 |
Re: It's the bearings, stupid, not the brakes
Author: Robert L. Dim Sum-walt
Date: 02-26-2023 - 23:05
I'ma M'gaga Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>>>> [the] accusation that Mr. Trump’s administration scuttled an Obama-era rule for high-tech braking.
>>> Not an accusation, but a fact.
>> You obviously weren't able to grasp what Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. was expressing. He said that PTC was way overpriced and,
> Last time I checked into the situation, PTC isn't a braking system but an overlay to use an existing brake system.
When did I say it was a braking system? The point you missed, and continue to miss, comes from the writer of the Wall Street Journal piece who opines that the railroads could have spent their money more wisely on things other than PTC.
>> The money would have been better spent on wheel bearing failure detection devices installed on every car instead of relying on wayside detectors every twenty miles or so.
> Unfortunately, and I don't expect you ever to comprehend this, but this is wildly impractical in the real world.
Take it up with Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., the guy who wrote the WSJ piece. It's not as "wildly impractical" as you think it is and I would be a lot quicker to give Mr. Jenkins the time of day (and credibility) than I would you.
>> And which party are you channeling the majority of your anger toward?
> The party of Trigger T Tomin and his handle du jour, which happens to be R L Dim Sum-walt at the moment.
We'll have to enroll you in some anger management classes. You're also obviously a masochist because you love to belly-ache about how ucked-fay up-yay this website is, yet you're constantly hanging out here leaving your idiotic comments like a graffiti moron defaces a boxcar. You know, for just pennies a day you can deliver yourself away from all this evil.
>>>> The rule wouldn’t have applied to the East Palestine train anyway.
>>> Why is that?
>> Because the proposed law
> Unless it was proposed by Congress and ratified by the President, it wasn't a law.
Do you split the hairs on your head as much as you like to split hairs here? Or do you have as much hair as Uncle Fester? Can you light up a light bulb, too, when you put it in your mouth?
>> NS could have gone a long way in preventing this wreck if they would have just run solid trains comprised exclusively of cars carrying hazardous commodities and reduced the speed of those train to, say, 25 MPH. I believe S.P. and other railroads used to run trains like that and called them KEY trains.
> SP specified 30 mph, and it was only in specific urban areas.
Okay, so I was off by 5 MPH and overlooked that it dealt with urbanized areas. In your pea brain you probably think those technicalities invalidate the entire point I was making. You really are a piece of work.
[vod.foxnews.com]
[vod.foxnews.com]
[vod.foxnews.com]
[vod.foxnews.com]
[vod.foxnews.com]
[vod.foxnews.com]
[vod.foxnews.com]
[vod.foxnews.com]
[vod.foxnews.com]
[vod.foxnews.com]
[vod.foxnews.com]
[vod.foxnews.com]
[vod.foxnews.com]
-------------------------------------------------------
>>>> [the] accusation that Mr. Trump’s administration scuttled an Obama-era rule for high-tech braking.
>>> Not an accusation, but a fact.
>> You obviously weren't able to grasp what Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. was expressing. He said that PTC was way overpriced and,
> Last time I checked into the situation, PTC isn't a braking system but an overlay to use an existing brake system.
When did I say it was a braking system? The point you missed, and continue to miss, comes from the writer of the Wall Street Journal piece who opines that the railroads could have spent their money more wisely on things other than PTC.
>> The money would have been better spent on wheel bearing failure detection devices installed on every car instead of relying on wayside detectors every twenty miles or so.
> Unfortunately, and I don't expect you ever to comprehend this, but this is wildly impractical in the real world.
Take it up with Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., the guy who wrote the WSJ piece. It's not as "wildly impractical" as you think it is and I would be a lot quicker to give Mr. Jenkins the time of day (and credibility) than I would you.
>> And which party are you channeling the majority of your anger toward?
> The party of Trigger T Tomin and his handle du jour, which happens to be R L Dim Sum-walt at the moment.
We'll have to enroll you in some anger management classes. You're also obviously a masochist because you love to belly-ache about how ucked-fay up-yay this website is, yet you're constantly hanging out here leaving your idiotic comments like a graffiti moron defaces a boxcar. You know, for just pennies a day you can deliver yourself away from all this evil.
>>>> The rule wouldn’t have applied to the East Palestine train anyway.
>>> Why is that?
>> Because the proposed law
> Unless it was proposed by Congress and ratified by the President, it wasn't a law.
Do you split the hairs on your head as much as you like to split hairs here? Or do you have as much hair as Uncle Fester? Can you light up a light bulb, too, when you put it in your mouth?
>> NS could have gone a long way in preventing this wreck if they would have just run solid trains comprised exclusively of cars carrying hazardous commodities and reduced the speed of those train to, say, 25 MPH. I believe S.P. and other railroads used to run trains like that and called them KEY trains.
> SP specified 30 mph, and it was only in specific urban areas.
Okay, so I was off by 5 MPH and overlooked that it dealt with urbanized areas. In your pea brain you probably think those technicalities invalidate the entire point I was making. You really are a piece of work.
[vod.foxnews.com]
[vod.foxnews.com]
[vod.foxnews.com]
[vod.foxnews.com]
[vod.foxnews.com]
[vod.foxnews.com]
[vod.foxnews.com]
[vod.foxnews.com]
[vod.foxnews.com]
[vod.foxnews.com]
[vod.foxnews.com]
[vod.foxnews.com]
[vod.foxnews.com]
