Lightning Strikes
EeeeYikes
.c The Associated Press
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- A lightning strike at a communications center slowed or
halted rail traffic -- including 11 Amtrak trains -- in parts of the East and
Midwest. Some 200 trains were affected.
The lightning struck a CSX communications center in Jacksonville, Fla., at 5:30
p.m. Thursday, knocking out the signal system between Chicago and Philadelphia,
parts of Michigan and in the Kentucky-West Virginia coal region, CSX
Transportation spokesman Adam Hollingsworth said.
Radio communication between crews and dispatchers were also affected.
``It slowed and, in some places, stopped rail traffic until the signal system
could be restored,'' Hollingsworth said. ``In some areas, we were able to use
portable signal equipment and cellular phones to safely keep the trains
running.''
He said about 200 trains were affected by the outage, including 15 passenger
trains operated by Amtrak and commuter lines Virginia Railway Express and
Maryland Area Rail Commuter. None of the Amtrak trains -- all in the
Washington, D.C., area -- were delayed more than four hours.
CSX runs about 1,300 trains daily through the affected areas. Amtrak, VRE and
MARC operate on CSX-maintained tracks.
David Kerr was among the stranded VRE commuters who were still sitting on a
train three hours after leaving Washington.
``A whole bunch of us decided to get off the train and walk,'' said Kerr, who
walked about a mile to reach his car. He arrived home a little after 9 p.m. to
a cold take-out dinner he ordered from his cellular phone on the train.
CSX restored its signal system about three hours after the strike and expected
to fully restore radio communications by today.
CSX, whose corporate headquarters is in Richmond, operates about 22,300 miles
of railroad lines in 23 states, the District of Columbia, and Montreal and
Ontario, Canada.
John Wilson
>
> Lightning Strike Snarls Railroads
>
> .c The Associated Press
>
>
> RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- A lightning strike at a communications center slowed or
> halted rail traffic -- including 11 Amtrak trains -- in parts of the East and
> Midwest. Some 200 trains were affected.
>
> The lightning struck a CSX communications center in Jacksonville, Fla., at 5:30
> p.m. Thursday, knocking out the signal system between Chicago and Philadelphia,
> parts of Michigan and in the Kentucky-West Virginia coal region, CSX
> Transportation spokesman Adam Hollingsworth said.
>
> Radio communication between crews and dispatchers were also affected.
>
This is one of the major downsides to the replacement of
electromechanical relay-based signal systems and tube-type electronics
with solid-state systems. While the new systems are a lot smarter, more
flexible, etc., they are immensely more vulnerable to voltage
transients. While the type of relays used in old-style railroad signal
systems could withstand a transient of several kilovolts, a spike of
less than 100 volts can kill modern solid-state equipment.
73,
JohnW
Rhmorrison
Y2K on railroads. I assume the control center in Jacksonville depends on
telecomm lines to send messages back and forth to the tracks that it controls.
Even if all of the railroad's computers get thru Y2K with no problems, if the
telecomm system breaks down, the trains will stop running (or run very slowly).
Waterless Carwash Sucks
I must agree with the above. Wonder what wil happen on the eve of the
new millenium. In Canada, and maybe in the U.S. as well, it is no
secret that some of the major railroads are investing into new
computer operations which are Y2K compatible. Jan 1, 2000
will be interesting foresure!
Oh yea, on the topic of lightning..I seen a 767 get stuck by lightning
about three weeks ago above my house! Lightning came from above, and
as it contacted the plane, there was a glow around the plane, and then
lightning came out the wingtips and went horizontly, as well as going
strait out from the bottom! A neat sight! Just hard to believe when
you see it, and harder to convince those who didn't.
..just had to tell someone
D.
Max565
>new millenium. In Canada, and maybe in the U.S. as well, it is no
>secret that some of the major railroads are investing into new
>computer operations which are Y2K compatible. Jan 1, 2000
>will be interesting foresure!
>
>Oh yea, on the topic of lightning..I seen a 767 get stuck by lightning
>about three weeks ago above my house! Lightning came from above, and
>as it contacted the plane, there was a glow around the plane, and then
>lightning came out the wingtips and went horizontly, as well as going
>strait out from the bottom! A neat sight! Just hard to believe when
>you see it, and harder to convince those who didn't.
>
>..just had to tell someone
Consider this:
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.
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?? Not me. I do a lot of Y2K Due Diligence
Investigations and I can tell you that the software testing methodology in this
country is a completely "test for success," (meaning conduct a test in order
that the test shows a desirable result ONLY), mentality. Configuration
Management Technique is something that most Information Services organizations
have lost sight of, (or we never would have dealt with Y2K in the '90s -- it
would have been solved back in the '80s). Plugging a computer, whether a PC or
a mainframe, into an outlet without alternating electrons, will result in an
inoperable computer, no matter what else you do to the software. Your first
hint will be throwing the light switch in the room where the computer resides.
