Sounds like LU need to get some better engineers:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0kpxvkjvpno
Its a radio based signalling system FFS , either the radio signal is there and correct at stockwell or it isn't. If it is then trace the data route back
towards the main computer until you find the fault component. If it isn't then
replace the dodgy tranceivers and/or cabling. This shouldn't take 5 days and counting.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Sounds like LU need to get some better engineers:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0kpxvkjvpno
Its a radio based signalling system FFS , either the radio signal is there >> and correct at stockwell or it isn't. If it is then trace the data route back
towards the main computer until you find the fault component. If it isn't then
replace the dodgy tranceivers and/or cabling. This shouldn't take 5 days and
counting.
Radio based?
Sounds like LU need to get some better engineers:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0kpxvkjvpno
Its a radio based signalling system FFS , either the radio signal is there and correct at stockwell or it isn't. If it is then trace the data route back towards the main computer until you find the fault component. If it isn't then
replace the dodgy tranceivers and/or cabling. This shouldn't take 5 days and counting.
On 23/10/2025 16:51, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
Sounds like LU need to get some better engineers:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0kpxvkjvpno
Its a radio based signalling system FFS , either the radio signal is there >> and correct at stockwell or it isn't. If it is then trace the data route back
towards the main computer until you find the fault component. If it isn't >then
replace the dodgy tranceivers and/or cabling. This shouldn't take 5 days and >> counting.
I don't see how we comment about this until we know what the fault is.
It is obviously something unusual.
I suspect the engineers can only examine their equipment when the line
is closed. I suspect if it's not fixed by Saturday or Sunday they will >close the line by day to give the engineers longer and better access.
The system is relatively new and hopefully they will learn from this and >understand potential fault conditions better should this happen again.
I don't see how we comment about this until we know what the fault is.
It is obviously something unusual.
I suspect the engineers can only examine their equipment when the line
is closed.-a I suspect if it's not fixed by Saturday or Sunday they will close the line by day to give the engineers longer and better access.
The system is relatively new and hopefully they will learn from this and understand potential fault conditions better should this happen again.
On 23/10/2025 16:51, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
Sounds like LU need to get some better engineers:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0kpxvkjvpno
Its a radio based signalling system FFS , either the radio signal is there >> and correct at stockwell or it isn't. If it is then trace the data route back
towards the main computer until you find the fault component. If it isn't then
replace the dodgy tranceivers and/or cabling. This shouldn't take 5 days and >> counting.
I don't see how we comment about this until we know what the fault is.
It is obviously something unusual.
I suspect the engineers can only examine their equipment when the line
is closed. I suspect if it's not fixed by Saturday or Sunday they will close the line by day to give the engineers longer and better access.
The system is relatively new
and hopefully they will learn from this and
understand potential fault conditions better should this happen again.
On Fri, 24 Oct 2025 11:42:13 +0100
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 23/10/2025 16:51, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
Sounds like LU need to get some better engineers:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0kpxvkjvpno
Its a radio based signalling system FFS , either the radio signal is there >>> and correct at stockwell or it isn't. If it is then trace the data route back
towards the main computer until you find the fault component. If it isn't >> then
replace the dodgy tranceivers and/or cabling. This shouldn't take 5 days and
counting.
I don't see how we comment about this until we know what the fault is.
It is obviously something unusual.
I suspect the engineers can only examine their equipment when the line
is closed. I suspect if it's not fixed by Saturday or Sunday they will
close the line by day to give the engineers longer and better access.
The system is relatively new and hopefully they will learn from this and
understand potential fault conditions better should this happen again.
It might be a new install but its not a new system by any means and Thales should have enough diagnostics to figure out what an issue is PDQ. Is it hardware or software, if its hardware where is the fault etc etc. This shouldn't take 5 days.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2025 11:42:13 +0100
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 23/10/2025 16:51, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
Sounds like LU need to get some better engineers:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0kpxvkjvpno
Its a radio based signalling system FFS , either the radio signal is there >>>> and correct at stockwell or it isn't. If it is then trace the data route >back
towards the main computer until you find the fault component. If it isn't >>> then
replace the dodgy tranceivers and/or cabling. This shouldn't take 5 days >and
counting.
I don't see how we comment about this until we know what the fault is.
It is obviously something unusual.
I suspect the engineers can only examine their equipment when the line
is closed. I suspect if it's not fixed by Saturday or Sunday they will >>> close the line by day to give the engineers longer and better access.
The system is relatively new and hopefully they will learn from this and >>> understand potential fault conditions better should this happen again.
It might be a new install but its not a new system by any means and Thales >> should have enough diagnostics to figure out what an issue is PDQ. Is it
hardware or software, if its hardware where is the fault etc etc. This
shouldn't take 5 days.
ItrCOs almost certainly something to do with the looped signalling cables >between the tracks. There might have been some movement in it, or the
signal might have been intermittently blocked by track debris.
On Fri, 24 Oct 2025 11:29:23 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2025 11:42:13 +0100
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 23/10/2025 16:51, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
Sounds like LU need to get some better engineers:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0kpxvkjvpno
Its a radio based signalling system FFS , either the radio signal is there
and correct at stockwell or it isn't. If it is then trace the data route >> back
towards the main computer until you find the fault component. If it isn't >>>> then
replace the dodgy tranceivers and/or cabling. This shouldn't take 5 days >> and
counting.
I don't see how we comment about this until we know what the fault is. >>>> It is obviously something unusual.
I suspect the engineers can only examine their equipment when the line >>>> is closed. I suspect if it's not fixed by Saturday or Sunday they will >>>> close the line by day to give the engineers longer and better access.
The system is relatively new and hopefully they will learn from this and >>>> understand potential fault conditions better should this happen again.
It might be a new install but its not a new system by any means and Thales >>> should have enough diagnostics to figure out what an issue is PDQ. Is it >>> hardware or software, if its hardware where is the fault etc etc. This
shouldn't take 5 days.
ItrCOs almost certainly something to do with the looped signalling cables
between the tracks. There might have been some movement in it, or the
signal might have been intermittently blocked by track debris.
Surely any issue with the cables would have been evident in about 5 mins
once they had their test equipment on site.
On 24/10/2025 11:42, Coffee wrote:
I don't see how we comment about this until we know what the fault is.
It is obviously something unusual.
I suspect the engineers can only examine their equipment when the line
is closed.-a I suspect if it's not fixed by Saturday or Sunday they
will close the line by day to give the engineers longer and better
access.
The system is relatively new and hopefully they will learn from this
and understand potential fault conditions better should this happen
again.
But this lasted five days.-a Surely the line was closed over night every night (or could have been without much inconvenience to passengers) when
it should have been possible to do comprehensive tests.-a-a I gather that
it is now fixed, but having such an important line more or less unusable
for 5 whole days is simply not acceptable.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Surely any issue with the cables would have been evident in about 5 mins
once they had their test equipment on site.
Obviously, it wasnrCOt that simple. The cables would still be transmitting >their usual signals, but if the cables were slightly displaced, the
reception on the trains might have been marginal, hence the intermittent >nature of the reported fault.
On 24/10/2025 12:20, Clive Page wrote:
On 24/10/2025 11:42, Coffee wrote:
But this lasted five days.-a Surely the line was closed over night every
night (or could have been without much inconvenience to passengers) when
it should have been possible to do comprehensive tests.-a-a I gather that >> it is now fixed, but having such an important line more or less unusable
for 5 whole days is simply not acceptable.
But it is only closed for about four, or perhaps five, per night.
Anyway it is fixed now so hopefully they will reveal what was wrong shortly.
On Fri, 24 Oct 2025 15:55:15 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Surely any issue with the cables would have been evident in about 5 mins >>> once they had their test equipment on site.
Obviously, it wasnrCOt that simple. The cables would still be transmitting >> their usual signals, but if the cables were slightly displaced, the
reception on the trains might have been marginal, hence the intermittent
nature of the reported fault.
Which should have been obvious with any decent test equipment. Anyway, I suspect the changes of the cables being displaced enough to cause issues is highly unlikely. Probably a hardware fault further upstream.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2025 15:55:15 GMTHave you done any debugging of electronics? Even with the best equipment available a subtle fault can be hard to find, and thatrCOs in the comfort of a lab. Gets much harder in a dirty tube tunnel with limited access time.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Surely any issue with the cables would have been evident in about 5 mins >>>> once they had their test equipment on site.
Obviously, it wasnrCOt that simple. The cables would still be transmitting >>> their usual signals, but if the cables were slightly displaced, the
reception on the trains might have been marginal, hence the intermittent >>> nature of the reported fault.
Which should have been obvious with any decent test equipment. Anyway, I
suspect the changes of the cables being displaced enough to cause issues is >> highly unlikely. Probably a hardware fault further upstream.
The fault is usually blindingly obvious once yourCOve identified it, but getting to that point can be hard.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2025 15:55:15 GMTHave you done any debugging of electronics? Even with the best equipment
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Surely any issue with the cables would have been evident in about 5 mins >>>>> once they had their test equipment on site.
Obviously, it wasnrCOt that simple. The cables would still be transmitting >>>> their usual signals, but if the cables were slightly displaced, the
reception on the trains might have been marginal, hence the intermittent >>>> nature of the reported fault.
Which should have been obvious with any decent test equipment. Anyway, I >>> suspect the changes of the cables being displaced enough to cause issues is >>> highly unlikely. Probably a hardware fault further upstream.
available a subtle fault can be hard to find, and thatrCOs in the comfort of >> a lab. Gets much harder in a dirty tube tunnel with limited access time.
The fault is usually blindingly obvious once yourCOve identified it, but
getting to that point can be hard.
In this case, they apparently fixed it without quite knowing what theyrCOd done. Of course, if the fault has (temporarily?) disappeared, that makes it even harder to positively identify and permanently fix it.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2025 15:55:15 GMTHave you done any debugging of electronics? Even with the best equipment >available a subtle fault can be hard to find, and thatrCOs in the comfort of >a lab. Gets much harder in a dirty tube tunnel with limited access time.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Surely any issue with the cables would have been evident in about 5 mins >>>> once they had their test equipment on site.
Obviously, it wasnrCOt that simple. The cables would still be transmitting >>> their usual signals, but if the cables were slightly displaced, the
reception on the trains might have been marginal, hence the intermittent >>> nature of the reported fault.
Which should have been obvious with any decent test equipment. Anyway, I
suspect the changes of the cables being displaced enough to cause issues is >> highly unlikely. Probably a hardware fault further upstream.
The fault is usually blindingly obvious once yourCOve identified it, but >getting to that point can be hard.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
In this case, they apparently fixed it without quite knowing what theyrCOd >> done. Of course, if the fault has (temporarily?) disappeared, that makes it >> even harder to positively identify and permanently fix it.
IrCOd hazard a guess that it was a marginally faulty connector. Disturbing >the wiring has remade the connection, at least for the time being. Tracing
a fault that has gone away is even harder.
On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 11:07:13 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2025 15:55:15 GMTHave you done any debugging of electronics? Even with the best equipment
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Surely any issue with the cables would have been evident in about 5 mins >>>>> once they had their test equipment on site.
Obviously, it wasnrCOt that simple. The cables would still be transmitting >>>> their usual signals, but if the cables were slightly displaced, the
reception on the trains might have been marginal, hence the intermittent >>>> nature of the reported fault.
Which should have been obvious with any decent test equipment. Anyway, I >>> suspect the changes of the cables being displaced enough to cause issues is >>> highly unlikely. Probably a hardware fault further upstream.
available a subtle fault can be hard to find, and thatrCOs in the comfort of >> a lab. Gets much harder in a dirty tube tunnel with limited access time.
The fault is usually blindingly obvious once yourCOve identified it, but
getting to that point can be hard.
Why would you need to debug anything? Its like modern car maintenance - if
a black box isn't working change it. You don't take the lid off and get
the soldering iron out.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Why would you need to debug anything? Its like modern car maintenance - if >> a black box isn't working change it. You don't take the lid off and getAnd when each black box when tested works just fine, but when assembled
the soldering iron out.
into a system things donrCOt work as expected? And when you substitute black >boxes and still have the same fault?
Actual fault was RF connector on the dummy load cable was slightly out of >spec. It didnrCOt mate properly with the transmitterrCOs connector, but did >mate with the test instrumentrCOs connector. Silly fault, but took ages to >track down. All black boxes worked individually but not together.
On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 11:53:39 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
In this case, they apparently fixed it without quite knowing what theyrCOd >>> done. Of course, if the fault has (temporarily?) disappeared, that makes it >>> even harder to positively identify and permanently fix it.
IrCOd hazard a guess that it was a marginally faulty connector. Disturbing >> the wiring has remade the connection, at least for the time being. Tracing >> a fault that has gone away is even harder.
I highly doubt a single faulty connector would take out an entire section of the line.
On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 15:13:17 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Why would you need to debug anything? Its like modern car maintenance - if >>> a black box isn't working change it. You don't take the lid off and getAnd when each black box when tested works just fine, but when assembled
the soldering iron out.
into a system things donrCOt work as expected? And when you substitute black >> boxes and still have the same fault?
Then its not the boxes.
Actual fault was RF connector on the dummy load cable was slightly out of
spec. It didnrCOt mate properly with the transmitterrCOs connector, but did >> mate with the test instrumentrCOs connector. Silly fault, but took ages to >> track down. All black boxes worked individually but not together.
So trying some different cables never occured to you? Ok....
On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 11:53:39 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
In this case, they apparently fixed it without quite knowing what theyrCOd >>> done. Of course, if the fault has (temporarily?) disappeared, that makes it >>> even harder to positively identify and permanently fix it.
IrCOd hazard a guess that it was a marginally faulty connector. Disturbing >> the wiring has remade the connection, at least for the time being. Tracing >> a fault that has gone away is even harder.
I highly doubt a single faulty connector would take out an entire section of the line.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 11:53:39 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
In this case, they apparently fixed it without quite knowing what theyrCOd >>>> done. Of course, if the fault has (temporarily?) disappeared, that makes it
even harder to positively identify and permanently fix it.
IrCOd hazard a guess that it was a marginally faulty connector. Disturbing >>> the wiring has remade the connection, at least for the time being. Tracing >>> a fault that has gone away is even harder.
I highly doubt a single faulty connector would take out an entire section of
the line.
Why not? Unless the system is designed with hot redundancy (unlikely) that
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 15:13:17 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Why would you need to debug anything? Its like modern car maintenance - if >>>> a black box isn't working change it. You don't take the lid off and get >>>> the soldering iron out.And when each black box when tested works just fine, but when assembled
into a system things donrCOt work as expected? And when you substitute black
When a -u30k vector network analyser (you are the one saying test gearboxes and still have the same fault?
Then its not the boxes.
Actual fault was RF connector on the dummy load cable was slightly out of >>> spec. It didnrCOt mate properly with the transmitterrCOs connector, but did >>> mate with the test instrumentrCOs connector. Silly fault, but took ages to >>> track down. All black boxes worked individually but not together.
So trying some different cables never occured to you? Ok....
should be used) tells you the cable and load are fine it takes a while to >conclude that the cable isnrCOt fine.
On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 15:27:19 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 11:53:39 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
In this case, they apparently fixed it without quite knowing what theyrCOd
done. Of course, if the fault has (temporarily?) disappeared, that makes it
even harder to positively identify and permanently fix it.
IrCOd hazard a guess that it was a marginally faulty connector. Disturbing >>>> the wiring has remade the connection, at least for the time being. Tracing >>>> a fault that has gone away is even harder.
I highly doubt a single faulty connector would take out an entire section of
the line.
Why not? Unless the system is designed with hot redundancy (unlikely) that
I would bloody well hope a safety critical system like ATO has redundancy!
On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 15:32:58 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 15:13:17 -0000 (UTC)When a -u30k vector network analyser (you are the one saying test gear
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Why would you need to debug anything? Its like modern car maintenance - ifAnd when each black box when tested works just fine, but when assembled >>>> into a system things donrCOt work as expected? And when you substitute black
a black box isn't working change it. You don't take the lid off and get >>>>> the soldering iron out.
boxes and still have the same fault?
Then its not the boxes.
Actual fault was RF connector on the dummy load cable was slightly out of >>>> spec. It didnrCOt mate properly with the transmitterrCOs connector, but did
mate with the test instrumentrCOs connector. Silly fault, but took ages to >>>> track down. All black boxes worked individually but not together.
So trying some different cables never occured to you? Ok....
should be used) tells you the cable and load are fine it takes a while to
conclude that the cable isnrCOt fine.
Kind of an obvious thing to do I would have thought. When I was having
issue with my Mac talking to the TV I didn't try and debug the Mac, I changed the HDMI cable. Problem solved.
On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 15:27:19 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 11:53:39 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
In this case, they apparently fixed it without quite knowing what theyrCOd
done. Of course, if the fault has (temporarily?) disappeared, that makes it
even harder to positively identify and permanently fix it.
IrCOd hazard a guess that it was a marginally faulty connector. Disturbing >>>> the wiring has remade the connection, at least for the time being. Tracing >>>> a fault that has gone away is even harder.
I highly doubt a single faulty connector would take out an entire section of
the line.
Why not? Unless the system is designed with hot redundancy (unlikely) that
I would bloody well hope a safety critical system like ATO has redundancy!
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
I highly doubt a single faulty connector would take out an entire section of
the line.
ItrCOs clear that there was interference in the radio signals from the pair >of cables in the four foot in one tunnel just north of Stockwell. The train
the fail-safe brakes are automatically applied. What we donrCOt know is >whether the problem was in the cable connectors, the cables themselves or >something interfering with the radiated signals.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Difficult when the transmitter to load cable is not a commodity item. This, >and railway signalling systems, are not built using consumer grade items.
On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 16:17:45 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Difficult when the transmitter to load cable is not a commodity item. This, >> and railway signalling systems, are not built using consumer grade items.
One would hope they might have the odd spare knocking about. These arn't 100KV transmission cables 3 inches thick , they're about the same dimensions as a 240V mains lead so should be quite simple to carry around.
On 26/10/2025 09:41, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 16:17:45 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:One would hope they might have the odd spare knocking about. These arn't
Difficult when the transmitter to load cable is not a commodity item. This, >>> and railway signalling systems, are not built using consumer grade items. >>
100KV transmission cables 3 inches thick , they're about the same dimensions >> as a 240V mains lead so should be quite simple to carry around.
It might be instructive to insert a -u5 consumer-grade wire as a
temporary replacement and see what happens. If the system suddenly
starts working then it's time to order an approved gold-plated cable.
On 26/10/2025 09:41, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 16:17:45 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:One would hope they might have the odd spare knocking about. These arn't
Difficult when the transmitter to load cable is not a commodity item. This, >>> and railway signalling systems, are not built using consumer grade items. >>
100KV transmission cables 3 inches thick , they're about the same dimensions >> as a 240V mains lead so should be quite simple to carry around.
It might be instructive to insert a -u5 consumer-grade wire as a
temporary replacement and see what happens. If the system suddenly
starts working then it's time to order an approved gold-plated cable.
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 26/10/2025 09:41, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 16:17:45 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:One would hope they might have the odd spare knocking about. These arn't >>> 100KV transmission cables 3 inches thick , they're about the same dimensions
Difficult when the transmitter to load cable is not a commodity item. This,
and railway signalling systems, are not built using consumer grade items. >>>
as a 240V mains lead so should be quite simple to carry around.
It might be instructive to insert a -u5 consumer-grade wire as a
temporary replacement and see what happens. If the system suddenly
starts working then it's time to order an approved gold-plated cable.
What consumer grade cable? The connectors will likely be different, the number and type of conductors etc. ThererCOs a whole world of cables and connectors outside of that commonly seen in the consumer area.
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 26/10/2025 09:41, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 16:17:45 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:One would hope they might have the odd spare knocking about. These arn't >>> 100KV transmission cables 3 inches thick , they're about the same dimensions
Difficult when the transmitter to load cable is not a commodity item. This,
and railway signalling systems, are not built using consumer grade items. >>>
as a 240V mains lead so should be quite simple to carry around.
It might be instructive to insert a -u5 consumer-grade wire as a
temporary replacement and see what happens. If the system suddenly
starts working then it's time to order an approved gold-plated cable.
This isnrCOt just a routine cable. ItrCOs one of a pair of antenna wires in the
four foot (on either side of the negative rail) that radiate a 56kV signal. The wires cross over every 25m, and passing trains detect and count the
phase changes.
They use their own odometers to measure distances between these null
points, so even if a point is missed, they still know roughly where they
are, to within a few metres. Apparently it is permissible to miss one phase change, but the train must report it to the central computer. Another miss
is considered a failure.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 26/10/2025 09:41, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 16:17:45 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:One would hope they might have the odd spare knocking about. These arn't >>>> 100KV transmission cables 3 inches thick , they're about the same dimensions
Difficult when the transmitter to load cable is not a commodity item. This,
and railway signalling systems, are not built using consumer grade items. >>>>
as a 240V mains lead so should be quite simple to carry around.
It might be instructive to insert a -u5 consumer-grade wire as a
temporary replacement and see what happens. If the system suddenly
starts working then it's time to order an approved gold-plated cable.
This isnrCOt just a routine cable. ItrCOs one of a pair of antenna wires in the
four foot (on either side of the negative rail) that radiate a 56kV signal. >> The wires cross over every 25m, and passing trains detect and count the
phase changes.
They use their own odometers to measure distances between these null
points, so even if a point is missed, they still know roughly where they
are, to within a few metres. Apparently it is permissible to miss one phase >> change, but the train must report it to the central computer. Another miss >> is considered a failure.
Did you mean kHz rather than kV?
On 26/10/2025 09:41, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 16:17:45 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:One would hope they might have the odd spare knocking about. These arn't
Difficult when the transmitter to load cable is not a commodity item. This, >>> and railway signalling systems, are not built using consumer grade items. >>
100KV transmission cables 3 inches thick , they're about the same dimensions >> as a 240V mains lead so should be quite simple to carry around.
It might be instructive to insert a -u5 consumer-grade wire as a
temporary replacement and see what happens. If the system suddenly
starts working then it's time to order an approved gold-plated cable.
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
It might be instructive to insert a -u5 consumer-grade wire as a
temporary replacement and see what happens. If the system suddenly
starts working then it's time to order an approved gold-plated cable.
This isnrCOt just a routine cable. ItrCOs one of a pair of antenna wires in the
four foot (on either side of the negative rail) that radiate a 56kV signal.
The wires cross over every 25m, and passing trains detect and count the
phase changes.
On Sun, 26 Oct 2025 11:34:48 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
It might be instructive to insert a -u5 consumer-grade wire as a
temporary replacement and see what happens. If the system suddenly
starts working then it's time to order an approved gold-plated cable.
This isnrCOt just a routine cable. ItrCOs one of a pair of antenna wires in the
four foot (on either side of the negative rail) that radiate a 56kV signal.
56Khz presumably?
The wires cross over every 25m, and passing trains detect and count the
phase changes.
Odd choice to use phase given there'll be points where the signals from 2 cables will cancel plus its more complicated to detect phase changes. Why
on earth didn't they just use 2 seperate frequencies?
<boltar@battlestar-galactica.com> wrote:
Odd choice to use phase given there'll be points where the signals from 2
cables will cancel plus its more complicated to detect phase changes. Why
on earth didn't they just use 2 seperate frequencies?
The crossing points are called null points, for precisely that reason.
How would using two frequencies work?
On Sun, 26 Oct 2025 21:25:07 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
<boltar@battlestar-galactica.com> wrote:
Odd choice to use phase given there'll be points where the signals from 2 >>> cables will cancel plus its more complicated to detect phase changes. Why >>> on earth didn't they just use 2 seperate frequencies?
The crossing points are called null points, for precisely that reason.
How would using two frequencies work?
Is this is a trick question?
On Sun, 26 Oct 2025 21:25:07 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
<boltar@battlestar-galactica.com> wrote:
Odd choice to use phase given there'll be points where the signals from 2 >>>> cables will cancel plus its more complicated to detect phase changes. Why >>>> on earth didn't they just use 2 seperate frequencies?
The crossing points are called null points, for precisely that reason.
How would using two frequencies work?
Is this is a trick question?
