[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Yet more radios needed
Michael Kurkowski wrote:
>
> howshr@netlink.com.au (Ron Howship) wrote in
> <396DBB49.ECA9A0E8@netlink.com.au>:
>
> >Turn your fscking caps lock off!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Go on. Tell us what you really think.
>
> While youre at it, wash your mouth out with soap.
>
> Michael
>
> --
> Email: michael {DOT} kurkowski {AT} gunzel {DOT} net
> (Any mail sent to usenet.spam@gunzel.net
> will be filed into the circular filing cabinet)
> IT'S ALIVE! http://www.gunzel.net ICQ: 1459118 / T333.
> Yahoo: VR_T333 Mobile: 0416-044-124
>
> Tolulene, you know what I mean.
I don't see waht the problem is with having the caps lock on is!
I think he made a valid point.
When Freightcorp Drivers at Lithgow first became aware of the intention
to install the Metro Net system Freightcorp was still FreightRail.
The significance of that is that there hadn't been a total divorce
between City Rail on Freightrail.
The drivers at lithgow (City Rail and Freightrail that is to say)all
said the same thing. Why on earth have two distinct systems that can't
talk to each other? Actaully there are 5 systems in use but in practical
terms it comes back to 3.
The reason why Freightrail at the time went for its own system
(Country Net) was because the GRN didn't extend to all areas covered
by rail and so Freightrail decided it needed its own system.
For technical reasons when City Rail decided to install the Metro net
system they went for a trunking system not unlike the GRN.
The mistake they made with Metro Net is that they didn't make provision
for plain old Simplex operation on 450.050 mhz ( the old Train Radio
Frequency). The Country Net does and so does the Aware system on
NR classes.
I was lead to believe that there was going to be a upgrade to the
Metro Net radios on City Rail trains that will allow use on 450.050 Mhz
simplex.
Robert Parnell where are you? You may be able to enlighten us as to
what is being proposed.
--
Pope
Alias John MacCallum