Recently there was a power grid test conducted, supposedly on a
nationwide basis. I watched that test with great interest and know a number of
people involved. It was shortcutted dozens of times over, in order to portray
an aire of confidence for the general public's perception of the effects of Y2K
on the country's power infrastructure. Asking for the test specifications
will get you nowhere, and when technical questions are asked, they are ignored.
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. Buy a good generator this week. Then, shop around for a large
fuel tank. Prepare to guard it against an insurgence which will likely require
marshall law.
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
Phone: 712-328-0358
Fax: 712-328-1063
WebSite: http://www.evidence-inc.com
E-Mail: Max...@evidence-inc.com
Jerry Chase
>Consider this:
I'm going to repost your post on January 2nd, just for chuckles.
EeeeYikes
Max565
You already have all of my contact information. Send me yours and let's make
this interesting . . . say a wager of $100.00 that your posting on January 02,
WON'T HAPPEN! . . . or better yet, let's come up with a minimum amount of the
power grid, that'll be operational on January 1st! . . . a percentage, say
25%, (giving you lot's of wiggle room, here). There are industry statistics
that are published daily, (not necessarily readable if the Y2K issue is REAL --
but then You are saying it's vapor, so it shouldn't matter. . . you send me
the bonafide report, and I'll pay up --- failure to send the bona fide --
results in my collection from you -- or filing a lean against your, now heat
free, homestead.
Whadayasay??
Max565
>
The problem is, most of the Y2K naysayers, (like yourself), have been using
this methodology wrong ----- it's shiny-side OUT!
:o)
Dan'L
dave pierson
> EeeeYikes wrote:
> > Lightning Strike Snarls Railroads
> > .c The Associated Press
> > RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- A lightning strike at a communications center slowed or
> > halted rail traffic -- including 11 Amtrak trains -- in parts of the East and
> > Midwest. Some 200 trains were affected.
> > The lightning struck a CSX communications center in Jacksonville, Fla., at 5:30
> > p.m. Thursday, knocking out the signal system between Chicago and Philadelphia,
> > parts of Michigan and in the Kentucky-West Virginia coal region, CSX
> > Transportation spokesman Adam Hollingsworth said.
> > Radio communication between crews and dispatchers were also affected.
> This is one of the major downsides to the replacement of
> electromechanical relay-based signal systems and tube-type electronics
> with solid-state systems. While the new systems are a lot smarter, more
> flexible, etc., they are immensely more vulnerable to voltage
> transients. While the type of relays used in old-style railroad signal
> systems could withstand a transient of several kilovolts, a spike of
> less than 100 volts can kill modern solid-state equipment.
Welllllll.
Sort Of.
Lightning Arrestors were common or RR signalling installations
from about 1920 forwards, present before that. Yes, the modern
stuff, unless properly designed, can be sensitive. Modern
technology alos provides a range of better, cheaper, faster
protectors, AND the know how to use them.
--
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 |pie...@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
Steve Dover
>
> >Wonder what wil happen on the eve of the
> >new millenium. In Canada, and maybe in the U.S. as well, it is no
> >secret that some of the major railroads are investing into new
> >computer operations which are Y2K compatible. Jan 1, 2000
> >will be interesting foresure!
> >
I've been lurking here for some time, and rarely see much discussion.
I am concerned about the fragile nature of our infrastructure, and
when problems like this occur, it just reinforces my concern.
Your concern over testing the electrical grid is right on, IMO.
I'm not sure the nuclear plants will be shut down, but it would
not surprise me for safety reasons.
I wonder if UP is still delivering coal by truck from Wyoming to
the St. Louis are because of their 'locomotive imbalance'?
X-post added.
--
Are you ready for year MM?
The Mother of all Messes.
208 Days to go before 'Ignorance is bliss' is obsolete.
news:comp.software.year-2000 Come for the signal, stay for the noise.
jhay
Waterless Carwash Sucks wrote:
> On 6 Jun 1999 02:03:29 GMT, rhmor...@aol.com (Rhmorrison) wrote:
>
> > This sort of thing is one reason why we should be worried about the effect of
> >Y2K on railroads. I assume the control center in Jacksonville depends on
> >telecomm lines to send messages back and forth to the tracks that it controls.
> >Even if all of the railroad's computers get thru Y2K with no problems, if the
> >telecomm system breaks down, the trains will stop running (or run very slowly).
>
> I must agree with the above. Wonder what wil happen on the eve of the
> new millenium. In Canada, and maybe in the U.S. as well, it is no
> secret that some of the major railroads are investing into new
> computer operations which are Y2K compatible. Jan 1, 2000
> will be interesting foresure!
Not maybe in the U.S. Definitely and most thoroughly in the U.S., though IMO
Canadian RRs are equally serious about it as you say.
I also wonder what will happen to European RRs. I'm not optimistic, though
Railtrack properties might make it all right due to the lack of investment in BR
over the years (ergo, few computers). But try asking that kind of question about
Y2K on a forum like m.t.r.e., and you'll probably get booed off like I did by
Europeans who are too proud to admit there is ANY Y2K problem on their RRs. No fear
though, they'll eat those boos on 1/1/2000. Not that I'll be grinning--the whole
thing's going to suck.
Douglas Smith
Steve Dover wrote:
> I wonder if UP is still delivering coal by truck from Wyoming to
> the St. Louis are because of their 'locomotive imbalance'?
>
And Smitty replies:
Got a reference for this claim?
Robert Egan
transcribe the original article for us last year. The following URL is
all one line.
Regards
Robert Egan
--
"I set no standards for anyone. I merely poke at their soft spots to see
what they're made of."
-- Ron Schwarz
John Wilson
>
> John Wilson wrote:
>
...
> > This is one of the major downsides to the replacement of
> > electromechanical relay-based signal systems and tube-type electronics
> > with solid-state systems. While the new systems are a lot smarter, more
> > flexible, etc., they are immensely more vulnerable to voltage
> > transients. While the type of relays used in old-style railroad signal
> > systems could withstand a transient of several kilovolts, a spike of
> > less than 100 volts can kill modern solid-state equipment.
>
> Welllllll.
> Sort Of.
>
> Lightning Arrestors were common or RR signalling installations
> from about 1920 forwards, present before that. Yes, the modern
> stuff, unless properly designed, can be sensitive. Modern
> technology alos provides a range of better, cheaper, faster
> protectors, AND the know how to use them.
Yup. But the solid-state logic now used presents a much greater
challenge to the arrestors and other surge protection technology than
relay logic did. Lightning arrestors can knock surge voltages that
might get to hundreds of kV down to a few hundred volts. For relays,
that's all you need, and the margin of safety is between a let-through
voltage of a few hundred volts and a relay surge withstand capability of
a few kV.
Because the transient voltages have time durations of microseconds and
relays need milliseconds to respond, the remaining transient doesn't
cause misoperation of a relay system.
To protect solid-state gear, you need additional components, like MOVs
(Metal-Oxide Varistors) to knock the remaining surge voltage down into
the range of a few volts. Such a transient still looks like a signal to
the solid-state system and might cause misoperation even if it doesn't
do damage, so you also need capacitors and possibly inductors set up as
low-pass filters, to get rid of the low-voltage transients.
Like Dave said, it can be done. It can even be, and is, done, more
cheaply and reliably than the old relay systems. But it requires
significantly more know-how to make it reliable, and some diligence to
make sure that the protection components have not failed "silently" and
will be there when they're needed.
73,
JohnW
Wes Leatherock
max...@aol.com (Max565) wrote:
>Consider this:
>
> 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?
> 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"?
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?
>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.
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.
Wes Leatherock
wle...@sandbox.dynip.com
Max565
>max...@aol.com (Max565) wrote:
>>Consider this:
>>
>> 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,
TinMan1332
> 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
This 60% figure is way off (way, way over inflated). One must realize how often
these plants are down or at a low % of output for many reasons that have to do
with normal inspections repairs and servicing of these plants. Many modern coal
fired plants have much more capacity than the old nuke plants.
J.P.
lwin
crazy partyers out there.
Max565
>often
>these plants are down or at a low % of output for many reasons that have to
>do
>with normal inspections repairs and servicing of these plants. Many modern
>coal
>fired plants have much more capacity than the old nuke plants.
Is this your opinion, or is it something that you can back up with
some kind of statistcal or authoritative source?? If what you say is true, why
did we build so many of the nuke power stations?? Could you, at least, provide
some wattage numbers in your response?? (or maybe tell us why you should be
recognized as an authority on the subject??)
Dan'L
TinMan1332
> 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.
Still based on the incorrect 60% figure and compounded by assumption that all
other plants are older, smaller and inferior to nukes. The state of the art
coal and NG plants of today generate far more electricity, day in/day out than
nuke plants do. The bulk of the system (the parts that count) can be manually
operated and every plant I know of will be prepared to do so. The manning of
substations is also on the to-do list.
The Y2K problem will not all happen (for systems that are not ready) just on
Jan 1. Fiscal years and other systems have time frames before and after that
date that are critical.
This spring, while power consumption was low, an exhaustive Y2K test was
undertaken for turbine #1 on my modern, state of the art, coal fired plant.
Some problems came up. They were not severe problems and the test was overall a
success. Y2K compliance is job one here and the company is serious about
minimizing any possible problems. The competing power company in our neck o the
woods, has two nuke plants in their stable. They average on-line production of
about 42% capacity averaged over a 365 day period (total figure for both
combined). The capacity of both nuke plants combined, at 100%, is slightly more
than our modern main coal plant.
Max565
>other plants are older, smaller and inferior to nukes. The state of the art
>coal and NG plants of today generate far more electricity, day in/day out
>than
>nuke plants do. The bulk of the system (the parts that count) can be manually
>operated and every plant I know of will be prepared to do so. The manning of
>substations is also on the to-do list.