No rCo please explain.
On Mon, 27 Oct 2025 22:35:00 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@battlestar-galactica.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2025 21:25:07 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
<boltar@battlestar-galactica.com> wrote:
Odd choice to use phase given there'll be points where the signals from 2 >>>>> cables will cancel plus its more complicated to detect phase changes. Why >>>>> on earth didn't they just use 2 seperate frequencies?
The crossing points are called null points, for precisely that reason. >>>>
How would using two frequencies work?
Is this is a trick question?
No rCo please explain.
Arn't you always telling us what a genius engineer you are?
Have the 2 frequencies one after the other on the line. A couple of simple band pass filters with level detection and your sorted.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2025 22:35:00 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@battlestar-galactica.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2025 21:25:07 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
<boltar@battlestar-galactica.com> wrote:
Odd choice to use phase given there'll be points where the signals from 2
cables will cancel plus its more complicated to detect phase changes. Why
on earth didn't they just use 2 seperate frequencies?
The crossing points are called null points, for precisely that reason. >>>>>
How would using two frequencies work?
Is this is a trick question?
No rCo please explain.
Arn't you always telling us what a genius engineer you are?
Have the 2 frequencies one after the other on the line. A couple of simple >> band pass filters with level detection and your sorted.
ThererCOs just one pair of wires in the four foot, which together form the >aerial, and no electronic devices. So how would your system deliver a >variable frequency system?
On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 16:23:37 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2025 22:35:00 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@battlestar-galactica.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2025 21:25:07 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
<boltar@battlestar-galactica.com> wrote:
Odd choice to use phase given there'll be points where the signals from 2
cables will cancel plus its more complicated to detect phase changes. Why
on earth didn't they just use 2 seperate frequencies?
The crossing points are called null points, for precisely that reason. >>>>>>
How would using two frequencies work?
Is this is a trick question?
No rCo please explain.
Arn't you always telling us what a genius engineer you are?
Have the 2 frequencies one after the other on the line. A couple of simple >>> band pass filters with level detection and your sorted.
ThererCOs just one pair of wires in the four foot, which together form the >> aerial, and no electronic devices. So how would your system deliver a
variable frequency system?
How does it deliver a phase shifted system?
On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 16:23:37 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2025 22:35:00 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@battlestar-galactica.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2025 21:25:07 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
<boltar@battlestar-galactica.com> wrote:
Odd choice to use phase given there'll be points where the signals from 2
cables will cancel plus its more complicated to detect phase changes. Why
on earth didn't they just use 2 seperate frequencies?
The crossing points are called null points, for precisely that reason. >>>>>>
How would using two frequencies work?
Is this is a trick question?
No rCo please explain.
Arn't you always telling us what a genius engineer you are?
Have the 2 frequencies one after the other on the line. A couple of simple >>> band pass filters with level detection and your sorted.
ThererCOs just one pair of wires in the four foot, which together form the >> aerial, and no electronic devices. So how would your system deliver a
variable frequency system?
How does it deliver a phase shifted system?
On 28/10/2025 18:47, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 16:23:37 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2025 22:35:00 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@battlestar-galactica.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2025 21:25:07 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
<boltar@battlestar-galactica.com> wrote:
Odd choice to use phase given there'll be points where the signals from 2
cables will cancel plus its more complicated to detect phase changes. Why
on earth didn't they just use 2 seperate frequencies?
The crossing points are called null points, for precisely that reason. >>>>>>>
How would using two frequencies work?
Is this is a trick question?
No rCo please explain.
Arn't you always telling us what a genius engineer you are?
Have the 2 frequencies one after the other on the line. A couple of simple >>>> band pass filters with level detection and your sorted.
ThererCOs just one pair of wires in the four foot, which together form the >>> aerial, and no electronic devices. So how would your system deliver a
variable frequency system?
How does it deliver a phase shifted system?
By crossing the streams (TM Ghostbusters) every few feet, based on what
I'm reading above.
Sounds like they basically implement a simple linear
encoder with a long loop* of cable, and each time the two wires cross
you get another 'tick' on the encoder, detected by the phase change of
the received signal (the signal will flip 180 degrees when the cables
swap sides.)
Quite neat, really! Getting a secondary benefit - detection of linear movement - out of the same loop of cable you had to install anyway to communicate the ATC signals to the train.
Phase detection is also pretty trivial - easier than your two bandpass filters. You just need a local oscillator generating a reference
signal, and 4 Schottky diodes, and that's it. (In fact given we don't
even need to detect the phase, we just need to detect when it changed
180 degrees, you can probably do it even more simply.)
In any event, phase detection is not some novel complex technology; it's
a fundamental part of a phase-locked loop, which is the basis for practically every radio receiver design in living memory (and plenty of applications outside of RF as well - e.g. maintaining clock
synchronisation on data buses.) They probably didn't even need any additional components, since they need a receiver for the ATC signal anyway.
* so strictly speaking it's not a pair of wires, it's one long wire
looping back on itself.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2025 15:55:15 GMTHave you done any debugging of electronics? Even with the best equipment available a subtle fault can be hard to find, and thatrCOs in the comfort of a lab. Gets much harder in a dirty tube tunnel with limited access time.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Surely any issue with the cables would have been evident in about 5 mins >>>> once they had their test equipment on site.
Obviously, it wasnrCOt that simple. The cables would still be transmitting >>> their usual signals, but if the cables were slightly displaced, the
reception on the trains might have been marginal, hence the intermittent >>> nature of the reported fault.
Which should have been obvious with any decent test equipment. Anyway, I
suspect the changes of the cables being displaced enough to cause issues is >> highly unlikely. Probably a hardware fault further upstream.
The fault is usually blindingly obvious once yourCOve identified it, but getting to that point can be hard.
On 28/10/2025 18:47, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
ThererCOs just one pair of wires in the four foot, which together form the >>> aerial, and no electronic devices. So how would your system deliver a
variable frequency system?
How does it deliver a phase shifted system?
By crossing the streams (TM Ghostbusters) every few feet, based on what
I'm reading above. Sounds like they basically implement a simple linear >encoder with a long loop* of cable, and each time the two wires cross
you get another 'tick' on the encoder, detected by the phase change of
the received signal (the signal will flip 180 degrees when the cables
swap sides.)
Quite neat, really! Getting a secondary benefit - detection of linear >movement - out of the same loop of cable you had to install anyway to >communicate the ATC signals to the train.
Phase detection is also pretty trivial - easier than your two bandpass >filters. You just need a local oscillator generating a reference
signal, and 4 Schottky diodes, and that's it. (In fact given we don't
even need to detect the phase, we just need to detect when it changed
180 degrees, you can probably do it even more simply.)
* so strictly speaking it's not a pair of wires, it's one long wire
looping back on itself.
On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 20:49:37 +0200
Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> gabbled:
On 28/10/2025 18:47, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
ThererCOs just one pair of wires in the four foot, which together form the >>>> aerial, and no electronic devices. So how would your system deliver a
variable frequency system?
How does it deliver a phase shifted system?
By crossing the streams (TM Ghostbusters) every few feet, based on what
I'm reading above. Sounds like they basically implement a simple linear
encoder with a long loop* of cable, and each time the two wires cross
you get another 'tick' on the encoder, detected by the phase change of
the received signal (the signal will flip 180 degrees when the cables
swap sides.)
Quite neat, really! Getting a secondary benefit - detection of linear
movement - out of the same loop of cable you had to install anyway to
communicate the ATC signals to the train.
Phase detection is also pretty trivial - easier than your two bandpass
filters. You just need a local oscillator generating a reference
Almost irrelevant for something the size of a train. Simple analogue filter chips cost buttons.
signal, and 4 Schottky diodes, and that's it. (In fact given we don't
even need to detect the phase, we just need to detect when it changed
180 degrees, you can probably do it even more simply.)
I don't imagine detecting the phase change is much good because taking any given point on the cable the relative phase of other points of the cable will
vary all the way from 0 to 180 degrees and back again so you can't have one section of cable at 0 phase and another at 180.
Detecting the null point seems rather asking for problems given depending
on the frequency used the cable crossover would need to be set up very accurately - the higher the hz, the less it would take to knock it out of alignment.
