On 19/02/2022 22:10, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 19/02/2022 22:00, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> On 19/02/2022 16:18, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> On 19/02/2022 16:03, Tweed wrote:
>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 19/02/2022 12:02, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>>> Drones exist, autonomous rail vehicles don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are some but most of the work is aimed at carrying rail
>>>>> freight. A
>>>>> small self-contained vehicle is much easier.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Autonomous Track Inspection: Keeping Railways Safe & Efficient
>>>>>
>>>>> https://railway-news.com/autonomous-track-inspection-keeping-railways-safe-efficient/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The railway industry is entering a new era of autonomous track
>>>>> inspection that couples frequent inspections of track with defect
>>>>> detection and software analysis capabilities, which in turn optimise
>>>>> railway maintenance and renewal planning, reduce risks through earlier
>>>>> identification of track defects, and improve rail network safety.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if we’ve got to the point where every train/locomotive
>>>> could be
>>>> fitted with track monitoring equipment?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Theoretically yes, the only constraint is cost.
>>
>> One-off costs would be expensive, undoubtedly, but would that not be
>> able to pay for itself over a set time?
>
> Need a lot more information, much of it probably confidential, to make a
> sensible answer to that question. The gut feeling is no, not if we are
> talking about equipping every single bit of motive power with the kit.
> As I've suggested, a representative sample would probably be just as
> effective and a lot cheaper.
>

Interestingly the rail industry seems to be lagging. Air and marine
transport already have significant monitoring equipment. In the marine
field there are "black boxes" and AIS systems fitted to all commercial
vessels. My understanding is that the airline industry have even more
sophisticated gizmos.

--
Colin

On 20/02/2022 11:45, ColinR wrote:
> Interestingly the rail industry seems to be lagging. Air and marine
> transport already have significant monitoring equipment. In the marine
> field there are "black boxes" and AIS systems fitted to all commercial
> vessels. My understanding is that the airline industry have even more
> sophisticated gizmos.

I think AIS is required above a certain size of vessel.

I think they are like airlines and contract out management of the vessel
to specialist companies who act as 24/7 contact.

In message <sut93t$joq$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:36:29 on Sun, 20 Feb
2022, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>On 20/02/2022 09:50, Roland Perry wrote:

>> I think the main advantage was the ability to delete bad shots
>> immediately, and also avoid having to buy rolls of film and wait
>> for them to be processed.
>
>If only they did delete the bad shots!
>
>Though I have some early ones of mine that are perhaps the only known
>photographs of some places/things because they have gone so valuable
>even if only poor quality. I just wish I had taken more at the time
>which I would have if I had had a digital camera with lots of memory.

I find the most valuable can easily be the ones with incidental stuff in
the photo. Generally, I'll only contemporaneously delete the ones
completely out of focus, or shots of my feet etc.

And one of my two smartphones keeps taking unwanted screenshots. I have
no idea what finger trouble is causing that.

One of my phones about ten years ago apparently had a feature where it
was taking and saving photos continuously for about ten seconds, before
deleting them. And when you pressed the "shutter" all it was actually
doing was archiving the very latest.

Presumably there was something were I could have selected which to
archive, but the UI was impenetrable.
--
Roland Perry

ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
> On 19/02/2022 22:10, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> On 19/02/2022 22:00, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>> On 19/02/2022 16:18, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>> On 19/02/2022 16:03, Tweed wrote:
>>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 12:02, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>>>> Drones exist, autonomous rail vehicles don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are some but most of the work is aimed at carrying rail
>>>>>> freight. A
>>>>>> small self-contained vehicle is much easier.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Autonomous Track Inspection: Keeping Railways Safe & Efficient
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://railway-news.com/autonomous-track-inspection-keeping-railways-safe-efficient/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The railway industry is entering a new era of autonomous track
>>>>>> inspection that couples frequent inspections of track with defect
>>>>>> detection and software analysis capabilities, which in turn optimise
>>>>>> railway maintenance and renewal planning, reduce risks through earlier
>>>>>> identification of track defects, and improve rail network safety.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if we’ve got to the point where every train/locomotive
>>>>> could be
>>>>> fitted with track monitoring equipment?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Theoretically yes, the only constraint is cost.
>>>
>>> One-off costs would be expensive, undoubtedly, but would that not be
>>> able to pay for itself over a set time?
>>
>> Need a lot more information, much of it probably confidential, to make a
>> sensible answer to that question. The gut feeling is no, not if we are
>> talking about equipping every single bit of motive power with the kit.
>> As I've suggested, a representative sample would probably be just as
>> effective and a lot cheaper.
>>
>
> Interestingly the rail industry seems to be lagging. Air and marine
> transport already have significant monitoring equipment. In the marine
> field there are "black boxes" and AIS systems fitted to all commercial
> vessels. My understanding is that the airline industry have even more
> sophisticated gizmos.
>

Trains already have data recorders etc, and GSM communication; and the
signalling system locates trains to the nearest block section. Perhaps
what's missing is GPS feedback for exact location, but (a) I suspect that's
available by remote log-in on modern stock and (b) crews all carry devices
with GPS.

What's being discussed here is infrastructure monitoring equipment; the
marine version would be to have every ship fitted with echo-sounder
reporting the depth information live back to a control centre who alert
dredging teams, or for aircraft, each take off and landing feeding back
data on runway quality for the airport maintenance teams.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 11:45:09 +0000, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:

>On 19/02/2022 22:10, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> On 19/02/2022 22:00, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>> On 19/02/2022 16:18, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>> On 19/02/2022 16:03, Tweed wrote:
>>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 12:02, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>>>> Drones exist, autonomous rail vehicles don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are some but most of the work is aimed at carrying rail
>>>>>> freight. A
>>>>>> small self-contained vehicle is much easier.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Autonomous Track Inspection: Keeping Railways Safe & Efficient
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://railway-news.com/autonomous-track-inspection-keeping-railways-safe-efficient/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The railway industry is entering a new era of autonomous track
>>>>>> inspection that couples frequent inspections of track with defect
>>>>>> detection and software analysis capabilities, which in turn optimise
>>>>>> railway maintenance and renewal planning, reduce risks through earlier
>>>>>> identification of track defects, and improve rail network safety.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if we’ve got to the point where every train/locomotive
>>>>> could be
>>>>> fitted with track monitoring equipment?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Theoretically yes, the only constraint is cost.
>>>
>>> One-off costs would be expensive, undoubtedly, but would that not be
>>> able to pay for itself over a set time?
>>
>> Need a lot more information, much of it probably confidential, to make a
>> sensible answer to that question. The gut feeling is no, not if we are
>> talking about equipping every single bit of motive power with the kit.
>> As I've suggested, a representative sample would probably be just as
>> effective and a lot cheaper.
>>
>
>Interestingly the rail industry seems to be lagging. Air and marine
>transport already have significant monitoring equipment. In the marine
>field there are "black boxes" and AIS systems fitted to all commercial
>vessels. My understanding is that the airline industry have even more
>sophisticated gizmos.

Though I was surprised that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 wasn't automatically reporting its location in real-time. The
ability to do so was available, but airlines had to subscribe to the service. I think any airlines flying Trans-Atlantic
were obliged to subscribe, but cash-strapped Malaysia Airlines didn't have to, and had saved the money.

The Trent engines were periodically transmitting status reports back to RR in Derby, and with some ingenuity, these were
decoded to provide clues to the approximate route the doomed plane had taken after disappearing from the radar, but
there was no accurate estimate for the location where it came down.

Had that been known, there was a good chance the wreckage could have been found, and the black box recovered. Now, even
if the wreck is ever found, there's little chance of recovering an intact flight data recorder.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 09:14:36 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 20/02/2022 07:10, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> If you have people there to lift it then (unless it is fairly small)
>> you might as well have someone on board to press the big red stop
>> button if needed.
>
>Why do you need someone to lift it? It could drive into a building and
>be stored there. It could have a special trailer that it could be
>driven onto and transported to a different location - especially useful
>if a section of track is unusable.

So you're suggested extra switches, sidings and special sheds along the routes that these unmanned monitoring vehicles
might use? Suddenly, they don't look so cheap.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 17:11:51 -0800, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 13:20:03 +0000, Graeme Wall
><rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 19/02/2022 12:54, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>> On 19/02/2022 12:35, ColinR wrote:
>>>> On 19/02/2022 12:19, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>> On 19/02/2022 11:57, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 11:46, MB wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 10:20, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>> It'll be even worse when visas are needed as passengers will be
>>>>>>>>> stuck
>>>>>>>>> airside at the airport.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How many people had Canadian visas when much of the US air traffic
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> diverted to Canada after 9/11?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The world is a different place since then with red tape hatred towards
>>>>>>> UK citizens vastly increased since then.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think we need visas for anywhere now that we didn't three years
>>>>>> ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>> We'll need visas for the EU soon so diversions to the EU will become
>>>>> a problem.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure of this being relevant to this discussion, although otherwise
>>>> true. The discussion was planes being diverted due to weather back to
>>>> their last airport. If this is a EU airport then the passengers will
>>>> have had to have visas to get onto the plane before being diverted
>>>> back to the EU.
>>>>
>>> What if the flight is from a non EU country?  I cannot see a flight from
>>> Turkey to the UK having enough fuel to return to Turkey.
>>>
>>> I was on a flight from England to northern Germany which couldn't land
>>> and did return to the UK but the crew were aware this was a possibility
>>> and carried extra fuel.
>>
>>Aircraft always have enough extra fuel to reach a suitable range of
>>diversion airfields if necessary.
>
>Except AC flopping at Gimli, MB... luckily/fortunately...

They made the classic error of confusing metric and imperial measures, like a frequent poster here.

But Canadian airliners do seem to make a habit of running out of fuel in mid-air and having to glide down to an
emergency landing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 10:55:30 +0000, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 20/02/2022 09:51, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <surmtn$4tv$4@dont-email.me>, at 21:19:51 on Sat, 19 Feb
>> 2022, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>> On 19/02/2022 16:08, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>
>>>> Another exaggeration. The pound is down, the economy is down,[1] chunks
>>>> of the City have legged it, as you put it, but carry on denying it.
>>>
>>> And companies have moved to the UK from Europe but the Remoaner rags
>>> never report things like that.
>>
>> Many companies "moving to the UK" are in fact supply-chain dependent,
>> and were forced to open new distribution centres here because they could
>> no longer guarantee next-day deliveries from across the channel.
>>
>> While that creates a handful of jobs here, it also puts up prices.
>
>Similarly numbers of UK based businesses have had to open distribution
>centres in the EU. So leads to a net-zero sum when claiming benefits of
>Brexit.

I'd say it was a double negative: costs rise, customer service worsens, in both directions. Some products just aren't
profitable enough, or sell in sufficiently large volumes, to bother, so some EU products are no longer available in the
UK, or vice versa.

On 20/02/2022 13:28, MB wrote:
> On 20/02/2022 11:45, ColinR wrote:
>> Interestingly the rail industry seems to be lagging. Air and marine
>> transport already have significant monitoring equipment. In the marine
>> field there are "black boxes" and AIS systems fitted to all commercial
>> vessels. My understanding is that the airline industry have even more
>> sophisticated gizmos.
>
> I think AIS is required above a certain size of vessel.
>
> I think they are like airlines and contract out management of the vessel
> to specialist companies who act as 24/7 contact.
>
>

Anyone know what parameters marine AIS reports, other than the obvious
speed, course and position?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 20/02/2022 13:56, Recliner wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 11:45:09 +0000, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 19/02/2022 22:10, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> On 19/02/2022 22:00, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>> On 19/02/2022 16:18, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>> On 19/02/2022 16:03, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 12:02, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>>>>> Drones exist, autonomous rail vehicles don't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are some but most of the work is aimed at carrying rail
>>>>>>> freight. A
>>>>>>> small self-contained vehicle is much easier.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Autonomous Track Inspection: Keeping Railways Safe & Efficient
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://railway-news.com/autonomous-track-inspection-keeping-railways-safe-efficient/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The railway industry is entering a new era of autonomous track
>>>>>>> inspection that couples frequent inspections of track with defect
>>>>>>> detection and software analysis capabilities, which in turn optimise
>>>>>>> railway maintenance and renewal planning, reduce risks through earlier
>>>>>>> identification of track defects, and improve rail network safety.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder if we’ve got to the point where every train/locomotive
>>>>>> could be
>>>>>> fitted with track monitoring equipment?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Theoretically yes, the only constraint is cost.
>>>>
>>>> One-off costs would be expensive, undoubtedly, but would that not be
>>>> able to pay for itself over a set time?
>>>
>>> Need a lot more information, much of it probably confidential, to make a
>>> sensible answer to that question. The gut feeling is no, not if we are
>>> talking about equipping every single bit of motive power with the kit.
>>> As I've suggested, a representative sample would probably be just as
>>> effective and a lot cheaper.
>>>
>>
>> Interestingly the rail industry seems to be lagging. Air and marine
>> transport already have significant monitoring equipment. In the marine
>> field there are "black boxes" and AIS systems fitted to all commercial
>> vessels. My understanding is that the airline industry have even more
>> sophisticated gizmos.
>
> Though I was surprised that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 wasn't automatically reporting its location in real-time. The
> ability to do so was available, but airlines had to subscribe to the service. I think any airlines flying Trans-Atlantic
> were obliged to subscribe, but cash-strapped Malaysia Airlines didn't have to, and had saved the money.
>
> The Trent engines were periodically transmitting status reports back to RR in Derby, and with some ingenuity, these were
> decoded to provide clues to the approximate route the doomed plane had taken after disappearing from the radar, but
> there was no accurate estimate for the location where it came down.
>
> Had that been known, there was a good chance the wreckage could have been found, and the black box recovered. Now, even
> if the wreck is ever found, there's little chance of recovering an intact flight data recorder.
Depends, they are pretty robust. Sitting quietly at the bottom of the
ocean is the least of the traumas they can be subjected to. Can't
remember the incident[1] but they recovered a black box that had been
sliced in two when the aircraft hit the ground but managed to recover
most of the data

[1]Might have been Lockerbie.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20/02/2022 13:28, MB wrote:
>> On 20/02/2022 11:45, ColinR wrote:
>>> Interestingly the rail industry seems to be lagging. Air and marine
>>> transport already have significant monitoring equipment. In the marine
>>> field there are "black boxes" and AIS systems fitted to all commercial
>>> vessels. My understanding is that the airline industry have even more
>>> sophisticated gizmos.
>>
>> I think AIS is required above a certain size of vessel.
>>
>> I think they are like airlines and contract out management of the vessel
>> to specialist companies who act as 24/7 contact.
>>
>>
>
> Anyone know what parameters marine AIS reports, other than the obvious
> speed, course and position?
>

Yes, here's an example. I took this shot on the bridge of one sailing ship,
of its sister ship sailing in formation:
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/47237150552/in/album-72157707158652115/>

From memory, I think you can also get info on the crew and passenger
numbers.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20/02/2022 13:56, Recliner wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 11:45:09 +0000, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/02/2022 22:10, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>> On 19/02/2022 22:00, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>>> On 19/02/2022 16:18, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 16:03, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 12:02, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Drones exist, autonomous rail vehicles don't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are some but most of the work is aimed at carrying rail
>>>>>>>> freight. A
>>>>>>>> small self-contained vehicle is much easier.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Autonomous Track Inspection: Keeping Railways Safe & Efficient
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://railway-news.com/autonomous-track-inspection-keeping-railways-safe-efficient/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The railway industry is entering a new era of autonomous track
>>>>>>>> inspection that couples frequent inspections of track with defect
>>>>>>>> detection and software analysis capabilities, which in turn optimise
>>>>>>>> railway maintenance and renewal planning, reduce risks through earlier
>>>>>>>> identification of track defects, and improve rail network safety.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wonder if we’ve got to the point where every train/locomotive
>>>>>>> could be
>>>>>>> fitted with track monitoring equipment?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Theoretically yes, the only constraint is cost.
>>>>>
>>>>> One-off costs would be expensive, undoubtedly, but would that not be
>>>>> able to pay for itself over a set time?
>>>>
>>>> Need a lot more information, much of it probably confidential, to make a
>>>> sensible answer to that question. The gut feeling is no, not if we are
>>>> talking about equipping every single bit of motive power with the kit.
>>>> As I've suggested, a representative sample would probably be just as
>>>> effective and a lot cheaper.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Interestingly the rail industry seems to be lagging. Air and marine
>>> transport already have significant monitoring equipment. In the marine
>>> field there are "black boxes" and AIS systems fitted to all commercial
>>> vessels. My understanding is that the airline industry have even more
>>> sophisticated gizmos.
>>
>> Though I was surprised that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 wasn't
>> automatically reporting its location in real-time. The
>> ability to do so was available, but airlines had to subscribe to the
>> service. I think any airlines flying Trans-Atlantic
>> were obliged to subscribe, but cash-strapped Malaysia Airlines didn't
>> have to, and had saved the money.
>>
>> The Trent engines were periodically transmitting status reports back to
>> RR in Derby, and with some ingenuity, these were
>> decoded to provide clues to the approximate route the doomed plane had
>> taken after disappearing from the radar, but
>> there was no accurate estimate for the location where it came down.
>>
>> Had that been known, there was a good chance the wreckage could have
>> been found, and the black box recovered. Now, even
>> if the wreck is ever found, there's little chance of recovering an
>> intact flight data recorder.
>
> Depends, they are pretty robust. Sitting quietly at the bottom of the
> ocean is the least of the traumas they can be subjected to. Can't
> remember the incident[1] but they recovered a black box that had been
> sliced in two when the aircraft hit the ground but managed to recover
> most of the data
>