>
It's not "Still" - anything. . . read the contributions to the
threads in the correct order, then you won't respond to a later submission,
after you've already replied to one written since.
It's good to know that the line personel are aware and understand
their roll in the Y2K effort. Tell me, when the did the test, how much of the
software involved was mirrored perfectly on the test platform?? Was the test
platform COMPLETELY separated from the production platform?? Are you sure??
If these two basic premises are not handled with exact procedural correctness,
the test is invalid. Sure it'll show some minor problems, but not the biggies.
>The Y2K problem will not all happen (for systems that are not ready) just on
>Jan 1. Fiscal years and other systems have time frames before and after that
>date that are critical.
>
Yes, there are a lot of dates involved other than 01/01/2000 -- or
does the system recognize it as 2000/01/01?? Or maybe a julian date, or any
of about fifteen different formats?? How about signed dates?? single digit
dates?? I've seen them all. Sometimes the programmers decided that they could
write really simple code for both fiscal and line maintenence production runs.
They would say that "on each second tuesday of each month run program X, unless
that date is 05, 15, or 25 of said month, then run program Y. All that is well
and good unless there are sub-dependencies occurring downstream in the
production run that depend upon an accurate reading of what date the second
Tuesday actually is. It can get really dicey and things begin to either go
wrong, or the production run fails early on, and programmers are called in from
home at all hours of the night to fix the issue. That may not be the easiest
thing to do, if all dates are hosed, throughout the code. Here is a simple
one: Does the year 2000 have a leap day?? Are you sure??? Is all of the
software able to handle it?? Many times the formula for calculation of leap
year is "if the year(expressed in two digits) is an even number divisible by
four, add one day, after Feb 28, unless the year ends in 00, (because 1900
wasn't a leap year). The correct formula for figuring leap years is if the
year is evenly divisible by four OR FOUR HUNDRED. But we've only had computers
ofr the past fifty or so years, so this is the first time trying this for most
programmers, right?? If this isn't correctly programmed, every thing will be
screwed up from 02/28/2000 @ 2359 Hours until someone finds every occurrance of
this formula and corrects it. It doesn't matter whether the production
platform is configured for batch runs or any of dozens of more modern real-time
languages, if there isn't any maintenence documentation on the software, you
are hosed until either a windowing effort is installed, (which assumes that all
dates are similar), or replacement remediation takes place.
>This spring, while power consumption was low, an exhaustive Y2K test was
>undertaken for turbine #1 on my modern, state of the art, coal fired plant.
>Some problems came up. They were not severe problems and the test was overall
>a
>success. Y2K compliance is job one here and the company is serious about
>minimizing any possible problems. The competing power company in our neck o
>the
>woods, has two nuke plants in their stable. They average on-line production
>of
>about 42% capacity averaged over a 365 day period (total figure for both
>combined). The capacity of both nuke plants combined, at 100%, is slightly
>more
>than our modern main coal plant.
>
>
>
If you'll take a good look at the first response post I made on this
thread, you'll see that I mentioned the recent national effort to complete a
battery of tests of the North American Power Grid. I did so in some detail and
you have inadvertently substanciated some of what I said. The big picture is
what will really count when things begin to fail. That CANNOT be tested. Too
expensive to try to mirror all of the different systems involved. Too many
constant production issues, getting in the way of accurate testing, without
interference, for the tests to be viable.
Soooo, you will be able to manually run your huge capacity analog
generation facility. Since you are so sure of this, how did the interface
test, allowing your generation facility to provide product to others, go?? Oh,
it wasn't tested?? Gee, I wonder why not?? Could it be because it won't
matter? You are correct about the down time of the nuke stations. Do you
think that they'll be able to just "manually" change the water in their cooling
towers?? How many things are there, maintenence-wise, in your facility, that
ONLY happen when a computer controls them?? None, you say?? Wanna bet?? I'd
be entertaining a wager that any facility today, cannot go back to the
pre-computer days and do EVERYTHING manually! What are the company policies
with regard to employee vacations for the last quarter of 1999?? How about
the I/S department?? I'm betting that they probably have a hard-line policy on
last quarter 1999 and first quarter 2000 . . . . but then it wouldn't be the
first time I've seen an attitude that reflects the "It's ONLY two little digits
-- What's the big deal" attitude.
Justa Lurker
misc.transport.rail.americas:
| Whadayasay??
Still looking for the railroad reference in your post.
Nope - none there.
JL
Steve Dover
>
> Steve Dover wrote:
>
> > I wonder if UP is still delivering coal by truck from Wyoming to
> > the St. Louis are because of their 'locomotive imbalance'?
> >
>
> And Smitty replies:
>
> Got a reference for this claim?
Here's the original on the St. Louis Post-Dispatch web site:
<http://archives.postnet.com/8625657f006b74fc/562e50b071e825be862565f600661d3d/63eb05932d161ad586256621005f4269?OpenDocument>
--
Are you ready for year MM?
The Mother of all Messes.
