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

Re: crossing but....

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 23 , Feb 24, 2011
    • 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 2 of 23 , Feb 28, 2011
      • 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 3 of 23 , Feb 28, 2011
        • 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 4 of 23 , Mar 1 4:30 PM
          • 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 5 of 23 , Mar 1 7:09 PM
            • 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 6 of 23 , Mar 1 9:00 PM
              • 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 7 of 23 , Mar 1 9:18 PM
                • 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.