I suspect that they won't even be able to find it after all this time. The
wreckage will be broken up and scattered, and the FDR probably buried under
sediment. The device emits a location signal for a while, but that will
long have gone silent.

> [1]Might have been Lockerbie.
>

On 20/02/2022 14:05, Recliner wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 10:55:30 +0000, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 20/02/2022 09:51, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <surmtn$4tv$4@dont-email.me>, at 21:19:51 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>> 2022, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>> On 19/02/2022 16:08, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Another exaggeration. The pound is down, the economy is down,[1] chunks
>>>>> of the City have legged it, as you put it, but carry on denying it.
>>>>
>>>> And companies have moved to the UK from Europe but the Remoaner rags
>>>> never report things like that.
>>>
>>> Many companies "moving to the UK" are in fact supply-chain dependent,
>>> and were forced to open new distribution centres here because they could
>>> no longer guarantee next-day deliveries from across the channel.
>>>
>>> While that creates a handful of jobs here, it also puts up prices.
>>
>> Similarly numbers of UK based businesses have had to open distribution
>> centres in the EU. So leads to a net-zero sum when claiming benefits of
>> Brexit.
>
> I'd say it was a double negative: costs rise, customer service worsens, in both directions. Some products just aren't
> profitable enough, or sell in sufficiently large volumes, to bother, so some EU products are no longer available in the
> UK, or vice versa.

Quite a few small companies have give up trying to sell in Europe
because of the increased costs.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20/02/2022 14:05, Recliner wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 10:55:30 +0000, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20/02/2022 09:51, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <surmtn$4tv$4@dont-email.me>, at 21:19:51 on Sat, 19 Feb
>>>> 2022, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>> On 19/02/2022 16:08, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Another exaggeration. The pound is down, the economy is down,[1] chunks
>>>>>> of the City have legged it, as you put it, but carry on denying it.
>>>>>
>>>>> And companies have moved to the UK from Europe but the Remoaner rags
>>>>> never report things like that.
>>>>
>>>> Many companies "moving to the UK" are in fact supply-chain dependent,
>>>> and were forced to open new distribution centres here because they could
>>>> no longer guarantee next-day deliveries from across the channel.
>>>>
>>>> While that creates a handful of jobs here, it also puts up prices.
>>>
>>> Similarly numbers of UK based businesses have had to open distribution
>>> centres in the EU. So leads to a net-zero sum when claiming benefits of
>>> Brexit.
>>
>> I'd say it was a double negative: costs rise, customer service worsens,
>> in both directions. Some products just aren't
>> profitable enough, or sell in sufficiently large volumes, to bother, so
>> some EU products are no longer available in the
>> UK, or vice versa.
>
> Quite a few small companies have give up trying to sell in Europe
> because of the increased costs.
>

Yes, I think some had bad experiences of complete shipments being returned
at their cost because of tiny documentation errors. The profit margin is
rarely high enough to cover such costs.

On 20/02/2022 16:32, Recliner wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 20/02/2022 13:28, MB wrote:
>>> On 20/02/2022 11:45, ColinR wrote:
>>>> Interestingly the rail industry seems to be lagging. Air and marine
>>>> transport already have significant monitoring equipment. In the marine
>>>> field there are "black boxes" and AIS systems fitted to all commercial
>>>> vessels. My understanding is that the airline industry have even more
>>>> sophisticated gizmos.
>>>
>>> I think AIS is required above a certain size of vessel.
>>>
>>> I think they are like airlines and contract out management of the vessel
>>> to specialist companies who act as 24/7 contact.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Anyone know what parameters marine AIS reports, other than the obvious
>> speed, course and position?
>>
>
> Yes, here's an example. I took this shot on the bridge of one sailing ship,
> of its sister ship sailing in formation:
> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/47237150552/in/album-72157707158652115/>

Did they have auxiliary power or just sail?
>
> From memory, I think you can also get info on the crew and passenger
> numbers.
>

I doubt they have sensors for those :-) That would be entered into the
database at the beginning of the voyage. As would most of the
information in panels 1, 3 and 4.

Trying to decipher panel 2:
CPA ? distance from something
TCPA obviously time since something
COG: Course Over Ground
SOG: Speed Over Ground
HDG: Heading
ROT: Rate Of Turn (with direction)
BRG: Bearing, presumably from your ship
RNG: Range, (ditto)

Panel 3 is self explanatory.