207 Days to go before 'Ignorance is bliss' is obsolete.
cj...@my-deja.com
Steve Dover <s...@strata-group.Xcom> wrote:
> Douglas Smith wrote:
> >
I don't see in the article where the coal is being trucked from
Wyoming, but maybe from another plant or a barge unloading facility in
the area.
Jack
> > Steve Dover wrote:
> >
> > > I wonder if UP is still delivering coal by truck from Wyoming to
> > > the St. Louis are because of their 'locomotive imbalance'?
> > >
> >
> > And Smitty replies:
> >
> > Got a reference for this claim?
>
> Here's the original on the St. Louis Post-Dispatch web site:
>
<http://archives.postnet.com/8625657f006b74fc/562e50b071e825be862565f600
661d3d/63eb05932d161ad586256621005f4269?OpenDocument>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Dan Morisseau
Douglas Smith wrote:
> Steve Dover wrote:
>
> > I wonder if UP is still delivering coal by truck from Wyoming to
> > the St. Louis are because of their 'locomotive imbalance'?
> >
>
> And Smitty replies:
>
> Got a reference for this claim?
Smitty, that guy Dover needs to get a reality check! I live in
St. Louis and I've never seen any trucks of coal going through town to
IL or out to the Labadie power plant. I don't know what world he's on
but on this one there ain't no such animal as Powder River coal
delivered by truck courtesy of the U.P.
--
Milepost 15 - just west of the crest of Mo-Pac's Kirkwood Hill!
Dan Morisseau, N7ZXL - 38°34'30"N, 90°25'40"W
Watkins Johnson HF-1000: 60' Random Wire & Palomar Loop
ICOM R-7000: Discone
ICQ: UIN# 5313018
ellis
Max565 <max...@aol.com> wrote:
> Is this your opinion, or is it something that you can back up with
>some kind of statistcal or authoritative source??
Translation: max565 can back up his inflated figures so he challenges
anybody pointing out that they are wrong.
--
http://www.fnet.net/~ellis/photo/
ellis
Max565 <max...@aol.com> wrote:
>Consider this:
> There are 23 nuclear power generation facilities in North America
>which account for the production of 60% of the North American Power Grid.
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?
--
http://www.fnet.net/~ellis/photo/
Flak
>> There are 23 nuclear power generation facilities in North
America
>> which account for the production of 60% of the North American Power Grid.
>> of them will be compliant in time for the Y2K rollover and therefore MUST
SHUT
>> DOWN COMPLETELY.
Sorry, I missed some of this thread so I am probably asking a question that
has already thoroughly been hashed out. But the logical question here would
be: Why would a nuclear power plant, or any power plant for that matter,
shut down at the rollover to 2000?
Flak
Clark Morris
Chicago areas are among those heavily dependent on nuclear power. I
know the PJM (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland) pool has several of
them. The web site www.euy2k.com has good coverage of a number of the
issues with electricity supply and may have links to a breakdown by area
of dependency on nuclear power. If we are get enough disruptions, Y2k,
weather, or both, times could get very interesting. The railroads need
electricity from the utilities so that they can ship the coal to the
utilities to make electricity. The US Nuclear regulatory commission and
its Canadian counterpart are requiring the utilities to prove that Y2k
will not affect safety and security systems. If not, the nuclear plants
are to be shut down. They probably also have to show that the 911
systems in the areas around the plants are Y2k ready. In addition there
are a lot of computer controls in most of the baseline non-nuclear
plants and on the systems control and distribution side. The year 2000
has the following increased vulnerabilities for the railroads: power,
communications and control problems due to computer/process control
system malfunctions on the railroad or its suppliers, power and
communications problems due to the year 2000 being at the top of a 11
year sun-spot activity cycle that blew power transformers in Quebec the
last time round and may give sattelite communications problems, and
general bad weather. Also various other crucial suppliers may be fouled
up.
Clark Morris, CFM Technical Programming Services
on assignment in New Brunswick, Canada mor...@nbnet.nb.ca
ellis wrote:
>
> In article <19990606105606...@ng-co1.aol.com>,
> Max565 <max...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Consider this:
> > There are 23 nuclear power generation facilities in North America
> >which account for the production of 60% of the North American Power Grid.
>
LaVerne Andreessen
>
> >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?
>
> 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.
>
> Still your move!
>
I was not aware this list no longer pertained to railroading. Please
pardon my interruption, but I mistakenly thought it was related to
railroads. How foolish of me.
lwa
Steve Dover
>
> In article <375BE013...@strata-group.Xcom>,
> Steve Dover <s...@strata-group.Xcom> wrote:
> > Douglas Smith wrote:
> > >
> I don't see in the article where the coal is being trucked from
> Wyoming, but maybe from another plant or a barge unloading facility in
> the area.
>
But the point is, UP was not able to deliver enough coal
to the power plant as it normally would. These kind of
delivery problems do not bode well for the overall economy
if things slow down due to Y2k.
