Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [coldwarcomms] Re: L-Carrier

Expand Messages
  • Paul Zawada
    I m pretty sure cpe is right... The maps I have show the L4 coax heading due west out of Bluffton. The Wapakoneta facility is way too far south for it to be
    Message 1 of 23 , Feb 23 8:20 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm pretty sure cpe is right... The maps I have show the L4 coax heading
      due west out of Bluffton. The Wapakoneta facility is way too far south for
      it to be on the E-W L4 out of Bluffton. The cable would have had to
      practically head due south from Bluffton in order to hit that location.

      I always assumed that facility was originally a power feed for the N-S coax
      between Toledo and Dayton. The E-W L4 route would have utilized all
      underground facilities. The Wapakoneta structure is too small and too close
      to the road to be an entrance to such a facility. Also, US-30 heads
      northwest from I-75 into Fort Wayne and hits I-69 at the northwest side of
      town, so it's not a good measure of how far south the cable route is when it
      crosses I-69.

      I understand the original N-S cable was put in rather early (L1 maybe?) as a
      side leg to the original transcontinental microwave route. It was put in to
      carry television to Dayton, Cincinnati, and Columbus. From Dayton, the
      route continued on microwave utilizing the same concrete structures used on
      the northern E-W route. See Albert's pages:
      http://long-lines.net/places-routes/Springboro/index.html
      http://long-lines.net/places-routes/Ohio-mw.html

      The earlier L1 cable would have probably required smaller amount of
      equipment in an above-ground power feed station, which would line up with
      the Wapakoneta facility.

      --zawada

      On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 7:30 PM, michael_schwiebert <
      michael.schwiebert@...> wrote:

      >
      > I figured that it's on the Bluffton-Plano route for the following reasons:
      > 1. The signage has the pole-top "tents" for aerial viewing purposes that
      > the N-S route out of Toledo does not have. 2. The route warning signage has
      > "AT&T Transcontinental Cable" etc. on them, instead of the Ohio Bell Signage
      > that the N-S route has (at least to Findlay). From what I understand the
      > line west out of Bluffton arc'd out in a southwesterly line (If I recall
      > correctly it crossed I-69 in Indiana well south of Fort Wayne - which may
      > have been the purpose of doing this, contrasted if the route went straight
      > out of Bluffton - which is north of US 30, it would not have crossed I-69
      > where it does).
      >
      > I haven't spent a lot of time trying to trace the N-S rotue south of
      > Findlay, but it enters Findlay on a due N-S line east of I-75. I've been
      > able to follow it to a point just a little south of where the new Owens
      > Community College Campus is (near the Norfolk Southern track) but I've lost
      > the path after that.
      >
      > Michael Schwiebert
      > Perrysburg OH
      >
      >
      > >
      > > I do not find a continuing response to this 2005 thread.
      > >
      > > I have not found the first structure Michael referred to (removed?), and
      > the second (near Wapakoneta) almost sounds like a station on the N-S route
      > I've been looking for (but at 29 miles SSW of Bluffton it far too south to
      > be on the Plano-Bluffton L-4).
      > >
      > > /cpe
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David
      ... We have seen multiple cases where the NS cross the EW L-coax near to but not entering a station. Have we ever found a policy reason behind this? You d a
      Message 2 of 23 , Feb 23 8:58 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        On 2/23/11 11:20 PM, Paul Zawada wrote:

        > I'm pretty sure cpe is right... The maps I have show the L4 coax heading
        > due west out of Bluffton. The Wapakoneta facility is way too far south for
        > it to be on the E-W L4 out of Bluffton. The cable would have had to
        > practically head due south from Bluffton in order to hit that location.


        We have seen multiple cases where the NS cross the EW L-coax near to but
        not entering a station.

        Have we ever found a policy reason behind this? You'd a thunk
        versatility/alternate routing was high on the list when things were planned.

        Sure, one cable was there before the other but....
      • OZOB99
        ... Those factors might be convenient, but cost rules(unless uncle sam paying); if the crossing cable was terminated, each side would require a complete L
        Message 3 of 23 , Feb 24 5:48 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, David <wb8foz@...> wrote:
          >
          > On 2/23/11 11:20 PM, Paul Zawada wrote:
          >
          > > I'm pretty sure cpe is right... The maps I have show the L4 coax heading
          > > due west out of Bluffton. The Wapakoneta facility is way too far south for
          > > it to be on the E-W L4 out of Bluffton. The cable would have had to
          > > practically head due south from Bluffton in order to hit that location.
          >
          >
          > We have seen multiple cases where the NS cross the EW L-coax near to but
          > not entering a station.
          >
          > Have we ever found a policy reason behind this? You'd a thunk
          > versatility/alternate routing was high on the list when things were planned.
          >
          > Sure, one cable was there before the other but....

          Those factors might be convenient, but cost rules(unless uncle sam paying); if the crossing cable was terminated, each side would require a complete L MUX,channel banks,etc(+floor space,thus possible building addition),upgrades to power plant & HVAC,etc.
          >
        • cpe122
          ... Here is a crude map that shows Bluffton, Plano, Wapakoneta and a supposed power feed station at Winamac (not on any map I have seen, but there has to be
          Message 4 of 23 , Feb 28 8:47 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, "OZOB99" <ozob99@...> wrote:
            >
            > --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, David <wb8foz@> wrote:
            > >
            > > On 2/23/11 11:20 PM, Paul Zawada wrote:
            > >
            > > > I'm pretty sure cpe is right... The maps I have show the L4 coax heading
            > > > due west out of Bluffton. The Wapakoneta facility is way too far south for
            > > > it to be on the E-W L4 out of Bluffton. The cable would have had to
            > > > practically head due south from Bluffton in order to hit that location.

            Here is a crude map that shows Bluffton, Plano, Wapakoneta and a supposed power feed station at Winamac (not on any map I have seen, but there has to be one as it's too far from Bluffton to Plano w/o one); this may help put things into perspective. Note the rings represent the 54 mile (maximum) equalization range for L-4.

            http://www.gpsvisualizer.com/display/1298952874-02756-64.223.229.173.html
            (you may have to put this back together)

            > > We have seen multiple cases where the NS cross the EW L-coax near to but
            > > not entering a station.
            > >
            > > Have we ever found a policy reason behind this? You'd a thunk
            > > versatility/alternate routing was high on the list when things were planned.
            > >
            > > Sure, one cable was there before the other but....

            I located a L-1/L-4 crossing in a corn field east of Lyons in Iowa. It was a bit of a "let down". The crossing itself was not marked (as far as I could tell--I didn't go rooting around in somebody's corn field proper). There were four markers around the sides of the corn field; if you didn't look numbers and some of other detials that were different over the years, you would know it was two L's crossing.

            > Those factors might be convenient, but cost rules(unless uncle sam paying); if the crossing cable was terminated, each side would require a complete L MUX,channel banks,etc(+floor space,thus possible building addition),upgrades to power plant & HVAC,etc.

            Well sort of. In part I think the point was if you were building a new route and had to site a main station sufficiently near another L (i.e. Bluffton) why not site it on the existing L so as to be able to take advantage of the routing flexibility the junction would offer. It would seem that a junction of disimilar L carrier systems would have do be done in a main station; and Long Lines would have probably wanted to be able to break out circuits thus requiring mux equipment. However this is not always the case with similar L carriers. Springfield Jct. in Mass. was little more than an existing hut with a third cable coming into it.

            On the other hand you've got to be careful which crossings are junctions, their number and juxtapostion, after all the big ones are targets--take out junction station--take out TWO (or more) cables.

            /cpe
          • David
            ... I d think expanding an existing manned station vice building a separate one would be cheaper for a number of reasons; one is manpower once going, but also
            Message 5 of 23 , Feb 28 10:47 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              On 2/28/11 11:47 PM, cpe122 wrote:

              > Well sort of. In part I think the point was if you were building a new
              > route and had to site a main station sufficiently near another L (i.e.
              > Bluffton) why not site it on the existing L so as to be able to take
              > advantage of the routing flexibility the junction would offer.



              I'd think expanding an existing manned station vice building a separate one
              would be cheaper for a number of reasons; one is manpower once going, but
              also fixed costs.

