There's no obvious leaky feeder cable for the new train control system. Does
it use discrete antennas or is it fed through the rails like the old one?

B2003

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:06:51 +0000
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:48:45 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

There's no obvious leaky feeder cable for the new train control system. Does
it use discrete antennas or is it fed through the rails like the old one?

http://www.districtdavesforum.co.uk/...on=display&thr
ad=16068

Interesting. Can't tell from that though whether its fixed block or moving
block. Anyone know?

"The transponder sends a 2.4GHz data signal back to the reader."

2.4Ghz eh? And LU is rolling out wifi into stations. Hmm. What could possibly
go wrong?

B2003

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:38:54 +0000
Paul Corfield wrote:
"The transponder sends a 2.4GHz data signal back to the reader."

2.4Ghz eh? And LU is rolling out wifi into stations. Hmm. What could possibly
go wrong?

I'm not a techie - are you suggesting there is an interference risk?

Depends what frequencies around the 2.4Ghz band they use but if they use
ones on or near the wifi ones then yes. No doubt they used that band because
its license free but I wouldn't have thought you'd have needed a license if
its only ever used underground. I suspect the risk is small but why take it
at all?

B2003

In message , d
wrote:
"The transponder sends a 2.4GHz data signal back to the reader."

2.4Ghz eh? And LU is rolling out wifi into stations. Hmm. What could
possibly
go wrong?

I'm not a techie - are you suggesting there is an interference risk?

Depends what frequencies around the 2.4Ghz band they use but if they use
ones on or near the wifi ones then yes. No doubt they used that band because
its license free but I wouldn't have thought you'd have needed a license if
its only ever used underground. I suspect the risk is small but why take it
at all?

You need a licence (or to be exempt) whether or not you're underground.

Bluetooth and WiFi in the 2.4 GHz band is limited to 10 mW and has other
restrictions on duty cycle and power density. Railway equipment in 2.446
to 2.454 is allowed 500 mW in a narrow channel ( 1.5 MHz). Given that
the application is a train passing straight over the transponder in the
four foot, I suspect that the WiFi signal won't even be noticed.

(That band is Bluetooth channels 44 to 52 inclusive (out of 0 to 78).
WiFi channels 8 and 9 completely cover it, while channels 7 and 10 have
some overlap and 6 and 11 just touch it.)

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In message , Clive D. W. Feather
writes
In message , d
wrote:
"The transponder sends a 2.4GHz data signal back to the reader."
2.4Ghz eh? And LU is rolling out wifi into stations. Hmm. What could
possibly
go wrong?
I'm not a techie - are you suggesting there is an interference risk?
Depends what frequencies around the 2.4Ghz band they use but if they use
ones on or near the wifi ones then yes. No doubt they used that band because
its license free but I wouldn't have thought you'd have needed a license if
its only ever used underground. I suspect the risk is small but why take it
at all?
You need a licence (or to be exempt) whether or not you're underground.
Bluetooth and WiFi in the 2.4 GHz band is limited to 10 mW and has
other restrictions on duty cycle and power density. Railway equipment
in 2.446 to 2.454 is allowed 500 mW in a narrow channel ( 1.5 MHz).
Given that the application is a train passing straight over the
transponder in the four foot, I suspect that the WiFi signal won't even
be noticed.
(That band is Bluetooth channels 44 to 52 inclusive (out of 0 to 78).
WiFi channels 8 and 9 completely cover it, while channels 7 and 10 have
some overlap and 6 and 11 just touch it.)
The Victoria line trains when new had the controlling current through
the running rails. It was about 680Hz for full speed, about 450Hz full
series, about 260Hz to coast and anything less full brake application.
The trains haven't changed, has the signalling system?
--
Clive

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:09:07 +0000
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote:
In message , d
wrote:
"The transponder sends a 2.4GHz data signal back to the reader."

2.4Ghz eh? And LU is rolling out wifi into stations. Hmm. What could
possibly
go wrong?

I'm not a techie - are you suggesting there is an interference risk?

Depends what frequencies around the 2.4Ghz band they use but if they use
ones on or near the wifi ones then yes. No doubt they used that band because
its license free but I wouldn't have thought you'd have needed a license if
its only ever used underground. I suspect the risk is small but why take it
at all?

You need a licence (or to be exempt) whether or not you're underground.

Bluetooth and WiFi in the 2.4 GHz band is limited to 10 mW and has other
restrictions on duty cycle and power density. Railway equipment in 2.446
to 2.454 is allowed 500 mW in a narrow channel ( 1.5 MHz). Given that
the application is a train passing straight over the transponder in the
four foot, I suspect that the WiFi signal won't even be noticed.

Thats all very well, but whats stopping someone shoving a bluetooth signal
through a linear amp to disrupt the comms? If you think thats a stupid thing
to do , well hackers tend to do stupid things.

Spud

In article ,
wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:09:07 +0000
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote:

Bluetooth and WiFi in the 2.4 GHz band is limited to 10 mW and has other
restrictions on duty cycle and power density. Railway equipment in 2.446
to 2.454 is allowed 500 mW in a narrow channel ( 1.5 MHz). Given that
the application is a train passing straight over the transponder in the
four foot, I suspect that the WiFi signal won't even be noticed.

Thats all very well, but whats stopping someone shoving a bluetooth signal
through a linear amp to disrupt the comms? If you think thats a stupid thing
to do , well hackers tend to do stupid things.

There was the case in China recently where repeated disruption to a
2.4GHz metro train control system was blamed on a high number of personal
wireless hubs built into passengers' equipment. This article is a bit
lacking in technical details but gives the outline:
http://english.caijing.com.cn/2012-11-20/112296950.html

Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

In message ,
d wrote:
Bluetooth and WiFi in the 2.4 GHz band is limited to 10 mW and has other
restrictions on duty cycle and power density. Railway equipment in 2.446
to 2.454 is allowed 500 mW in a narrow channel ( 1.5 MHz). Given that
the application is a train passing straight over the transponder in the
four foot, I suspect that the WiFi signal won't even be noticed.

Thats all very well, but whats stopping someone shoving a bluetooth signal
through a linear amp to disrupt the comms? If you think thats a stupid thing
to do , well hackers tend to do stupid things.

It would have to be a big linear amp. These transponders are used with
the train over them, so if the idiot is standing 1m from the platform
edge he needs about a factor of 800 amplification to reach the strength
of the transponder signal.

In any case, the only purpose of these transponders is to confirm the
train's exact position. It works something like this. The train starts
at a known position, call it zero. It count wheel rotations to work out
how far it's gone. Now suppose that these have an accuracy of 2%. Then
after it's gone what it thinks is 200 metres, its position is somewhere
in the range 196 to 204 metres from zero. After 500 metres it is
somewhere between 490 and 510, and so on. It therefore makes all its
safety decisions based on whichever limit is the more conservative.
Whenever it passes over one of these boxes, that resets its knowledge of
the position. They're supposed to be no more than 200 metres apart, so
that means it is at most 4 metres wrong in its calculations. If an idiot
disrupts one box, that simply means that the maximum error increases to
8 metres before resyncing. But the signalling will be designed to take
this into account and provide wider margins around a train that hasn't
synced recently. (Also recall that there's a 25m static margin anyway
for safety.)

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: