|
|
| Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. (578844) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 1 10:48:54 2008, in response to Re: TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 1 09:31:41 2008. not a long-term issue. While a redesigned component will increase the cost to somec extent, this is far from an insurmountable obstacle.I'd infer from the delay in coming up with additional receivers that the design incorporated components that are no longer manufactured. If the manufacturer is no longer in business, then getting new replacement parts is virtually impossible. Getting the manufacturing specs is also next to impossible. That means buying or making an "equivalent" component. This is an RF receiver. Designs can be very finicky. You do not know which characteristic of a particular component was critical, only the designer knew that. He's no longer available. A proprietary design was a critical factor in the design. They may have used proprietary IC's or potted some assemblies. If they used proprietary IC's, then it may mean setting up a fab for a production run of less than 100. That would put the receiver in the million dollar range. Given the time frame, the actual construction of the receivers might have been outsourced to Taiwan. They may have used the local electrolytics that were available then. Replacement is obviously a painful process. It would make sense not to repeat it every five years as replacements are needed. What's the design life of the signal system? 75 years? OK, buy a 75 year supply of replacements and float a bond issue to support this strategy. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|