* so strictly speaking it's not a pair of wires, it's one long wire
looping back on itself.
2 wires with 2 frequencies seems like it would be far more robust but then
no doubt it would cost more to install so they didn't bother.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 20:49:37 +0200
Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> gabbled:
On 28/10/2025 18:47, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
ThererCOs just one pair of wires in the four foot, which together form the
aerial, and no electronic devices. So how would your system deliver a >>>>> variable frequency system?
How does it deliver a phase shifted system?
By crossing the streams (TM Ghostbusters) every few feet, based on what
I'm reading above. Sounds like they basically implement a simple linear >>> encoder with a long loop* of cable, and each time the two wires cross
you get another 'tick' on the encoder, detected by the phase change of
the received signal (the signal will flip 180 degrees when the cables
swap sides.)
Quite neat, really! Getting a secondary benefit - detection of linear
movement - out of the same loop of cable you had to install anyway to
communicate the ATC signals to the train.
Phase detection is also pretty trivial - easier than your two bandpass
filters. You just need a local oscillator generating a reference
Almost irrelevant for something the size of a train. Simple analogue filter >> chips cost buttons.
signal, and 4 Schottky diodes, and that's it. (In fact given we don't
even need to detect the phase, we just need to detect when it changed
180 degrees, you can probably do it even more simply.)
I don't imagine detecting the phase change is much good because taking any >> given point on the cable the relative phase of other points of the cable will
vary all the way from 0 to 180 degrees and back again so you can't have one >> section of cable at 0 phase and another at 180.
Rubbish. The phase change happens quickly, and then stays constant till the next null point.
Detecting the null point seems rather asking for problems given depending
on the frequency used the cable crossover would need to be set up very
accurately - the higher the hz, the less it would take to knock it out of
alignment.
* so strictly speaking it's not a pair of wires, it's one long wire
looping back on itself.
2 wires with 2 frequencies seems like it would be far more robust but then >> no doubt it would cost more to install so they didn't bother.
How would that allow trains to detect their position?
On 29/10/2025 16:13, Recliner wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 20:49:37 +0200
Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> gabbled:
On 28/10/2025 18:47, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
ThererCOs just one pair of wires in the four foot, which together form the
aerial, and no electronic devices. So how would your system deliver a >>>>>> variable frequency system?
How does it deliver a phase shifted system?
By crossing the streams (TM Ghostbusters) every few feet, based on what >>>> I'm reading above. Sounds like they basically implement a simple linear >>>> encoder with a long loop* of cable, and each time the two wires cross
you get another 'tick' on the encoder, detected by the phase change of >>>> the received signal (the signal will flip 180 degrees when the cables
swap sides.)
Quite neat, really! Getting a secondary benefit - detection of linear >>>> movement - out of the same loop of cable you had to install anyway to
communicate the ATC signals to the train.
Phase detection is also pretty trivial - easier than your two bandpass >>>> filters. You just need a local oscillator generating a reference
Almost irrelevant for something the size of a train. Simple analogue filter >>> chips cost buttons.
signal, and 4 Schottky diodes, and that's it. (In fact given we don't >>>> even need to detect the phase, we just need to detect when it changed
180 degrees, you can probably do it even more simply.)
I don't imagine detecting the phase change is much good because taking any >>> given point on the cable the relative phase of other points of the cable will
vary all the way from 0 to 180 degrees and back again so you can't have one >>> section of cable at 0 phase and another at 180.
Rubbish. The phase change happens quickly, and then stays constant till the >> next null point.
Indeed.
Detecting the null point seems rather asking for problems given depending >>> on the frequency used the cable crossover would need to be set up very
accurately - the higher the hz, the less it would take to knock it out of >>> alignment.
* so strictly speaking it's not a pair of wires, it's one long wire
looping back on itself.
2 wires with 2 frequencies seems like it would be far more robust but then >>> no doubt it would cost more to install so they didn't bother.
How would that allow trains to detect their position?
They'd count frequency changes rather than phase changes. It works, but
is more complex in hardware and software than the current arrangement.
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 29/10/2025 16:13, Recliner wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 20:49:37 +0200
Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> gabbled:
On 28/10/2025 18:47, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
ThererCOs just one pair of wires in the four foot, which together form the
aerial, and no electronic devices. So how would your system deliver a >>>>>>> variable frequency system?
How does it deliver a phase shifted system?
By crossing the streams (TM Ghostbusters) every few feet, based on what >>>>> I'm reading above. Sounds like they basically implement a simple linear >>>>> encoder with a long loop* of cable, and each time the two wires cross >>>>> you get another 'tick' on the encoder, detected by the phase change of >>>>> the received signal (the signal will flip 180 degrees when the cables >>>>> swap sides.)
Quite neat, really! Getting a secondary benefit - detection of linear >>>>> movement - out of the same loop of cable you had to install anyway to >>>>> communicate the ATC signals to the train.
Phase detection is also pretty trivial - easier than your two bandpass >>>>> filters. You just need a local oscillator generating a reference
Almost irrelevant for something the size of a train. Simple analogue filter
chips cost buttons.
signal, and 4 Schottky diodes, and that's it. (In fact given we don't >>>>> even need to detect the phase, we just need to detect when it changed >>>>> 180 degrees, you can probably do it even more simply.)
I don't imagine detecting the phase change is much good because taking any >>>> given point on the cable the relative phase of other points of the cable will
vary all the way from 0 to 180 degrees and back again so you can't have one
section of cable at 0 phase and another at 180.
Rubbish. The phase change happens quickly, and then stays constant till the >>> next null point.
Indeed.
Detecting the null point seems rather asking for problems given depending >>>> on the frequency used the cable crossover would need to be set up very >>>> accurately - the higher the hz, the less it would take to knock it out of >>>> alignment.
* so strictly speaking it's not a pair of wires, it's one long wire
looping back on itself.
2 wires with 2 frequencies seems like it would be far more robust but then >>>> no doubt it would cost more to install so they didn't bother.
How would that allow trains to detect their position?
They'd count frequency changes rather than phase changes. It works, but
is more complex in hardware and software than the current arrangement.
How would the radiated frequency change every 25m?
On 29/10/2025 21:07, Recliner wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 29/10/2025 16:13, Recliner wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 20:49:37 +0200
Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> gabbled:
On 28/10/2025 18:47, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
ThererCOs just one pair of wires in the four foot, which together form the
aerial, and no electronic devices. So how would your system deliver a >>>>>>>> variable frequency system?
How does it deliver a phase shifted system?
By crossing the streams (TM Ghostbusters) every few feet, based on what >>>>>> I'm reading above. Sounds like they basically implement a simple linear >>>>>> encoder with a long loop* of cable, and each time the two wires cross >>>>>> you get another 'tick' on the encoder, detected by the phase change of >>>>>> the received signal (the signal will flip 180 degrees when the cables >>>>>> swap sides.)
Quite neat, really! Getting a secondary benefit - detection of linear >>>>>> movement - out of the same loop of cable you had to install anyway to >>>>>> communicate the ATC signals to the train.
Phase detection is also pretty trivial - easier than your two bandpass >>>>>> filters. You just need a local oscillator generating a reference
Almost irrelevant for something the size of a train. Simple analogue filter
chips cost buttons.
signal, and 4 Schottky diodes, and that's it. (In fact given we don't >>>>>> even need to detect the phase, we just need to detect when it changed >>>>>> 180 degrees, you can probably do it even more simply.)
I don't imagine detecting the phase change is much good because taking any
given point on the cable the relative phase of other points of the cable will
vary all the way from 0 to 180 degrees and back again so you can't have one
section of cable at 0 phase and another at 180.
Rubbish. The phase change happens quickly, and then stays constant till the
next null point.
Indeed.
Detecting the null point seems rather asking for problems given depending >>>>> on the frequency used the cable crossover would need to be set up very >>>>> accurately - the higher the hz, the less it would take to knock it out of >>>>> alignment.
* so strictly speaking it's not a pair of wires, it's one long wire >>>>>> looping back on itself.
2 wires with 2 frequencies seems like it would be far more robust but then
no doubt it would cost more to install so they didn't bother.
How would that allow trains to detect their position?
