> >Even if all heck breaks loose after Y2K, trains can still run, they'll just > >do it the old fashioned way with handwritten orders and track warrants. (DTC > >authority on CSX) Seeing as how there is still much dark territory in US > >railroads there is a certain amount of that that goes on everyday!
Welllllll.
It goes on on certain tracks/divisions/whatever, with enough skilled people to handle _those_ areas. And _those_ areas are the light traffic ones anyway. The people, and techniques, to do that system wide, for major traffic levels, don't exist.
Most of the people to issue those hand written orders are no longer located where they can deliver them. And most of them no longer are used to a _real_ _paper_ environment. (There's CAD (Computer Aided Dispatching) that backs up the decision making process.) And the com links have lotsof nice 'puters in between that might (or might not) still be 100% functional.
Dispatching by paper is a learned skiil. If learned And Practiced, daily, at both the dispatch and train crew end it is very safe, else, it can get real unsafe real quick. Case in pooint, 10 years or so back, a normally double track/CTC/ABS line 'near' here was singled, with train order, temporarily, for maintanance on the other track. 'dispatch' lost track of one train and three people died....
I've no idea if Y2K will be a mojor impact or no, but 'just issuing train orders' is a lot harder to do, and do safely, than it may appear.
-- thanks dave pierson |the facts, as accurately as i can manage, Compaq Computer Corporation |the opinions, my own. 334 South St | Shrewsbury, Mass. 01545 USA |pier...@ggone.enet.dec.com "He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing." A J Raffles "The Net of a million lies..." att. to Vernor Vinge
Assume that a Y2K glitch does bring down a dispatching system, for whatever reason. Handwriting/typing the train orders is a minor problem.
How are you going to get the orders to the train crews? Communication systems are at least as vulnerable as the dispatching systems. Remember, even in the "good old days" the dispatcher had telephone or telegraph to communicate with the operator who typed the orders and handed them up to the train crew. All of that "infrastructure" is GONE!!! A dispatcher in Jacksonville can't carry the order to the crew in Ohio!
In article <19990607212618.07910.00002...@ng-fs1.aol.com>,
Max565 <max...@aol.com> wrote: >Soooo . . ., how soon will you be able to provide the list of those nuclear >power generation facilities. That'd be the one that contains the names and >locations of MORE than 23 located in North America.
It takes about a minute on yahoo to find such a list. Any more doom and gloom lies to post?
In article <19990607215409.07910.00002...@ng-fs1.aol.com>,
Max565 <max...@aol.com> wrote: >I would be remiss if I didn't point out the fact that there seems to be a more >authoritative source monitoring the newsgroup, so my opinions are subject to >severe criticism.
When you use bullshit instead of actual facts as a basis for your opinions what else would you expect? This is usenet, if you don't like "severe criticism" you shouldn't be here.
> Assume that a Y2K glitch does bring down a dispatching system, for > whatever reason. Handwriting/typing the train orders is a minor > problem.
> How are you going to get the orders to the train crews? Communication > systems are at least as vulnerable as the dispatching systems. > Remember, even in the "good old days" the dispatcher had telephone or > telegraph to communicate with the operator who typed the orders and > handed them up to the train crew. All of that "infrastructure" is > GONE!!! A dispatcher in Jacksonville can't carry the order to the crew > in Ohio!
> FG
If absoultely nothing else works, we do have means in our operating rules for running without signals or communications. It does require a caboose for positive protection of the rear. Although a working two way eot usually suffices.
In article <19990606204656.02091.00001...@ng-co1.aol.com>, max...@aol.com (Max565) writes:
> They are controlled by large, mainframe computers, using dozens of > different languages, and over the years they've been maintained by hundreds of > different programmers, who didn't keep very good records of their maintenence > activities.
*ahem* excuse me as I butt into this non-rail thread, but I happen to be one of those "hundreds" of programmers who wrote programs for computers used in nuke plants, Westinghouse to be specific. Rather than mainframes, the power plants tended to use rather smallish Sparcstations from Sun. Mainframes are totally unsuited for the real-time requirements of many (nuke and conventional) power plant operations.
There's also very little in the way of date functions that would cause nuke plants (or any other power generating plant for that matter) to shut down.
Since you seem to be an expert on the topic, though, I'd like to see a list of the "dozens of different languages" used by these mythical "mainframes."
> They didn't begin fixing the computer code until mid 1997, > mostly because of the bureaucracies that run the places.