Panel 4 The only one that might not be pre-entered is STATUS

Panel 5 is self explanatory.

Am I close? Colin perhaps?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20/02/2022 13:28, MB wrote:
>> On 20/02/2022 11:45, ColinR wrote:
>>> Interestingly the rail industry seems to be lagging. Air and marine
>>> transport already have significant monitoring equipment. In the marine
>>> field there are "black boxes" and AIS systems fitted to all commercial
>>> vessels. My understanding is that the airline industry have even more
>>> sophisticated gizmos.
>>
>> I think AIS is required above a certain size of vessel.
>>
>> I think they are like airlines and contract out management of the vessel
>> to specialist companies who act as 24/7 contact.
>>
>>
>
> Anyone know what parameters marine AIS reports, other than the obvious
> speed, course and position?
>

It seems an awful lot of stuff can be transmitted, see

https://arundaleais.github.io/docs/ais/ais_message_types.html

and if you want to really get to grips with it here’s the 148 page spec

https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/m/R-REC-M.1371-5-201402-I!!PDF-E.pdf

which leads me to ponder why trains can’t report their position accurately,
rather than relying on proxy systems such as axle counters or track
circuits. (Before folk chime up about not being able to see GPS satellites
in cuttings etc, it is possible to rebroadcast GPS signals and use other
radio beacon methods. Or balises)

On 20/02/2022 16:37, Recliner wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 20/02/2022 13:56, Recliner wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 11:45:09 +0000, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 19/02/2022 22:10, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>> On 19/02/2022 22:00, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 16:18, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 16:03, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 12:02, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Drones exist, autonomous rail vehicles don't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are some but most of the work is aimed at carrying rail
>>>>>>>>> freight. A
>>>>>>>>> small self-contained vehicle is much easier.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Autonomous Track Inspection: Keeping Railways Safe & Efficient
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://railway-news.com/autonomous-track-inspection-keeping-railways-safe-efficient/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The railway industry is entering a new era of autonomous track
>>>>>>>>> inspection that couples frequent inspections of track with defect
>>>>>>>>> detection and software analysis capabilities, which in turn optimise
>>>>>>>>> railway maintenance and renewal planning, reduce risks through earlier
>>>>>>>>> identification of track defects, and improve rail network safety.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wonder if we’ve got to the point where every train/locomotive
>>>>>>>> could be
>>>>>>>> fitted with track monitoring equipment?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Theoretically yes, the only constraint is cost.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One-off costs would be expensive, undoubtedly, but would that not be
>>>>>> able to pay for itself over a set time?
>>>>>
>>>>> Need a lot more information, much of it probably confidential, to make a
>>>>> sensible answer to that question. The gut feeling is no, not if we are
>>>>> talking about equipping every single bit of motive power with the kit.
>>>>> As I've suggested, a representative sample would probably be just as
>>>>> effective and a lot cheaper.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Interestingly the rail industry seems to be lagging. Air and marine
>>>> transport already have significant monitoring equipment. In the marine
>>>> field there are "black boxes" and AIS systems fitted to all commercial
>>>> vessels. My understanding is that the airline industry have even more
>>>> sophisticated gizmos.
>>>
>>> Though I was surprised that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 wasn't
>>> automatically reporting its location in real-time. The
>>> ability to do so was available, but airlines had to subscribe to the
>>> service. I think any airlines flying Trans-Atlantic
>>> were obliged to subscribe, but cash-strapped Malaysia Airlines didn't
>>> have to, and had saved the money.
>>>
>>> The Trent engines were periodically transmitting status reports back to
>>> RR in Derby, and with some ingenuity, these were
>>> decoded to provide clues to the approximate route the doomed plane had
>>> taken after disappearing from the radar, but
>>> there was no accurate estimate for the location where it came down.
>>>
>>> Had that been known, there was a good chance the wreckage could have
>>> been found, and the black box recovered. Now, even
>>> if the wreck is ever found, there's little chance of recovering an
>>> intact flight data recorder.
>>
>> Depends, they are pretty robust. Sitting quietly at the bottom of the
>> ocean is the least of the traumas they can be subjected to. Can't
>> remember the incident[1] but they recovered a black box that had been
>> sliced in two when the aircraft hit the ground but managed to recover
>> most of the data
>>
>
> I suspect that they won't even be able to find it after all this time. The
> wreckage will be broken up and scattered, and the FDR probably buried under
> sediment. The device emits a location signal for a while, but that will
> long have gone silent.
>

IIRC they are normally located in the root of the tail which is a fairly
strong part of the fuselage and might remain intact and visible to the
appropriate sensors if they can get close enough.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20/02/2022 16:32, Recliner wrote:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 20/02/2022 13:28, MB wrote:
>>>> On 20/02/2022 11:45, ColinR wrote:
>>>>> Interestingly the rail industry seems to be lagging. Air and marine
>>>>> transport already have significant monitoring equipment. In the marine
>>>>> field there are "black boxes" and AIS systems fitted to all commercial
>>>>> vessels. My understanding is that the airline industry have even more
>>>>> sophisticated gizmos.
>>>>
>>>> I think AIS is required above a certain size of vessel.
>>>>
>>>> I think they are like airlines and contract out management of the vessel
>>>> to specialist companies who act as 24/7 contact.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Anyone know what parameters marine AIS reports, other than the obvious
>>> speed, course and position?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, here's an example. I took this shot on the bridge of one sailing ship,
>> of its sister ship sailing in formation:
>> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/47237150552/in/album-72157707158652115/>
>
>
> Did they have auxiliary power or just sail?