Hence, I wonder if these problems continue to this day.
Steve Dover
>
> Douglas Smith wrote:
>
> > Steve Dover wrote:
> >
> > > I wonder if UP is still delivering coal by truck from Wyoming to
> > > the St. Louis are because of their 'locomotive imbalance'?
> > >
> >
> > And Smitty replies:
> >
> > Got a reference for this claim?
>
> Smitty, that guy Dover needs to get a reality check! I live in
> St. Louis and I've never seen any trucks of coal going through town to
> IL or out to the Labadie power plant. I don't know what world he's on
> but on this one there ain't no such animal as Powder River coal
> delivered by truck courtesy of the U.P.
>
Yes, the trucks may not be coming from Wyoming
(the article was not clear on that), but the point is
that UP was not able to deliver enough coal by train.
The article did not say anything about trucks of coal going
through town to Illinois. So, why would you even see any of
the trucks unless you live in Franklin county?
But, hey, thanks for the reply.
Max565
>>some kind of statistcal or authoritative source??
>
>Translation: max565 can back up his inflated figures so he challenges
>anybody pointing out that they are wrong.
My figures are from the 3rd quarter 1998 IEEE publications. If you'd care to
question them, I can provide their address. There are also similar figures by
the International Association of Project Managers, but I put move faith in the
IEEE.
So, you've taken it upon yourself to become the self-appointed authority, now,
so I guess we can expect you to name all those more accurate figures and the
sources where you got them. Or are you simply going to play the game by YOUR
rules?? (made up as you go along)
Your move!
Dan'L
Max565
>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.
Still your move!
Dan'L
Max565
>has already thoroughly been hashed out. But the logical question here would
>be: Why would a nuclear power plant, or any power plant for that matter,
>shut down at the rollover to 2000?
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. Please take them as ONLY opinions, and there may be others
who will question the accuracy of what I say with some really wild claims. In
that event, I bow to their authority, provided they offer sources with more
experience than what I have accumilated.
The reason they will have to shut down is that there are a number of computer
programs, that are VERY complex, that control most of the maintenence functions
of the nuclear facilities. The programs are not contained within computers
like the PC on your desk. They are contained within mainframes and midframes
that run everything from the changed water in the cooling towers, to the
monitoring systems for the redundent safety aspects. All meet seriously
complex federal inspection guidlines on a very regular basis.
Since these facilities were built, in the late '60s and '70s, the many
different computer programming languages have been maintained and modified
extensively by any number of programmers, who didn't keep very good records of
the modifications they made, (one portion of the regulation overlooked by the
federal bureaucracies that oversee these facilities has always been --until the
mid 1990s-- Configuration Management). Most of the programmers who wrote this
code, have moved on in their careers and now work in other places or other
industries. With all this in mind, and since there are hundreds of ways to
format, calculate, tabulate, and otherwise massage date routines, no one knows
exactly how the computer language dates will respond under the two digit date
problem going from the 19th to the 20th century. Testing any changes to the
code is a very complex and sensitive thing. An exact mirror of the system must
be built and outside interfaces must also be tested.
Ask the folks who were at Three Mile Island, when they had a "little problem,"
a few years back. Nuclear power is nothing to mess with. If there aren't
complete assurrances that everthing is going to work as planned, they shut
down. That is why there are times when many of them operate at much less than
full capacity, and why so many people seem to want to attack my numbers. Y2K
is a big enough problem that the Feds aren't going to allow them to take any
chances.
It is a very complex issue, which has been made even more complex by the
politics involved, the consultation contracts, the normal business routines of
the Information Technology departments within both the facilities themselves
and the governmental agencies that regulat e them. No I/T department has ever
had aproject of this magnatude before. No I/T department has ever had a
project with an immovable end date, until now. Federal reguylation and company
politics coupled with high level executives who don't want to admit terrible
things to their boards of directors has led to the industry being unprepared
and, even though there has been some lip service in the past several months
about certain tests that "pointed out a few problems, but were overall very
successful," there is a lot that the public ISN'T being told.
And that's the part that I will now leave to the other experts to expound
about. Go ahead, Mr. Ellis. You seem to have better numbers than I and a much
deeper understanding of the problem, (or lack of).
lwin
Y2k conversion for mainframes overall has been going very well.
Per the original poster's comment about ancient programs, sometimes
these are a problem to solve, but people have been working on them and
there are tools to sort everything out. And we don't know the extent
there are such old mysterious programs. A great many programs are
easily maintainable.
If worst comes to worst, you can simply set the system date back 10
years and go from there. Cumbersome, but doable.
EeeeYikes
>Date: 6/7/99 9:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <19990607212618...@ng-fs1.aol.com>
>
>>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
>of
>people who will be very surprised at the list.
1. Exactly what specifically does this subthread have to do with
misc.transport,rail.americas?
2. How did you even find this thread? Do you search USENET for "Y2K" just to
jump in?
