 -0500
Message-ID<p1emf4$iga$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#488896
bitrex wrote on 12/20/2017 4:55 PM:
> On 12/20/2017 04:04 PM, rickman wrote:
>
>>> Probably depends on how long you're staying, car rentals ain't cheap anymore
>>> particularly if you want to drive anything nice. Minimum $30/day for a
>>> subcompact in a metro area, plus fees.
>>>
>>> The Auto Train is one of Amtrak's consistently most popular services year
>>> round, and one of the most profitable, too. They were looking at doing a
>>> second route from Chicago -> Phoenix but not sure if anything came of it
>>
>> You do this a lot.  You say things you can't support.  I looked at prices
>> on the autotrain and the only info I could find was a Post article.  They
>> paid $573 one way.  I wasn't initially able to book anything on the Amtrak
>> site. Then I found this less than flattering review
>>
>> https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g34515-i19-k5234998-Amtrak_Auto_Train_Orlando_Washington-Orlando_Florida.html
>>
>>
>> which indicated the actual station in Orlando is Sanford and I was able to
>> get a price from Amtrak, $920 round trip for two and one car.  Airfare is
>> very inexpensive and this would pay for a lot of car rental.  My
>> understanding is the auto train is mostly snow birds.
>>
>
> Oh, okay, some guy on the Internet didn't like it. Not big surprise,
> bitchin' is what those review sites are made for.

Yes, there is no shortage of bitchin', especially by you.  Did you read the 
complaints?  No, you would rather speculate on what runs are profitable and 
which aren't.

-- 

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#488905

Frombitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>
Date2017-12-20 18:30 -0500
Message-ID<toC_B.3771$b_.3415@fx23.iad>
In reply to#488897
On 12/20/2017 04:59 PM, rickman wrote:

>>> which indicated the actual station in Orlando is Sanford and I was 
>>> able to
>>> get a price from Amtrak, $920 round trip for two and one car.  
>>> Airfare is
>>> very inexpensive and this would pay for a lot of car rental.  My
>>> understanding is the auto train is mostly snow birds.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, okay, some guy on the Internet didn't like it. Not big surprise,
>> bitchin' is what those review sites are made for.
> 
> Yes, there is no shortage of bitchin', especially by you.  Did you read 
> the complaints?  No, you would rather speculate on what runs are 
> profitable and which aren't.
> 

Ya, some of his major complaints seem to be that you have to wait for 
your automobile to be loaded and unloaded from a train that hauls a 
couple hundred automobiles which have to be loaded and unloaded, that a 
train that terminates in Orlando not Ft. Lauderdale leaves you kinda far 
from Ft. Lauderdale, and that the train speeds up and slows down.

?????

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design


csiph-web