There certainly is a hesitation to upgrade because of the regulatory paperwork it entails, but when it becomes time to bite the bullet...
> This has been compounded by the fact that this kind of > project is commonplace among large software users, but there has NEVER been an > immovable end date until now.
Programmers are continually dealing with modifying software to meet "immovable end dates." Compliance with government regulations which come into effect on a certain date is a prime example, e.g. new reporting requirements for the IRS or Immigration or a host of other government agencies which businesses deal with on a daily basis. The Euro is another example. Y2K compliance is just a variation on that theme; it's nothing new.
> If they shut down all of the nuclear power generation facilities, all > those that remain will be of the analog, (READ: older, conventional technology > using coal fired or moving H2O as power), type.
Illinois for the past two years was without a significant portion of its power generating capacity because all of Edison's and Illinois Power's nuke plants were offline. The utilities had some problems meeting peak demand during the summer months, but was doing just fine for the rest of the year.
Allow me to restate that: peak demand is in the summer, during the day -- not on a cold night in the middle of winter.
> you can't qualify a > nuclear facility as analog, simply because of it's use of analog equipment. > It's the plutoneum that causes the danger.
Oh I get it, plutonium is what's digital.
Mr Larsen, my intention here is not to flame you, but do you realize you lose all credibility when you use this language about "analog" versus nuclear power plants? You sound like the car mechanic that tries to tell the customer that the berryllium overthruster in the shiftomatic converter needs to be replaced. It's nonsense language that tries to sound technical.
>> The plant that was damaged by the tornado receives, or >>received, three trainloads a day of coal from Wyoming on the Union >>Pacific. Indeed, it is a sufficiently large customer that it is >>a place named in the UP employee timetable as "OG&E Spur" and is >>the south end of CTC on that line.
Ooops, rail-related. We can't have that here :-) But it's been an amusing diversion.
You may be completely accurate that all of the nuclear stations will need to be taken offline, but your fundamental statistic that 60% of North American generation capacity is nuclear is laughable. I'm honestly not certain of the exact number, but it is considerably less than 15%. The last figure I remember reading was 8%, and that's probably shrunk since then, because new coal and gas plants go up all the time, but no new nuclear station has been built for 15 years.
So, cool your jets. Yes, there may well be power interruptions for a few days after the new year, but nothing on the order of 60% will be affected.
> >> There are 23 nuclear power generation facilities in North America > >>which account for the production of 60% of the North American Power Grid. > >>NONE of them will be compliant in time for the Y2K rollover and therefore > >>MUST SHUT DOWN COMPLETELY. I'd say that means that 60% of the North > >>American Power Grid will become inoperable on or before January 01, 2000.
> > Why would they have to be SHUT DOWN COMPLETELY (whether in capital > >letters or not)? What about their operations is dependent on the date?
> They are controlled by large, mainframe computers, using dozens of > different languages, and over the years they've been maintained by hundreds of > different programmers, who didn't keep very good records of their maintenence > activities. These mainframe computers control thousands of monitoring and > maintenence checks daily. EVERYTHING, (caps for emphasis), is done on a > time/date basis. They didn't begin fixing the computer code until mid 1997, > mostly because of the bureaucracies that run the places, and there simply > hasn't been enough accomplished to get to the compliant levels needed before > the magic day arrives. This has been compounded by the fact that this kind of > project is commonplace among large software users, but there has NEVER been an > immovable end date until now.
> >> Think about that for a moment! We'll be depending upon the > >>remaining 40% of the North American Power Grid for ALL electrical power > >>. . . . .IF . . . . the remaining analog generation facilities are 100% > >>Y2K compliant. Who wants to bet that they are??
> > What is the meaning of this statement about "remaining analog > >generating stations"?
> If they shut down all of the nuclear power generation facilities, all > those that remain will be of the analog, (READ: older, conventional technology > using coal fired or moving H2O as power), type. These would be the ones left > operational under the theory that the nukes couldn't safely perform due to Y2K, > because of the meltdown possibilities when their computers burp.
> > Nuclear generating plants use analog generating equipment > >(usually alternators) just as those powered by other fuels do.
> > And, again, what part of their operations is dependent on the > >date in generating stations not powered by nuclear fuel?
> Yes, but the SYSTEm is what counts. Making a maintenence move in a > Nuke generation facility is much more complex and redundent that that in an > analog facility. We're talking total sysltems here. you can't qualify a > nuclear facility as analog, simply because of it's use of analog equipment. > It's the plutoneum that causes the danger.