3. For a list of all 109 nuclear power generation facilities in the U.S., 2 in
Mexico and 22 in Canada, ,
see: http://www.nuke.hun.edu.tr/react/list/nation.html
Max565
>years and go from there. Cumbersome, but doable.
Not so!
The calendar repeats itself every twenty-eight years. The days of the week
are NOT the same in 1990 as they will be in 2000. 1972, on the other hand,
contains exactly the same calendar as 2000. Setting the date back to 1972 is
NOT an acceptable solution, because there are as mainy automagic programs, that
work off of specific dates, that the cutover would be nearly as large as any
other Y2K remediation effort.
But maybe, through checking with Mr. Ellis, we can learn some other
consideration about making some other change to the system that will make it
all go away.
Max565
>in
>Mexico and 22 in Canada, ,
>see: http://www.nuke.hun.edu.tr/react/list/nation.html
>
Not accurate. This appears to be a chart showing that there are 109 "UNITS" of
nuclear generation capabilities. WHERE are they all located?? I fail to see
that information given at your alleged source. Can you provide it?? I think
if you do the research, you'll find that they are confined to 15 generation
facilities within the United States and five in Canada and three in Mexico.
BZZZZT Try again!
Dan'L
Max565
>As I recall the postings on comp.software.year-2000, the New Jersey and
>Chicago areas are among those heavily dependent on nuclear power. I
>know the PJM (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland) pool has several of
>them. The web site www.euy2k.com has good coverage of a number of the
>issues with electricity supply and may have links to a breakdown by area
>of dependency on nuclear power. If we are get enough disruptions, Y2k,
>weather, or both, times could get very interesting. The railroads need
>electricity from the utilities so that they can ship the coal to the
>utilities to make electricity. The US Nuclear regulatory commission and
>its Canadian counterpart are requiring the utilities to prove that Y2k
>will not affect safety and security systems. If not, the nuclear plants
>are to be shut down. They probably also have to show that the 911
>systems in the areas around the plants are Y2k ready. In addition there
>are a lot of computer controls in most of the baseline non-nuclear
>plants and on the systems control and distribution side. The year 2000
>has the following increased vulnerabilities for the railroads: power,
>communications and control problems due to computer/process control
>system malfunctions on the railroad or its suppliers, power and
>communications problems due to the year 2000 being at the top of a 11
>year sun-spot activity cycle that blew power transformers in Quebec the
>last time round and may give sattelite communications problems, and
>general bad weather. Also various other crucial suppliers may be fouled
>up.
>
>
Excellent post. Thank you for bringing a taste of reality back to what has
become a breakdown of discussion based upon someone's doubts. (Of course, if I
could make 5% of the money I've been accused of, in private e-mail, off the Y2K
issue, I could have already retired this year).
Max565
>pardon my interruption, but I mistakenly thought it was related to
>railroads. How foolish of me.
Since Mr. Andreessen feels that Y2K will have no effect on him or this
industry, I'll concede to him, (and others), and move this discussion to
<comp.software.year-2000> where it properly belongs and he, (and others), may
now go back to holding their collective heads in the sand!
God Bless, (yur gonna need it),
Dan'L
Jon Hylands
> > 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.
This is of course completely wrong.
There are a few over 100 operating nuclear plants in North America, and
together they provide just about 20% of the power. On the east coast, they
provide 40% of the power consumed locally.
It is not at all clear that none of these plants will be compliant in time,
although I suspect some will not make it. Something like 40% of the nuke
plants will be missing the NERC June 31 deadline, however.
Later,
Jon
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hylands J...@huv.com http://www.huv.com/jon
Project: Micro Seeker (Micro Autonomous Underwater Vehicle)
http://www.huv.com
EeeeYikes
>Date: 6/7/99 11:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <19990607232910...@ng-fs1.aol.com>
>
>>3. For a list of all 109 nuclear power generation facilities in the U.S., 2
>>in
>>Mexico and 22 in Canada, ,
>>see: http://www.nuke.hun.edu.tr/react/list/nation.html
>>
>
>
>Not accurate. This appears to be a chart showing that there are 109 "UNITS"
>of
>nuclear generation capabilities. WHERE are they all located?? I fail to see
>that information given at your alleged source.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you would be able to operate a
computer competently enough to scroll down to the bottom of the list which gave
you a menu of hyperlink options, including one entitled "World List of Nuclear
Power Plants (Operable, and Under Construction)" which lists each location in
the world by country. Apparently, I gave you too much credit.
>> Can you provide it??
It was already provided. If you still are unable to understand the concept of a
hyperlink, go directly to http://www.nuke.hun.edu.tr/react/list/list.html and
count the nuclear power generation facilities in the U.S, in Canada, and in
Mexico. This is an open-book test and you may use all your fingers and toes or
simply stomp your hoof the required number of times.
>I think
>if you do the research, you'll find that they are confined to 15 generation
>facilities within the United States and five in Canada and three in Mexico.
