|
|
| Re: Canarsie CBTC (96939) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Canarsie CBTC |
|
|
Posted by tracksionmotor on Fri Jun 10 00:17:12 2005, in response to Re: Canarsie CBTC, posted by H.S.Relay on Thu Jun 9 22:57:33 2005. Can you say 'track is broken and train will derail?' 'Three Cities CBTC' in RailwayAge magazine. I have NO objection to inductive link comm... BART is CBTC non-rf according to the article I read. Can you say 24/7 block operators of Moskow subway? The BART system is supposedly under full automation and trainset ran block crashing several years ago.I don't want CBTC to be Part 15 radio. IF it is to be radio, it must be licensed on a specific interference free frequency. IF a T/O comms CBTC on a frequency I am assigned to use, by Federal LAW the T/O must first determine IF the frequency is active and then ask for my permission for use. I can refuse as a licensee. If the T/O engages comm, he and the system is subject to interference as a secondary user. Explaining further, your 2.4 gHz wireless color cam transmits pics 24/7 and trainset goes by while your neighbor makes adjstments to balance load in her brassiere and signal wipes out CBTC....who is to blame? You for being a 'peeping Tom,' manufacturer of camera or CBTC provider. Even a wireless phone could potentially affect CBTC. CI peter |
|
|
|