From: nilknocgeo@earthlink.net   
      
   "Adam H. Kerman"  wrote in message   
   news:ll8f32$s3t$2@news.albasani.net...   
   > conklin  wrote:   
   >>"Adam H. Kerman"  wrote:   
   >>>conklin  wrote:   
   >>>>"Adam H. Kerman"  wrote:   
   >>>>>conklin  wrote:   
   >>>>>>"Adam H. Kerman"  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>conklin  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >   
   >>>>>>>>http://www.mta.info/news/2014/05/15/metro-north-announce   
   -sweeping-series-safety-reforms   
   >   
   >>>>>>>>Automated Track Inspection: Metro-North has developed a   
   >>>>>>>>comprehensive automated track inspection plan. This plan   
   >>>>>>>>includes the use of track geometry measurements, machine vision   
   >>>>>>>>track inspection, and rail internal defect testing. These   
   >>>>>>>>efforts will augment the visual inspections conducted by the   
   >>>>>>>>railroad. Metro-North is purchasing an autonomous track monitoring   
   >>>>>>>>system to be mounted on passenger rail cars, to provide continuous   
   >>>>>>>>information about the condition of the right-of-way. The railroad   
   >>>>>>>>will also obtain a dedicated track geometry vehicle.   
   >   
   >>>>>>>>This is what is needed for those 120 car oil trains.  They need   
   >>>>>>>>a sensors on every oil train.   
   >   
   >>>>>>>And do what, exactly, George, that automated track inspection doesn't   
   >>>>>>>achieve when performed at regular intervals? You're completely   
   >>>>>>>insane.   
   >   
   >>>>>>Do you ever bother reading what you post?  Here is part of your   
   >>>>>>reference:   
   >   
   >>>>>>-----------------------------------------   
   >   
   >>>>>>Metro-North is purchasing an autonomous track monitoring system to be   
   >>>>>>mounted on passenger rail cars, to provide continuous   
   >>>>>>information about the condition of the right-of-way.   
   >   
   >>>>>>-----------------------------------   
   >   
   >>>>>>You say that is ok for Metro-North, but BAD for oil trains.   
   >   
   >>>>>At no point have I said it was ok for Metro North.   
   >   
   >>>>>I'm saying that track monitoring may get the track repaired before   
   >>>>>subsequent trains travel on that route, but they don't get the track   
   >>>>>repaired for the train equipped with track-monitoring equipment.   
   >   
   >>>>>>Oil trains need the track monitoring system to be mounted on each   
   >>>>>>train to provide continuous information about the right-of-way.   
   >>>>>>No exceptions.  Just like Metro-North is going to do.   
   >   
   >>>>>Well, know, what you want is the train ahead of the oil train to   
   >>>>>have monitored track conditions, so that the oil train moves over   
   >>>>>newly-repaired track. But that's stupid because track doesn't require   
   >>>>>monitoring before every single fucking train.   
   >   
   >>>>If Metro-North uses track montoring equipment on each train, then oil   
   >>>>trians should do that too.   
   >   
   >>>George, please use your words to form a coherent thought and explain   
   >>>exactly what it is you want to accomplish for the good of the railroad.   
   >   
   >>If certain safety programs are required for Metro-North to keep from   
   >>having   
   >>accidents, then oil trains need the same equipment, etc.  You refuse to   
   >>recognize that.   
   >   
   > George, you haven't stated a goal here, beyond "Let's think of all new   
   > ways to make railroad transportation needlessly expensive without having   
   > a safety, maintenance, or business objective in mind."   
   >   
      
   You are irrational once again.  If Metro-North needs to follow X, Y and Z   
   for safe transport of passengers, then freight RRs which carry oil need to   
   have track as good as Metro-North.  Or, are you saying that Metro-North   
   needs no new program because you say so?   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)