Yes, both ships have twin diesel engines. These are some pics I took in the
Sea Cloud II engine room:
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157690245160623>

The ship sails on diesel much more than under sail.

As an aside, our modern ship had a variable pitch propeller, while the
1930s Sea Cloud had a fixed pitch propeller. Our three-masted ship sailed
faster than the older four-masted ship with our prop blades feathered, but
slower if not. Our captain used this knowledge to keep pace with the older
ship, regularly feathering and unfeathering our prop blades. Both captains
had personal knowledge of sailing both ships, so they made this formation
sailing look easy.

<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/40324624853/in/album-72157707158652115/>

>>
>> From memory, I think you can also get info on the crew and passenger
>> numbers.
>>
>
> I doubt they have sensors for those :-) That would be entered into the
> database at the beginning of the voyage. As would most of the
> information in panels 1, 3 and 4.

Yes, lots of the data is manually entered, and some is clearly optional.

>
> Trying to decipher panel 2:
> CPA ? distance from something

Closest Point of Approach (how close the two ships would get to colliding
on their current courses).

> TCPA obviously time since something

No, Time to Closest Point of Approach. Basically, the computed time till
they get closest, if the courses are unchanged. With ships sailing in
formation, this would gave varied a lot.

> COG: Course Over Ground
> SOG: Speed Over Ground
> HDG: Heading
> ROT: Rate Of Turn (with direction)
> BRG: Bearing, presumably from your ship
> RNG: Range, (ditto)
>
> Panel 3 is self explanatory.
>
> Panel 4 The only one that might not be pre-entered is STATUS
>
> Panel 5 is self explanatory.
>
> Am I close? Colin perhaps?
>

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20/02/2022 16:37, Recliner wrote:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 20/02/2022 13:56, Recliner wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 11:45:09 +0000, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 19/02/2022 22:10, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 22:00, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 16:18, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 16:03, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 12:02, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Drones exist, autonomous rail vehicles don't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are some but most of the work is aimed at carrying rail
>>>>>>>>>> freight. A
>>>>>>>>>> small self-contained vehicle is much easier.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Autonomous Track Inspection: Keeping Railways Safe & Efficient
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://railway-news.com/autonomous-track-inspection-keeping-railways-safe-efficient/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The railway industry is entering a new era of autonomous track
>>>>>>>>>> inspection that couples frequent inspections of track with defect
>>>>>>>>>> detection and software analysis capabilities, which in turn optimise
>>>>>>>>>> railway maintenance and renewal planning, reduce risks through earlier
>>>>>>>>>> identification of track defects, and improve rail network safety.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I wonder if we’ve got to the point where every train/locomotive
>>>>>>>>> could be
>>>>>>>>> fitted with track monitoring equipment?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Theoretically yes, the only constraint is cost.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One-off costs would be expensive, undoubtedly, but would that not be
>>>>>>> able to pay for itself over a set time?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Need a lot more information, much of it probably confidential, to make a
>>>>>> sensible answer to that question. The gut feeling is no, not if we are
>>>>>> talking about equipping every single bit of motive power with the kit.
>>>>>> As I've suggested, a representative sample would probably be just as
>>>>>> effective and a lot cheaper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Interestingly the rail industry seems to be lagging. Air and marine
>>>>> transport already have significant monitoring equipment. In the marine
>>>>> field there are "black boxes" and AIS systems fitted to all commercial
>>>>> vessels. My understanding is that the airline industry have even more
>>>>> sophisticated gizmos.
>>>>
>>>> Though I was surprised that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 wasn't
>>>> automatically reporting its location in real-time. The
>>>> ability to do so was available, but airlines had to subscribe to the
>>>> service. I think any airlines flying Trans-Atlantic
>>>> were obliged to subscribe, but cash-strapped Malaysia Airlines didn't
>>>> have to, and had saved the money.
>>>>
>>>> The Trent engines were periodically transmitting status reports back to
>>>> RR in Derby, and with some ingenuity, these were
>>>> decoded to provide clues to the approximate route the doomed plane had
>>>> taken after disappearing from the radar, but
>>>> there was no accurate estimate for the location where it came down.
>>>>
>>>> Had that been known, there was a good chance the wreckage could have
>>>> been found, and the black box recovered. Now, even
>>>> if the wreck is ever found, there's little chance of recovering an
>>>> intact flight data recorder.
>>>
>>> Depends, they are pretty robust. Sitting quietly at the bottom of the
>>> ocean is the least of the traumas they can be subjected to. Can't
>>> remember the incident[1] but they recovered a black box that had been
>>> sliced in two when the aircraft hit the ground but managed to recover
>>> most of the data
>>>
>>
>> I suspect that they won't even be able to find it after all this time. The
>> wreckage will be broken up and scattered, and the FDR probably buried under
>> sediment. The device emits a location signal for a while, but that will
>> long have gone silent.
>>
>
> IIRC they are normally located in the root of the tail which is a fairly
> strong part of the fuselage and might remain intact and visible to the
> appropriate sensors if they can get close enough.
>

I wonder how well the FDR cannister reacts to being submerged under 4000m
of water pressure for several years? There are mountainous outcrops and
cliffs, an underwater volcano and a canyon in the approximate area where
it's thought likely to have landed.

Any radio signals will have long ceased, and the orange colour won't be
visible under the sediment and whatever deep sea creatures have made it
their home.