> >>Call your local power company and ask about getting a written guarentee on > >>Y2K. Hold the phone away from your ear for the response, which is likely to > >>be loud laughter.
> > Our power company, far from laughing about it, has sent a notice > >to customers that they believe they will have no difficulties with Y2K, > >but they cannot guarantee there will be no interruptions, just as they > >cannot guarantee there will be no interruptions at other times.
> And you have no choice but to put your faith in them, right?? Enough > faith that you will make NO preparations in case they might be wrong or > disengenuous?? Believe me -- I want to be wrong on this issue. I'm not making > a career out of predicting doom and gloom from Y2K. I certainly HOPE and PRAY > that things end up better off than the evidence indicates they will.
> > This is particularly apropos with the widespread destruction > >by tornadoes, one of F5 strength with 318 mph winds, in our area, and > >which did indeed cause destruction of not only distribution facilities > >but also of significant intercity transmission lines.
> > Taken together with tornado damage (in a different tornado in > >a different part of the state) which put their largest generating > >station out of service, it is not unreasonable to believe that there > >may be power interruptions at other times than January 1, 2000, and > >for other reasons.
> > The plant that was damaged by the tornado receives, or > >received, three trainloads a day of coal from Wyoming on the Union > >Pacific. Indeed, it is a sufficiently large customer that it is > >a place named in the UP employee timetable as "OG&E Spur" and is > >the south end of CTC on that line.
> > Interestingly enough, while I have had power outages at other > >times, there were no power interruptions at my location either at > >the time of the tornado on May 3 or at the time of the damage to > >the plant near Muskogee.
> I've been to that plant on a couple of occasions, while working a > particular project with Union Pacific. I've even been to the Powder River area > and South Morrill, where those trains originate. I know the facility and some > of it's rail interfaces. It is completely analog -- no nuclear generation at > all. Compliant?? I doubt it. What about it's interfaces, (those computer > links to the outside world for the necessities provided to it), and all of the > shared computer code among all of it's connections the the grid?? You do > understand the concept of the North American Power Grid, I hope!!??!!
> I'm saying there will be a significant reduction in available power > generation capacity. Enough of a reduction that there may very well be a > national emergency declared and military and political powers will dictate the > allocation of the electrical power to the larger municipalities and > concentrations of population. Gosh, I hope I'm wrong, but if you know anything > about the way corporate politics and corporate boards of directors work, then > you can understand why no one is waiving any large red flags warning fo these > possibilities. In the work that I do, on a daily basis, I see things that > would make your hair curl, done by people with earning capacity in the high six > figure range, that may save a few dollars on a budget now, only to ignore > impending doom for a software system in the VERY NEAR FUTURE. These same > people refuse to listen to their advisors, that there will always be underlings > to blame. Documentation is destroyed regularly, with the knowlege that future > corporate dollars will be wasted in huge amounts.
> Good Luck and God Bless, > Dan Larsen
> Evidence, Inc. (Serving all of NE and IA since 1988) > PO Box 873 > Council Bluffs, IA 51502-0873
The corresponding figures are 105 reactors having 13% of the US' total generating capacity and producing 19% of total electricity generated. No total megawattage is shown.
So, I was pretty low on the total generated, but not so bad from memory on the percentage of capacity.
The reason that 13% of capacity produces 19% of total output is that nuclear stations are run all the time. They take quite a while to heat up and a looooooong time to cool down, so they are unsuitable for "peaking" power. Like hydro and coal they are used for the basic industrial load. Gas is used to provide peaking capacity.
Max565 wrote: > >Too bad your numbers aren't even close to being correct. There are > >a lot more that 23 and they don't even close to generating 60%. It's > >closer to 20%.
> >Is anybody surprised that a y2k doom-monger would have his number so > >far off?
> Soooo . . ., how soon will you be able to provide the list of those nuclear > power generation facilities. That'd be the one that contains the names and > locations of MORE than 23 located in North America. We'll go along with any > percentage figure you care to quote about them, once you've published their > names and locations, so we can get an accurate count from a REAL AUTHORITY ON > THE SUBJECT. (Please accept my personal apology for stepping into an area > where I didn't realize that there were more authoritative sources monitoring > the newsgroup for inaccuracies!) Please hurry, I'm sure there are a number of > people who will be very surprised at the list.