              And no reason a station could not be power feed station for the new line,
              leaving the option of later upgrades.
            • cpe122
              ... I ve studied some of the L s fairly closely; including the specific mileage between L-4 main/power feed stations. Long Lines was pretty particular about
              Message 6 of 23 , Mar 1, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, David <wb8foz@...> wrote:
                >
                > On 2/28/11 11:47 PM, cpe122 wrote:
                >
                > > Well sort of. In part I think the point was if you were building a new
                > > route and had to site a main station sufficiently near another L (i.e.
                > > Bluffton) why not site it on the existing L so as to be able to take
                > > advantage of the routing flexibility the junction would offer.
                >
                > I'd think expanding an existing manned station vice building a separate one
                > would be cheaper for a number of reasons; one is manpower once going, but
                > also fixed costs.
                >
                > And no reason a station could not be power feed station for the new line,
                > leaving the option of later upgrades.

                I've studied some of the L's fairly closely; including the specific mileage between L-4 main/power feed stations. Long Lines was pretty particular about optimizing the length of the equalization and power sections. This normally translates into the fewest buildings and/or repeaters. Optimizing (normally maximizing) the distance of each cable section on long routes has the effect of minimizes the flexibility and odds of it being convenient to "match up" with existing cables. This is ONE of the reasons we see SOME of the branch "tie" cables between routes-some times things "line up" for a L station to be a junction (whether L-to-L, or L-to-R), and some times they don't (of course there are other reasons for these branch cables too, i.e. specific traffic route requirements and target avoidance).

                There are other, perhaps minor, "disincentives" for creating junctions at crossings during new construction. Two items that come to mind are the differences in power systems and multiplex between the different versions of L carrier. To create a junction would mean dealing with both power systems and some amount of multiplex equipment to break the carrier down to the requisite Jumbogroup and/or Mastergroups to go between different versions of L carrier. I would note sometimes L's were upgraded, i.e. L-3 to (a 12 tube) L-4 to avoid these issues even when the extra capacity wasn't apparently used.

                /cpe
              • Paul Zawada
                ... Here s a link to the location of the Winamac underground. It s actually closer to the small town of Pulaski:
                Message 7 of 23 , Mar 1, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:47 PM, cpe122 <long-lines@...> wrote:

                  >
                  > Here is a crude map that shows Bluffton, Plano, Wapakoneta and a supposed
                  > power feed station at Winamac (not on any map I have seen, but there has to
                  > be one as it's too far from Bluffton to Plano w/o one);


                  Here's a link to the location of the Winamac underground. It's actually
                  closer to the small town of Pulaski:

                  http://toolserver.org/~geohack/geohack.php?params=40_58_51_N_86_39_19_W

                  The location of the station is less than a mile outside of the blue circle
                  on your map. I'd say that's pretty much right on the mark!

                  It was for sale a couple of years ago.. It may still be available:

                  http://www.missilebases.com/pulaskiindiana

                  --zawada


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • David
                  ... I had not considered that aspect; and it would add a large burden to any such design. They were very sure of their design, and so pushed each leg to the
                  Message 8 of 23 , Mar 1, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 3/1/11 7:30 PM, cpe122 wrote:

                    > Long Lines was pretty particular about optimizing the length of the
                    > equalization and power sections. This normally translates into the
                    > fewest buildings and/or repeaters. Optimizing (normally maximizing) the
                    > distance of each cable section on long routes has the effect of
                    > minimizes the flexibility and odds of it being convenient to "match up"
                    > with existing cables.


                    I had not considered that aspect; and it would add a large burden to any
                    such design.

                    They were very sure of their design, and so pushed each leg to the limit.

                    I seem to recall that bit them on one ?Socal? leg that arced over regularly
                    due to the high voltage needed.
                  • arkyjoe123
                    One of the L-3 cables out of Jacksonville, FL ran at high enough voltage that it was pressurized with Sulfur Hexaflouride gas to prevent arc over. There were
                    Message 9 of 23 , Mar 1, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      One of the L-3 cables out of Jacksonville, FL ran at high enough voltage that it was pressurized with Sulfur Hexaflouride gas to prevent arc over. There were red tags on the cable in every manhole it went through.

                      73, JOE

                      --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, David <wb8foz@...> wrote:
                      >

                      >
                      > I seem to recall that bit them on one ?Socal? leg that arced over regularly
                      > due to the high voltage needed.
                      >
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.