They'd count frequency changes rather than phase changes. It works, but >>> is more complex in hardware and software than the current arrangement.
How would the radiated frequency change every 25m?
I didn't devise this inferior scheme, but I guess each wire would have shielding which starts and stops every 25m, one pair's shield starting
where the other stops. I can understand why the actual design was used.
On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 20:49:37 +0200
Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> gabbled:
On 28/10/2025 18:47, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
ThererCOs just one pair of wires in the four foot, which together form >>>> the
aerial, and no electronic devices. So how would your system deliver a
variable frequency system?
How does it deliver a phase shifted system?
By crossing the streams (TM Ghostbusters) every few feet, based on
what I'm reading above.-a Sounds like they basically implement a simple
linear encoder with a long loop* of cable, and each time the two wires
cross you get another 'tick' on the encoder, detected by the phase
change of the received signal (the signal will flip 180 degrees when
the cables swap sides.)
Quite neat, really!-a Getting a secondary benefit - detection of linear
movement - out of the same loop of cable you had to install anyway to
communicate the ATC signals to the train.
Phase detection is also pretty trivial - easier than your two bandpass
filters.-a You just need a local oscillator generating a reference
Almost irrelevant for something the size of a train. Simple analogue
filter chips cost buttons.
signal, and 4 Schottky diodes, and that's it.-a (In fact given we don't
even need to detect the phase, we just need to detect when it changed
180 degrees, you can probably do it even more simply.)
I don't imagine detecting the phase change is much good because taking
any given point on the cable the relative phase of other points of the
cable will vary all the way from 0 to 180 degrees and back again so you can't have one section of cable at 0 phase and another at 180.
Detecting the null point seems rather asking for problems given depending
on the frequency used the cable crossover would need to be set up very accurately - the higher the hz, the less it would take to knock it out of alignment.
* so strictly speaking it's not a pair of wires, it's one long wire
looping back on itself.
2 wires with 2 frequencies seems like it would be far more robust but then
no doubt it would cost more to install so they didn't bother.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
I don't imagine detecting the phase change is much good because taking any >> given point on the cable the relative phase of other points of the cable >will
vary all the way from 0 to 180 degrees and back again so you can't have one >> section of cable at 0 phase and another at 180.
Rubbish. The phase change happens quickly, and then stays constant till the >next null point.
2 wires with 2 frequencies seems like it would be far more robust but then >> no doubt it would cost more to install so they didn't bother.
How would that allow trains to detect their position?
On 29/10/2025 16:13, Recliner wrote:
How would that allow trains to detect their position?
They'd count frequency changes rather than phase changes. It works, but
is more complex in hardware and software than the current arrangement.
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
They'd count frequency changes rather than phase changes. It works, but
is more complex in hardware and software than the current arrangement.
How would the radiated frequency change every 25m?
On 29/10/2025 17:23, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
2 wires with 2 frequencies seems like it would be far more robust but then >> no doubt it would cost more to install so they didn't bother.
Have you ever considered *not* pontificating on things which you are
clearly completely unqualified for? For the avoidance of doubt, having
a Radio Shack 150-in-1 Electronic Project Kit in the 1970s is not a >recognised qualification.
Honestly, it's super liberating winding your neck in when you're
clueless about something - that's why you don't see me commenting on
threads about cars. You can save so much time.
(Incidentally, the loop with crossings & phase-change detection used in >Seltrac was first developed in the *1950s*, and deployed in the 1960s.
I'm surprised that Ulf hasn't already popped up to note that it's also
known as "LZB" and reliably provides in-cab signalling to many hundreds
of kilometres of high-speed rail lines in Germany, Austria and Spain.)
On 29/10/2025 21:07, Recliner wrote:
How would the radiated frequency change every 25m?
I didn't devise this inferior scheme, but I guess each wire would have >shielding which starts and stops every 25m, one pair's shield starting
where the other stops. I can understand why the actual design was used.
On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 10:43:52 +0200
Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> gabbled:
On 29/10/2025 17:23, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
2 wires with 2 frequencies seems like it would be far more robust but
then
no doubt it would cost more to install so they didn't bother.
Have you ever considered *not* pontificating on things which you are
clearly completely unqualified for?-a For the avoidance of doubt, having
It never stopped you in the past.
a Radio Shack 150-in-1 Electronic Project Kit in the 1970s is not a
recognised qualification.
Honestly, it's super liberating winding your neck in when you're
clueless about something - that's why you don't see me commenting on
threads about cars.-a You can save so much time.
Blah blah , get to your point...
(Incidentally, the loop with crossings & phase-change detection used
in Seltrac was first developed in the *1950s*, and deployed in the
1960s. I'm surprised that Ulf hasn't already popped up to note that
it's also known as "LZB" and reliably provides in-cab signalling to
many hundreds of kilometres of high-speed rail lines in Germany,
Austria and Spain.)
Oh right, you didn't have one. As usual.
On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 21:48:15 +0000
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 29/10/2025 21:07, Recliner wrote:
How would the radiated frequency change every 25m?
I didn't devise this inferior scheme, but I guess each wire would have
shielding which starts and stops every 25m, one pair's shield starting
where the other stops. I can understand why the actual design was used.
No shielding required. You'd measure the relative levels of the signals,
you wouldn't need to isolate them.
On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 18:12:28 +0000
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 29/10/2025 16:13, Recliner wrote:
How would that allow trains to detect their position?
They'd count frequency changes rather than phase changes. It works, but
is more complex in hardware and software than the current arrangement.
Why would it be more complex? Please explain.
On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 16:13:21 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
I don't imagine detecting the phase change is much good because taking any >>> given point on the cable the relative phase of other points of the cablewill
vary all the way from 0 to 180 degrees and back again so you can't have one
section of cable at 0 phase and another at 180.
Rubbish. The phase change happens quickly, and then stays constant till the >> next null point.
Really? You do realise the phase relative to whats measuring it would constantly change along the length of the wire.
Its why 10base2 ethernet could
only have specific lengths before the terminator at the end otherwise you'd get
destructive interference at certain points due to reflection.
2 wires with 2 frequencies seems like it would be far more robust but then >>> no doubt it would cost more to install so they didn't bother.
How would that allow trains to detect their position?
How do you think.
On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 18:12:28 +0000
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 29/10/2025 16:13, Recliner wrote:
How would that allow trains to detect their position?
They'd count frequency changes rather than phase changes.-a It works, but
is more complex in hardware and software than the current arrangement.
Why would it be more complex? Please explain.
On 30/10/2025 10:04, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 18:12:28 +0000
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 29/10/2025 16:13, Recliner wrote:
How would that allow trains to detect their position?
They'd count frequency changes rather than phase changes.-a It works, but >>> is more complex in hardware and software than the current arrangement.
Why would it be more complex? Please explain.
More wires, and more processing to do on the signals from them. But the people who chose the installation know far more about this than either
of us, so let's trust their judgement.
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 30/10/2025 10:04, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 18:12:28 +0000
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 29/10/2025 16:13, Recliner wrote:
How would that allow trains to detect their position?
They'd count frequency changes rather than phase changes.-a It works, but >>>> is more complex in hardware and software than the current arrangement.
Why would it be more complex? Please explain.
More wires, and more processing to do on the signals from them. But the
people who chose the installation know far more about this than either
of us, so let's trust their judgement.
Indeed so.
Incidentally, not surprisingly, the track workers donrCOt like the pair of wires in the four foot, and two pairs would be even worse. So, with the 4LM scheme, LU has switched to the newer Thales radio-based Seltrac system to accurately locate the trains. This whole system is more complicated,
because the trains are of varying length, and share tracks with other
trains in some parts, including engineering trains. Also, there are steeply graded leafy sections on the northern part of the Met, where odometer-based distance measurements are less accurate.
https://www.railengineer.co.uk/progress-with-the-four-lines-modernisation-project/
IrCOm curious to know how the radio link to the train provides
accurate position information. Any ideas?
Tweed wrote:
IrCOm curious to know how the radio link to the train provides
accurate position information. Any ideas?
I know nothing, other than how to feed search engines ...
<https://files.core.ac.uk/download/pdf/154333578.pdf>
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 21:48:15 +0000
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 29/10/2025 21:07, Recliner wrote:
How would the radiated frequency change every 25m?