On 20/02/2022 17:23, Recliner wrote:
>>> From memory, I think you can also get info on the crew and passenger
>>> numbers.
>>>
>> I doubt they have sensors for those:-) That would be entered into the
>> database at the beginning of the voyage. As would most of the
>> information in panels 1, 3 and 4.
> Yes, lots of the data is manually entered, and some is clearly optional.
>
>> Trying to decipher panel 2:
>> CPA ? distance from something
> Closest Point of Approach (how close the two ships would get to colliding
> on their current courses).
>
>
>> TCPA obviously time since something
> No, Time to Closest Point of Approach. Basically, the computed time till
> they get closest, if the courses are unchanged. With ships sailing in
> formation, this would gave varied a lot.
>

Thanks, obvious when you know!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 20/02/2022 17:32, Recliner wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 20/02/2022 16:37, Recliner wrote:
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 20/02/2022 13:56, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 11:45:09 +0000, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 22:10, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 22:00, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 16:18, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 16:03, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2022 12:02, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Drones exist, autonomous rail vehicles don't.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There are some but most of the work is aimed at carrying rail
>>>>>>>>>>> freight. A
>>>>>>>>>>> small self-contained vehicle is much easier.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Autonomous Track Inspection: Keeping Railways Safe & Efficient
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://railway-news.com/autonomous-track-inspection-keeping-railways-safe-efficient/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The railway industry is entering a new era of autonomous track
>>>>>>>>>>> inspection that couples frequent inspections of track with defect
>>>>>>>>>>> detection and software analysis capabilities, which in turn optimise
>>>>>>>>>>> railway maintenance and renewal planning, reduce risks through earlier
>>>>>>>>>>> identification of track defects, and improve rail network safety.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I wonder if we’ve got to the point where every train/locomotive
>>>>>>>>>> could be
>>>>>>>>>> fitted with track monitoring equipment?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Theoretically yes, the only constraint is cost.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One-off costs would be expensive, undoubtedly, but would that not be
>>>>>>>> able to pay for itself over a set time?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Need a lot more information, much of it probably confidential, to make a
>>>>>>> sensible answer to that question. The gut feeling is no, not if we are
>>>>>>> talking about equipping every single bit of motive power with the kit.
>>>>>>> As I've suggested, a representative sample would probably be just as
>>>>>>> effective and a lot cheaper.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interestingly the rail industry seems to be lagging. Air and marine
>>>>>> transport already have significant monitoring equipment. In the marine
>>>>>> field there are "black boxes" and AIS systems fitted to all commercial
>>>>>> vessels. My understanding is that the airline industry have even more
>>>>>> sophisticated gizmos.
>>>>>
>>>>> Though I was surprised that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 wasn't
>>>>> automatically reporting its location in real-time. The
>>>>> ability to do so was available, but airlines had to subscribe to the
>>>>> service. I think any airlines flying Trans-Atlantic
>>>>> were obliged to subscribe, but cash-strapped Malaysia Airlines didn't
>>>>> have to, and had saved the money.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Trent engines were periodically transmitting status reports back to
>>>>> RR in Derby, and with some ingenuity, these were
>>>>> decoded to provide clues to the approximate route the doomed plane had
>>>>> taken after disappearing from the radar, but
>>>>> there was no accurate estimate for the location where it came down.
>>>>>
>>>>> Had that been known, there was a good chance the wreckage could have
>>>>> been found, and the black box recovered. Now, even
>>>>> if the wreck is ever found, there's little chance of recovering an
>>>>> intact flight data recorder.
>>>>
>>>> Depends, they are pretty robust. Sitting quietly at the bottom of the
>>>> ocean is the least of the traumas they can be subjected to. Can't
>>>> remember the incident[1] but they recovered a black box that had been
>>>> sliced in two when the aircraft hit the ground but managed to recover
>>>> most of the data
>>>>
>>>
>>> I suspect that they won't even be able to find it after all this time. The
>>> wreckage will be broken up and scattered, and the FDR probably buried under
>>> sediment. The device emits a location signal for a while, but that will
>>> long have gone silent.
>>>
>>
>> IIRC they are normally located in the root of the tail which is a fairly
>> strong part of the fuselage and might remain intact and visible to the
>> appropriate sensors if they can get close enough.
>>
>
> I wonder how well the FDR cannister reacts to being submerged under 4000m
> of water pressure for several years? There are mountainous outcrops and
> cliffs, an underwater volcano and a canyon in the approximate area where
> it's thought likely to have landed.

The spec says must survive to a depth of 20,000 ft/6000 m but for a
minimum of 30 days.

>
> Any radio signals will have long ceased, and the orange colour won't be
> visible under the sediment and whatever deep sea creatures have made it
> their home.
>

It was the tail assembly I assumed might have survived reasonably intact.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 09:14:36 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On 20/02/2022 07:10, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>> If you have people there to lift it then (unless it is fairly small)
>>> you might as well have someone on board to press the big red stop
>>> button if needed.
>>
>> Why do you need someone to lift it? It could drive into a building and
>> be stored there. It could have a special trailer that it could be
>> driven onto and transported to a different location - especially useful
>> if a section of track is unusable.

So you're thinking something like this, but without the people?

<https://totalrailsolutions.co.uk/on-track-plant/kubota-rtv-900-hire-trs938/>

> So you're suggested extra switches, sidings and special sheds along the
> routes that these unmanned monitoring vehicles
> might use? Suddenly, they don't look so cheap.
>

Even if they use existing sidings provided for tampers etc, they usually
require a person in attendance to operate a ground frame.

In which case, you might as well run a vehicle with people on board…

In message <sutqt2$cqh$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:40:02 on Sun, 20 Feb
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:

>Quite a few small companies have give up trying to sell in Europe
>because of the increased costs.

