Railroad question

[nslt204]

snip>161.41500 146.49000 AAR CH 87 Railfan Repeater Autopatch to Railroad Police FM Railroad <snip

I just noticed the above info in the Wisconsin info here. Anyone have more info?
Where is this set up? etc.

Thanks,

 

[triryche]

I was wondering this myself. I have not been able to translate the rules into a legal way to patch amateur radio frequencies with any sort of other service unless it is an emergency. Perhaps this is considered to be for emergency? I was told by a railfanner last year that this is some sort of nationwide idea that is trying to be incorporated with all major railways. Not sure how far it's gotten..

146.490 is a designated simplex frequency.

 

[djeplett]

???
Yeah, someone needs to explain.

 

[OpSec]

Unless there is some "ground truth" data to back that up, it sounds like a foamer has been having wet dreams again. An amateur simplex to RR channel patch? Even if a railroad set up a PBX on that channel, who or what is making the patch? What are the DTMF codes to access it? I don't see those posted.

Sounds fishy to me.

 

[nslt204]

That is what I am thinking.
I can see having some sort of auto patch on a repeater(s) to the rail police dispatch but that would not involve the mixing of services.
Also with the proliferation of cell service and repeaters set up to phone patch what would be the point to have this kind of a limited system?

Unless there is some "ground truth" data to back that up, it sounds like a foamer has been having wet dreams again. An amateur simplex to RR channel patch? Even if a railroad set up a PBX on that channel, who or what is making the patch? What are the DTMF codes to access it? I don't see those posted.

Sounds fishy to me.

 

[triryche]

OK, the best I could find by snooping around online is that this is perhaps something originatiing in Canada. I don't see references to any direct radio to radio patch with the Railroad but I see references to the ham frequencies having access to a telephone autiopatch to the Railroad which is completely legal. So the question remains where is this being used in the US and who controls it?

Either way, if someone is operating a repeater on 146.490, they are way out of the US Band Plan but I guess a simplex autopatch link isn't out of the question.

 

[flyingscotsman]

after a long discusion with a ham operator and a couple members of my railroad club one of whom is a Canadian National rail police officer. the freq 161.415 is the CN police frequency used on the former wisconsin central line. and it is patched to the national simplex freq 146.490 for emergencies only. He also said only certain authorized ham ops have access at this point..

(seems to me it is an experiment in the kenosha/racine area from Canadian National RR)


Do not quote me on any of this , because it is only hearsay and Info was from various sources.

 

[triryche]

after am long discusion with a ham operator and a couple members of my railroad club one of whom is a Canadian National rail police officer. the freq 161.415 is the CN police frequency used on the former wisconsin central line. and it is patched to the national simplex freq 146.490 for emergencies only. He also said only certain authorized ham ops have access at this point..

(seems to me it is an experiment in the kenosha/racine area from Canadian National RR)


Do not quote me on any of this , because it is only hearsay and Info was from various sources.

We still don't have an answer as to by what means two simplex frequencies are being patched together by. There has to be a mechanical "middle man" so to speak on this. You can't just tie two VHF frequencies together without a control point of some sort in between.

I find the part about certain authorized ham ops have access to be somewhat controversial as well because you cannot limit an amateur operator from using a standard simplex frequency in such a manner, particularly in an Emergency. I also would like to know what routine emergencies take place involving hams and trains that triggered the need for such a thing. A lot of peculiarity and foggy ideas lurk around this one....

 

[flyingscotsman]

I was only relaying what I was told from the Railroad club meeting... I agree with you about simplex frq's .. I am trying to solve this mystery like everybody else,...and was only passing on info.

Since some Info came from A CN rep. It is my believe you should be questioning CN not me.

 

[nslt204]

I don't believe Mike was shooting the messenger as it were, but was pointing out the questions that remain.
The statement from the CN rep bothers me on several levels. One only certain Hams have access to an open freq? While this can be done on private repeaters or during emergency contact or net, a national simplex is quite another.
Also the out of service cross band is a significant issue. I doubt the FCC would approve in all but the most dire of needs, example would be a Katrina type disaster and the absents of any other communications. The fact that they have this "experiment" indicates preplanning and it is not a spur of the moment set up in a life or significant property threat. There have been Hams busted for talking on PS freq in an emergency. Even though they were reporting an emergency they had other communications available and they had preprogrammed radios for local Public Safety channels indicating a planned intent.
It would be nice if the person that submitted the info to the database would shed some light on it.
I have talked to a couple of long time rail-fans in my local amateur club and this is the first they have heard of this.

The mystery continues!

I was only relaying what I was told from the Railroad club meeting... I agree with you about simplex frq's .. I am trying to solve this mystery like everybody else,...and was only passing on info.

Since some Info came from A CN rep. It is my believe you should be questioning CN not me.

 

[triryche]

I was only relaying what I was told from the Railroad club meeting... I agree with you about simplex frq's .. I am trying to solve this mystery like everybody else,...and was only passing on info.

Since some Info came from A CN rep. It is my believe you should be questioning CN not me.

Don't worry man... I wasn't lighing you up! Your input was greatly appreciated. I threw in my message hoping to catch the eyes of more folks who may have some more answers to this.

 

[OpSec]

I don't believe Mike was shooting the messenger as it were, but was pointing out the questions that remain.
The statement from the CN rep bothers me on several levels. One only certain Hams have access to an open freq? While this can be done on private repeaters or during emergency contact or net, a national simplex is quite another.
Also the out of service cross band is a significant issue. I doubt the FCC would approve in all but the most dire of needs, example would be a Katrina type disaster and the absents of any other communications. The fact that they have this "experiment" indicates preplanning and it is not a spur of the moment set up in a life or significant property threat. There have been Hams busted for talking on PS freq in an emergency. Even though they were reporting an emergency they had other communications available and they had preprogrammed radios for local Public Safety channels indicating a planned intent.
It would be nice if the person that submitted the info to the database would shed some light on it.
I have talked to a couple of long time rail-fans in my local amateur club and this is the first they have heard of this.

The mystery continues!

Figures that it has to be CN....I have a contact at CP, but I may rattle his cage anyway.

The issue here now appears to be access and useage protocol. Since these aren't public safety channels and the hams are transmitting on the railroad channel directly, or vise-versa, then I don't think there is anything against FCC regs at this point. If the new information is correct, it sounds like the railroad willingly set up a patch to allow the CN bulls and some trusted ham buff-types to communicate with each other. The only possible regulatory issue is the non-hams (CN) transmitting on 146.490, but even that is a foggy area since they aren't directly transmitting on tha ham channel. What does Part 95 say about rebroadcasting...it's been a long time since I looked. CN can certainly let the ham traffic be rebroadcast on their channel, and as long as the ham's aren't transmitting on the CN channel directly with ham gear, there is no issue on that side of the house.

I would certainly like to know more about this...from a public safety, train geek and ham operator standpoint. I also need to add 161.415 into my gear as I never had that channel in anything. If this is determined to be legit, I will officially retract my "foamer wet dream" statement, but still stick by it sounding fishy.

 

[flyingscotsman]

Sorry, Mike ,.....

I have been on other forums where they attack without reading complete posts, so I got defensive, I appologize by the wayI don't go to those forsaid forums anymore because of that.. (I appologize.)


_____________________
p.s. I am not a ham but want to get licenced, however I have been relocated to Richmond Va with my job at HP. more on that later.

 

[triryche]

Basically it comes down to this..

NO other service can be patched with, rebroadcasted with, repeated on, or linked with amateur radio frequencies; repeater or otherwise. Again, dire emergency comes into play but I personally have yet to forsee a situation existing where a person railfanning with a 2 meter rig in hand is going to be the key link in an emergency situation and/or it being the only communications means possible. Perhaps if a person sees a potential collision at a crossing or something I suppose but we still don't have a definite plan of design on how this is working. There has to be another frequency on another band involved if patching two VHF signals together which means there is a secondary control station which must be licensed and ID itself.

Wide area ham repeaters generally have remote recieve sites that receive on the intended VHF frequency but retransmit the signal on UHF to the main repeater site for wider area portable coverage. If by chance the railroad is running a crossband link to/from the ham frequency, then it will be illegal regardless because they/it must ID with a valid amateur callsign.

If this is really neccesary and the Railroad is accepting traffic thru it's police channels from out of agency personel, it would make more sense for rail fanning hams to use a business band VHF radio capable of transmitting on RR channels as well as Amateur.

my 2 cents.. not a cut and paste of FCC rules but....

 

[djeplett]

it is patched to the national simplex freq 146.490 for emergencies only.

Sounds like a RACES/ARES disaster idea. Could work in a major train derailment or some other such instance where ARES might be activated.

He also said only certain authorized ham ops have access at this point. (seems to me it is an experiment in the kenosha/racine area from Canadian National RR)

Maybe only the ECs for Kenosha/Racine, then?

Do not quote me on any of this

Too late.

 

[KB9NLL]

Interoperability?

My 7 pennies:

Weyawega (waupaca county) train derailment lasted quite a bit.

During emergencies any one can use amateur radio right? And during weather spotting this past summer I heard some guy never I.D. said 10-4 and copy many times on the ham repeater using the ham radio in the sheriff comm. center (I'm assuming it was an deputy or the county emergency management guy). Oops maybe I'm wrong I glanced at the rules and it seems to be only in getting help, otherwise the control operator has to physically be there at the radio.

And there's (or used to be) a repeater in Wausau that retransmits space shuttle communications (I lived in stevens point then wisconsin rapids at the time).

Also if it's a railroad frequency whether police are using it or not it's allocated as a railroad freq.

I'm probably wrong just wondering, kind of...

 

[OpSec]

My 7 pennies:

Weyawega (waupaca county) train derailment lasted quite a bit.

During emergencies any one can use amateur radio right? And during weather spotting this past summer I heard some guy never I.D. said 10-4 and copy many times on the ham repeater using the ham radio in the sheriff comm. center (I'm assuming it was an deputy or the county emergency management guy). Oops maybe I'm wrong I glanced at the rules and it seems to be only in getting help, otherwise the control operator has to physically be there at the radio.

And there's (or used to be) a repeater in Wausau that retransmits space shuttle communications (I lived in stevens point then wisconsin rapids at the time).

Also if it's a railroad frequency whether police are using it or not it's allocated as a railroad freq.

I'm probably wrong just wondering, kind of...

Only licensed amateurs can use amateur freqs.

NASA broadcasts and NWS broadcasts are allowable retranmissions on amateur freqs.

 

[triryche]

I heard some guy never I.D. said 10-4 and copy many times on the ham repeater using the ham radio in the sheriff comm. center (I'm assuming it was an deputy or the county emergency management guy).

This would more than likely be allowed in a major emergency if the law enforcement personell need to communicate with ARES however it would be a good idea for someone to0 be licensed anyway. There are no "rules" regarding the use of 10-codes and other language such as "copy" as long as they are not codes designed to obscure meaning. 10-4 isn't considered appropriate because it makes you sound like a CB'er and outside of the "appropriate guidelines" for good ham conduct but you can't be punished or have your licensed taken away for saying it. That a big 10-4 there Rubber Duck? :wink:

 

[RevGary]

Roger, Roger... We have clearance, Clarence... What's the vector, Victor?

 

[cpd38]

Roger, Roger... We have clearance, Clarence... What's the vector, Victor?

Doesn't sound any worse than "message received" does it????