I didn't devise this inferior scheme, but I guess each wire would have
shielding which starts and stops every 25m, one pair's shield starting
where the other stops. I can understand why the actual design was used.
No shielding required. You'd measure the relative levels of the signals,
you wouldn't need to isolate them.
You still havenrCOt explained how distances will be measured along the tunnel using your ridiculous idea.
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Tweed wrote:
IrCOm curious to know how the radio link to the train provides
accurate position information. Any ideas?
I know nothing, other than how to feed search engines ...
<https://files.core.ac.uk/download/pdf/154333578.pdf>
ThatrCOs a useful find - thank you. From reading that I conclude that radio is not used to determine position, but only to communicate a calculated position. The primary position reference is to pass over a balise placed in the 4 foot and then to use a secondary method, eg wheel rotation counting
or radar, to calculate the offset from that reference.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Tweed wrote:
IrCOm curious to know how the radio link to the train provides
accurate position information. Any ideas?
I know nothing, other than how to feed search engines ...
<https://files.core.ac.uk/download/pdf/154333578.pdf>
ThatrCOs a useful find - thank you. From reading that I conclude that radio >> is not used to determine position, but only to communicate a calculated
position. The primary position reference is to pass over a balise placed in >> the 4 foot and then to use a secondary method, eg wheel rotation counting
or radar, to calculate the offset from that reference.
Yes, I think there are balises (transponders) in the four foot that provide precise positional information, as with ETCS. I think each transponder
knows its exact position, so the train doesnrCOt have to count them. IrCOll try
to take a look for them next time IrCOm using an SSL train.
I think the radio link provides the two-way communication link with base:
the train broadcasts its location, speed and length, and in return gets
sent frequent instructions on the allowable speed and movement authority. This method is presumably more expensive than the simple inductive loops in the track, so some of the fixed locations are further than the usual 25m apart.
On 30/10/2025 12:06, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 10:43:52 +0200
Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> gabbled:
On 29/10/2025 17:23, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:It never stopped you in the past.
2 wires with 2 frequencies seems like it would be far more robust but >>>> then
no doubt it would cost more to install so they didn't bother.
Have you ever considered *not* pontificating on things which you are
clearly completely unqualified for?-a For the avoidance of doubt, having >>
a Radio Shack 150-in-1 Electronic Project Kit in the 1970s is not a
recognised qualification.
Honestly, it's super liberating winding your neck in when you're
clueless about something - that's why you don't see me commenting on
threads about cars.-a You can save so much time.
Blah blah , get to your point...
(Incidentally, the loop with crossings & phase-change detection used
in Seltrac was first developed in the *1950s*, and deployed in the
1960s. I'm surprised that Ulf hasn't already popped up to note that
it's also known as "LZB" and reliably provides in-cab signalling to
many hundreds of kilometres of high-speed rail lines in Germany,
Austria and Spain.)
Oh right, you didn't have one. As usual.
My point was, you're making yourself look like an idiot. But as this is
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 21:48:15 +0000
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 29/10/2025 21:07, Recliner wrote:
How would the radiated frequency change every 25m?
I didn't devise this inferior scheme, but I guess each wire would have
shielding which starts and stops every 25m, one pair's shield starting
where the other stops. I can understand why the actual design was used.
No shielding required. You'd measure the relative levels of the signals,
you wouldn't need to isolate them.
You still havenrCOt explained how distances will be measured along the tunnel >using your ridiculous idea.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 16:13:21 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
I don't imagine detecting the phase change is much good because taking any
given point on the cable the relative phase of other points of the cable >>> will
vary all the way from 0 to 180 degrees and back again so you can't have >one
section of cable at 0 phase and another at 180.
Rubbish. The phase change happens quickly, and then stays constant till the >>> next null point.
Really? You do realise the phase relative to whats measuring it would
constantly change along the length of the wire.
But it doesnrCOt. It reverses abruptly at the null points, every 25m. Unlike
your notional system, this is a widely-used, proven approach that actually >works.
Its why 10base2 ethernet could
only have specific lengths before the terminator at the end otherwise you'd >get
destructive interference at certain points due to reflection.
No signals need to be sent along the loop for the phase changes to occur.
On 30/10/2025 10:04, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 18:12:28 +0000
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 29/10/2025 16:13, Recliner wrote:
How would that allow trains to detect their position?
They'd count frequency changes rather than phase changes.-a It works, but >>> is more complex in hardware and software than the current arrangement.
Why would it be more complex? Please explain.
More wires, and more processing to do on the signals from them. But the >people who chose the installation know far more about this than either
of us, so let's trust their judgement.
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
More wires, and more processing to do on the signals from them. But the
people who chose the installation know far more about this than either
of us, so let's trust their judgement.
Indeed so.
Incidentally, not surprisingly, the track workers donrCOt like the pair of >wires in the four foot, and two pairs would be even worse. So, with the 4LM >scheme, LU has switched to the newer Thales radio-based Seltrac system to >accurately locate the trains. This whole system is more complicated,
because the trains are of varying length, and share tracks with other
On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 12:21:13 +0200
Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> gabbled:
On 30/10/2025 12:06, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 10:43:52 +0200
Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> gabbled:
On 29/10/2025 17:23, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:It never stopped you in the past.
2 wires with 2 frequencies seems like it would be far more robust
but then
no doubt it would cost more to install so they didn't bother.
Have you ever considered *not* pontificating on things which you are
clearly completely unqualified for?-a For the avoidance of doubt, having >>>
a Radio Shack 150-in-1 Electronic Project Kit in the 1970s is not a
recognised qualification.
Honestly, it's super liberating winding your neck in when you're
clueless about something - that's why you don't see me commenting on
threads about cars.-a You can save so much time.
Blah blah , get to your point...
(Incidentally, the loop with crossings & phase-change detection used
in Seltrac was first developed in the *1950s*, and deployed in the
1960s. I'm surprised that Ulf hasn't already popped up to note that
it's also known as "LZB" and reliably provides in-cab signalling to
many hundreds of kilometres of high-speed rail lines in Germany,
Austria and Spain.)
Oh right, you didn't have one. As usual.
My point was, you're making yourself look like an idiot.-a But as this is
That never stopped you in the past either.
On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 10:59:36 +0000
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 30/10/2025 10:04, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 18:12:28 +0000
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 29/10/2025 16:13, Recliner wrote:
How would that allow trains to detect their position?
They'd count frequency changes rather than phase changes.-a It works, but >>>> is more complex in hardware and software than the current arrangement.
Why would it be more complex? Please explain.
More wires, and more processing to do on the signals from them. But the
people who chose the installation know far more about this than either
of us, so let's trust their judgement.
2 wires instead of 1 and no worrying about crossing points working properly. But then manufacturers always go for the best solution, not the one that just about works but costs far less to make and install hence more profit.
On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 10:56:12 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 16:13:21 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
I don't imagine detecting the phase change is much good because taking any
given point on the cable the relative phase of other points of the cable >>>> will
vary all the way from 0 to 180 degrees and back again so you can't have >> one
section of cable at 0 phase and another at 180.
Rubbish. The phase change happens quickly, and then stays constant till the
next null point.
Really? You do realise the phase relative to whats measuring it would
constantly change along the length of the wire.
But it doesnrCOt. It reverses abruptly at the null points, every 25m. Unlike
Umm, yet it does.
your notional system, this is a widely-used, proven approach that actually >> works.
Its why 10base2 ethernet could
only have specific lengths before the terminator at the end otherwise you'd >> get
destructive interference at certain points due to reflection.
No signals need to be sent along the loop for the phase changes to occur.
So a wire with no signals along it magically has a phase change occur at
some point with nothing to cause that change.
Right you are.
On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 10:56:09 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 21:48:15 +0000
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 29/10/2025 21:07, Recliner wrote:No shielding required. You'd measure the relative levels of the signals, >>> you wouldn't need to isolate them.
How would the radiated frequency change every 25m?
I didn't devise this inferior scheme, but I guess each wire would have >>>> shielding which starts and stops every 25m, one pair's shield starting >>>> where the other stops. I can understand why the actual design was used. >>>
You still havenrCOt explained how distances will be measured along the tunnel
using your ridiculous idea.
