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)