From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >On 15-Apr-15 08:30, 866013149e wrote:   
   >>Stephen Sprunk  writes:   
      
   >>>That's one of the many reasons why the FRA needs to start accepting   
   >>>standard UIC passenger cars.  Not only would it give our operators   
   >>>access to stable suppliers, but it would also reduce the cost of   
   >>>equipment due to economy of scale.  And it might even help get some   
   >>>US manufacturers back in the business, once they could compete on   
   >>>an even playing field with foreign makers.   
      
   >>Amen to that. I've always suspected the FRA's requirements are   
   >>driven by an anti-passenger rail agenda.   
      
   >"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by   
   >stupidity."  --Hanlon's Razor   
      
   Ok, you can't keep repeating that. Anyway, stupidity isn't the explanation.   
   If I had to go with a one-word simplistic explanation, I'd say cowardice:   
   Fear of Washington in fighting and criticism if a signal death occurs   
   that wouldn't have if FRA had stuck with American buff-strength standards   
   instead of implementing European standards.   
      
   Still, it's wrong to point the finger at FRA (and ICC before that).   
   It's never really the administration's fault. It's Congress. The law   
   authorizing the federal railroad safety regime fails to order that   
   economics and safety with respect to transportation as a whole and not   
   just on railroads to be considered. That's why the standards will   
   always be counterproductive.   
      
   FRA and ICC before that are doing what Congress demands.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)