Ok, just for your geriatric brain:
| | -- = wire
|---F1---| | = track
| | F = frequency
|---F2---|
| |
|---F1---|
| |
Is that simply enough or do you need it done in crayon with help from Big Ted?
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 10:59:36 +0000
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 30/10/2025 10:04, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 18:12:28 +0000
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 29/10/2025 16:13, Recliner wrote:Why would it be more complex? Please explain.
How would that allow trains to detect their position?
They'd count frequency changes rather than phase changes.-a It works, but >>>>> is more complex in hardware and software than the current arrangement. >>>>
More wires, and more processing to do on the signals from them. But the >>> people who chose the installation know far more about this than either
of us, so let's trust their judgement.
2 wires instead of 1 and no worrying about crossing points working properly. >> But then manufacturers always go for the best solution, not the one that just
about works but costs far less to make and install hence more profit.
As one of my lecturers pointed out (IrCOm not sure I entirely agree with him) the point of engineering is to make money. If what you design doesnrCOt do that then it may be great art or great something else, but itrCOs not good engineering.
Sam
On 31/10/2025 12:26, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
That never stopped you in the past either.
Oh do come along now, you can do better than that I'm sure. Something
about gypsies or something, you know, your greatest hits. "Nyahhhh, you >too" - and that's the second time you've been reduced to that this
thread - really is beneath a troll of your calibre.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Umm, yet it does.
Yes, exactly. ItrCOs an elegant, simple, reliable system thatrCOs been in >service around the world for decades.
The fault that occurred on the Northern Line was a surprise because itrCOs so >rare. Such faults would be frequent with your cockeyed idea.
So a wire with no signals along it magically has a phase change occur at
some point with nothing to cause that change.
Yup, but there is something obvious and visible to case the phase change, >which has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread. But your geriatric
brain simply canrCOt comprehend it. Just look at the DLR for a reminder of >how it works.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
You still havenrCOt explained how distances will be measured along the >tunnel
using your ridiculous idea.
Ok, just for your geriatric brain:
| | -- = wire
|---F1---| | = track
| | F = frequency
|---F2---|
| |
|---F1---|
| |
Is that simply enough or do you need it done in crayon with help from Big >Ted?
Please describe how this would work over a length of several hundred
metres, providing precise positional information to the train to within a
few cm, every 25m. Note that you canrCOt have a power supply, junctions or >any electronic components in the four foot.
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 10:59:36 +0000
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 30/10/2025 10:04, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 18:12:28 +0000
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 29/10/2025 16:13, Recliner wrote:Why would it be more complex? Please explain.
How would that allow trains to detect their position?
They'd count frequency changes rather than phase changes.-a It works, but
is more complex in hardware and software than the current arrangement. >>>>>
More wires, and more processing to do on the signals from them. But the >>>> people who chose the installation know far more about this than either >>>> of us, so let's trust their judgement.
2 wires instead of 1 and no worrying about crossing points working properly.
But then manufacturers always go for the best solution, not the one that just
about works but costs far less to make and install hence more profit.
As one of my lecturers pointed out (IrCOm not sure I entirely agree with him)
the point of engineering is to make money. If what you design doesnrCOt do >> that then it may be great art or great something else, but itrCOs not good >> engineering.
Sam
Scientific deep space probes employ some rather brilliant engineering, but they certainly donrCOt make money. Good engineering might reduce the losses. Even thatrCOs not a certainty, because missions that survive beyond the planned lifetime often get extended, with additional costs for ground support.
On Fri, 31 Oct 2025 11:42:09 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
tunnelYou still havenrCOt explained how distances will be measured along the
using your ridiculous idea.
Ok, just for your geriatric brain:
| | -- = wire
|---F1---| | = track
| | F = frequency
|---F2---|
| |
|---F1---|
| |
Is that simply enough or do you need it done in crayon with help from Big >> Ted?
Please describe how this would work over a length of several hundred
metres, providing precise positional information to the train to within a
few cm, every 25m. Note that you canrCOt have a power supply, junctions or >> any electronic components in the four foot.
I can't tell if you're genuinely this thick or you're just trolling. I'll be kind and assume the latter.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Ok, just for your geriatric brain:
| | -- = wire
|---F1---| | = track
| | F = frequency
|---F2---|
| |
|---F1---|
| |
Is that simply enough or do you need it done in crayon with help from Big >>> Ted?
Please describe how this would work over a length of several hundred
metres, providing precise positional information to the train to within a >>> few cm, every 25m. Note that you canrCOt have a power supply, junctions or >>> any electronic components in the four foot.
I can't tell if you're genuinely this thick or you're just trolling. I'll be >> kind and assume the latter.
IrCOm sorry, but simply have no idea how your hare brain scheme is supposed >to work. Your ASCII diagram gives no clue, which suggests that yourCOre >clueless about it.
On Fri, 31 Oct 2025 16:21:45 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Ok, just for your geriatric brain:
| | -- = wire
|---F1---| | = track
| | F = frequency
|---F2---|
| |
|---F1---|
| |
Is that simply enough or do you need it done in crayon with help from Big >>>> Ted?
Please describe how this would work over a length of several hundred
metres, providing precise positional information to the train to within a >>>> few cm, every 25m. Note that you canrCOt have a power supply, junctions or >>>> any electronic components in the four foot.
I can't tell if you're genuinely this thick or you're just trolling. I'll be
kind and assume the latter.
IrCOm sorry, but simply have no idea how your hare brain scheme is supposed >> to work. Your ASCII diagram gives no clue, which suggests that yourCOre
clueless about it.
Fucking hell, you really are on the senile bus arn't you. When you've arrived at Muppet Central go have a lie down and think about how alternating frequencies being picked up from wires spaced at regular known intervals might
help with knowing position and speed.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Fucking hell, you really are on the senile bus arn't you. When you've arrived
at Muppet Central go have a lie down and think about how alternating
frequencies being picked up from wires spaced at regular known intervals >might
help with knowing position and speed.
Both wires will in any case have to follow the track, so how would you
ensure the wrong signal isnrCOt detected, particularly when the tracks are >running side-by-side? ItrCOs also not fail-safe, as no signal will be picked >up for most of the time. And the wires canrCOt also be used to communicate >with the train.
So your system would be much more expensive, less safe and much less >functional. Truly a work of genius!
On Fri, 31 Oct 2025 16:55:27 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Fucking hell, you really are on the senile bus arn't you. When you've arrivedmight
at Muppet Central go have a lie down and think about how alternating
frequencies being picked up from wires spaced at regular known intervals
help with knowing position and speed.
Both wires will in any case have to follow the track, so how would you
ensure the wrong signal isnrCOt detected, particularly when the tracks are >> running side-by-side? ItrCOs also not fail-safe, as no signal will be picked
up for most of the time. And the wires canrCOt also be used to communicate >> with the train.
Huh? You'd have a detector mounted in the middle of a bogie widthways which would pick up the signals. Wouldn't matter if it picked up low level signals from the wires by the side, it would have a trigger level below which it would ignore anything. And so what if no signal is picked up for the majority of the time? You'd have a timeout based on the speed beyond which the emergency
brakes would be applied. I'm fairly sure thats how some wireless RF ATO systems work.
As for not being able to use the wires for communication, you think there couldn't be a third modulated frequency on one or both of the wires to do just that? Signal mixing has been a stable of cable and RF systems for 60 years or more.
So your system would be much more expensive, less safe and much less
functional. Truly a work of genius!
Given you don't even seem to understand basic principles of signalling I'm not sure you're the right person to comment.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
As for not being able to use the wires for communication, you think there
couldn't be a third modulated frequency on one or both of the wires to do >> just that? Signal mixing has been a stable of cable and RF systems for 60
years or more.
You really are completely clueless, arenrCOt you? CanrCOt you see that your >proposal simply wouldnrCOt work at all? ItrCOs not just a rCypoorrCO solution;
Given you don't even seem to understand basic principles of signalling I'm >> not sure you're the right person to comment.
ItrCOs true that IrCOm not a specialist signalling engineer, just as itrCOs >obvious that that you know about 1% as much I do on this topic.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (2 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 25:07:19 |
| Calls: | 743 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| Messages: | 187,179 |