From: ahk@chinet.com

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-announces
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."

Let me try again to reach your mind: What do you think Metro North is
going to accomplish using track monitoring equipment on each train?

I should also point out that the press release does not state that it'll
be mounted on every train and that it's not logical to mount track testing
equipment on every train. Defects capable of altering the guage or breaking
the rail don't just appear that quickly (except, I suppose, for sun
kinks on extremely hot days).

Also, purchasing its own track geometry car just for Metro North sounds
needlessly expensive to me. Unless it'll get lent out to other railroads,
it's going to be sitting around a hell of a lot of the time, not earning
its keep.

--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
 * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)