You think wrong. Like 68 distinct generation facilities in the U.S., 5 in
Canada and 1 in Mexico (circa 1995) But then again, that would require you to
actually do research to find out.
Finally,
bit_c...@my-deja.com
Gentlefolk,
Please see http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/reactors.html to convince yourselves
that:
--
"IN 1995 U.S. net electric generation totaled approximately 2,994
thousand gigawatthours. Approximately one-fifth (22 percent) of the
Nation's electricity was generated by 109 operating nuclear reactors in
32 States. ... There are currently 110 commercial nuclear power
reactors licensed to operate in 32 States. Six States relied on nuclear
power for more than 50 percent of their electricity. Thirteen additional
States relied on nuclear power for 25 to 50 percent of their
electricity."
--
Click "Plant Status Report" (http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/DAILY/psr.htm) to
view the current status of each of the 110 individual reactors, updated
each day, at all 72 sites in the US.
Now everybody take a deep breath... and return to topic.
Did you hear the one about the old Baldwin Mike that tried to .....
bit_chaser
<re-lurk>
Pete Hall
Jon Hylands wrote in message
>
>Something like 40% of the nuke
>plants will be missing the NERC June 31 deadline, however.
Oopsie ... another one for the list of possibles ...
:-P
John Garrison
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!
Wes Leatherock
As Ross Perot has mentioned a number of times recently, you
can simply set the date back to 1972 and even the days of the week
will be right (including February 29).
Wes Leatherock
wle...@sandbox.dynip.com
On 8 Jun 1999, lwin wrote:
> I can't speak about the power industry specifically, but in general:
>
> Y2k conversion for mainframes overall has been going very well.
>
> Per the original poster's comment about ancient programs, sometimes
> these are a problem to solve, but people have been working on them and
> there are tools to sort everything out. And we don't know the extent
> there are such old mysterious programs. A great many programs are
> easily maintainable.
>
Max565
. . . And hand-written paychecks and hand-written waybills, and
hand-written trainlists, (oooh, yeah, --- that'll be easy!), and hand-written
slow orders, and hand-written customer billing, and hand-written job
descriptions for the new handwriting employees. Yeah, it'll be a boon to the
employment industry, all right, but in the mean time things MIGHT just slow
down quite a little bit,
waiting a the current staff to shove the keyboard aside and write something out
for you . . . or are ya gonna hafta do it yourself??
BRING BACK THE CLERKS! (tell 'em we're sorry about all the janitorial duties!
It won't happen again!)
(hand-written) Dan'L
Max565
>can simply set the date back to 1972 and even the days of the week
>will be right (including February 29).
At the risk of being flamed, unmercifully, (getting into asbestos underwear,
and building flame-proof barriers), I gotta say that I just can't forgive Ol'
Ross for being the reason why we have Slick Willy in office in the first place.
If it were'nt for Ol'd Ross, "getting out and getting under the hood," we'd
probably be a LOT better off at the federal level, than we are today.
(Ross' own people at IDS have been working on solutions to the Y2K
issue since 1993. If what he says is true, why did he waste all that money??)
Flame on . . .
Dan'L
Jon Hylands
wrote:
Yeah, yeah, I know... "30 days, has September, April, June, and
November..."
dave pierson
> >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 |pie...@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
Frank Greene
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
ellis
Max565 <max...@aol.com> wrote:
>My figures are from the 3rd quarter 1998 IEEE publications.
And they say 60%? I doubt it.
--
http:/www.fnet.net/~ellis/photo/
ellis
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?
ellis
Max565 <max...@aol.com> wrote:
>BZZZZT Try again!
BZZZZT Give it up, moron.
ellis
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.
John Garrison
Frank Greene <frih...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:375DD200...@earthlink.net...
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.
Richard Masoner
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.
Richard Masoner
ellis
Max565 <max...@aol.com> wrote:
>BRING BACK THE CLERKS! (tell 'em we're sorry about all the janitorial duties!
>It won't happen again!)
Just what is that nature of your financial incentive? Are you selling
Y2K survival kits or something?
--
http://www.fnet.net/~ellis/photo/
Waterless Carwash Sucks
wrote:
>max...@aol.com (Max565) wrote:
>
>>Consider this:
>
>I'm going to repost your post on January 2nd, just for chuckles.
>
..Ha-haha! I'll be here reading it with a smile as well!
LoL!!
Richard Bullington-Starfield
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.
Richard Bullington
Max565 wrote:
> Wes Leatherock writes:
>
> >max...@aol.com (Max565) wrote:
> >>Consider this:
> >>
> >> 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,
Richard Bullington-Starfield
If you want all the skinny on nuclear power plants worldwide
follow this link:
http://www.worldwatch.org/alerts/990304.html.
A quick synopsys.
Worldwide there are 429 reactors with 343,086 MW of
generating capacity, or just under 17% of the worldwide
total.
For North America follow this link:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/chg_str_fuel/html/chapter2.html
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.
Richard Bullington
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.
>
> Still your move!
>
> Dan'L