One of my ex-colleagues (who had an unrelated business selling some
niche gadgets) gave up in the face of the paperwork. He was threatening
to emigrate to France (even did the language testing to be accepted),
but maybe Covid put paid to that.
--
Roland Perry

On 20/02/2022 16:23, Graeme Wall wrote:
> Anyone know what parameters marine AIS reports, other than the obvious
> speed, course and position?

Not my current log file but shows what is sent.

235051664;under way ;000°'; 0.0kt;56.842325N;5.122342W;274.2°;072°;05s;
201011 000406;serial#1(B)[1]
235051664;under way ;000°'; 0.0kt;56.842330N;5.122345W;300.3°;072°;16s;
201011 000422;serial#1(A)[1]
235051664;under way ;000°'; 0.0kt;56.842333N;5.122347W;230.5°;072°;27s;
201011 000430;serial#1(B)[1]
235022282;Class B;Part A;F/V NOVA SPERO ; 201011 000430;serial#1(B)[24]
235022282;Class B;(2DDQ );Part B;Vessel:fish;SELEX ;20 6 0.0 3
-230232535; 201011 000430;serial#1(B)[24]
235051664;(0000000);(MMPC );WILLENDEAVOUR ;Tug ;-> Oct10
15:00 FORT WILLIAM ;22 9 2.1 12 4; 201011 000438;serial#1(A)[5]
235051664;under way ;000°'; 0.0kt;56.842335N;5.122345W;209.5°;072°;36s;
201011 000438;serial#1(A)[1]
235051664;under way ;000°'; 0.0kt;56.842335N;5.122345W;219.9°;072°;46s;
201011 000446;serial#1(B)[1]
235051664;under way ;000°'; 0.0kt;56.842332N;5.122345W;232.1°;072°;57s;
201011 000502;serial#1(A)[1]
235110567;(9766413);(2IKR4 );ORCADIA II ;Cargo ship ;-> Oct09
16:00 CORPACH ;26 13 0.0 12 4; 201011 000502;serial#1(A)[5]
235110567;moored ;000°'; 0.0kt;56.841467N;5.134445W;126.9°;307°;03s;
201011 000503;serial#1(A)[3]
235051664;under way ;000°'; 0.0kt;56.842330N;5.122343W;244.9°;072°;06s;
201011 000510;serial#1(B)[1]
232023520;binary;Intl dac 1;func 30; 201011 000510;serial#1(A)[8]
235051664;under way ;000°'; 0.0kt;56.842330N;5.122342W;248.0°;072°;16s;
201011 000518;serial#1(A)[1]
235051664;under way ;000°'; 0.0kt;56.842328N;5.122343W;264.0°;072°;27s;
201011 000527;serial#1(B)[1]
235051664;under way ;000°'; 0.0kt;56.842322N;5.122337W;235.1°;072°;36s;
201011 000542;serial#1(A)[1]
235051664;under way ;000°'; 0.0kt;56.842318N;5.122335W;200.8°;072°;46s;
201011 000550;serial#1(B)[1]
232023520;Class B;Part A;RED ADMIRAL ; 201011 000550;serial#1(B)[24]
232023520;Class B;(MDMK );Part B;Vessel:sail;ONWA ;8 3 0.0 2
-230232535; 201011 000550;serial#1(A)[24]
275487000;moored ;000°'; 0.0kt;56.841063N;5.135437W; 0.0°;067°;54s;
201011 000558;serial#1(A)[3]
235051664;under way ;000°'; 0.0kt;56.842318N;5.122335W;194.6°;072°;57s;
201011 000558;serial#1(A)[1]
235051664;under way ;000°'; 0.0kt;56.842323N;5.122340W;167.6°;072°;06s;
201011 000607;serial#1(B)[1]
235051664;under way ;000°'; 0.0kt;56.842328N;5.122342W;264.3°;071°;16s;
201011 000616;serial#1(A)[1]
235051664;under way ;000°'; 0.0kt;56.842333N;5.122348W;231.9°;071°;25s;
201011 000630;serial#1(B)[1]
232023520;unknown ;000°'; 0.0kt;56.841832N;5.127217W;335.0°;335°;35s;
201011 000638;serial#1(B)[18]

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 20/02/2022 13:28, MB wrote:
>>> On 20/02/2022 11:45, ColinR wrote:
>>>> Interestingly the rail industry seems to be lagging. Air and marine
>>>> transport already have significant monitoring equipment. In the marine
>>>> field there are "black boxes" and AIS systems fitted to all commercial
>>>> vessels. My understanding is that the airline industry have even more
>>>> sophisticated gizmos.
>>>
>>> I think AIS is required above a certain size of vessel.
>>>
>>> I think they are like airlines and contract out management of the vessel
>>> to specialist companies who act as 24/7 contact.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Anyone know what parameters marine AIS reports, other than the obvious
>> speed, course and position?
>>
>
> It seems an awful lot of stuff can be transmitted, see
>
> https://arundaleais.github.io/docs/ais/ais_message_types.html
>
> and if you want to really get to grips with it here’s the 148 page spec
>
> https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/m/R-REC-M.1371-5-201402-I!!PDF-E.pdf
>
> which leads me to ponder why trains can’t report their position accurately,
> rather than relying on proxy systems such as axle counters or track
> circuits. (Before folk chime up about not being able to see GPS satellites
> in cuttings etc, it is possible to rebroadcast GPS signals and use other
> radio beacon methods. Or balises)
>
>

Are you suggesting this as a replacement for track circuits/axle counters
in signalling, or in addition to?

If it's as a replacement for, you'd have to be very very confident that the
reading wasn't even 1m out.

I'm quite happy for the track to continue to report whether or not it's
occupied by a train.

Anna Noyd-Dryver