You set a very low quota for our lamb - still, what else can one expect from a socialist country?
You set a very low quota for our lamb - still, what else can one expect from a socialist country?
Steve,
Does that lead you directly to the conclusion that the US is evil and responsible for all the world's ills? Which is where it leads Greg. Paul
-- Excuse me, I'll be right back. I have to log onto a server in Romania and verify all of my EBay, PayPal, bank and Social Security information before they suspend my accounts.
Working the rockie road of the G&PX
Paul, can you not understand the difference between a nation, and a nation's actions? I can.
Regards, Greg.P.
I don't know the answer so the question is, how is land area by comparison? G
No, just the Bushies, the NeoCons, the NAM, and the Eastern financial elite rulng class.
Greg Procter spake thus:
Which just shows *your* ignorance of North American railroad practice. None of what you listed above have much of anything to do with Amtrak's problems, or even with any significant problems with freight trains. In particular, your obsession with 3-axle loco trucks is misplaced.
Just as a lot of the Americans who post here could do well to learn about railroads outside of their country, you could benefit from better knowledge of our practices.
No. Iraq has an elected government. But the oil has nothing to do with it anyway. Iraqi oil will still be placed on the commodity market. Even if the U.S. government did get some cash from that, they certainly ain't going to pass the savings on to U.S. citizens.
Err, I may not know much, but I do know that poorly maintained, uneven mialigned track isn't somewhere you want to run 300km/hr trains.
Me and the rest of the world.
What would be the benefit, other than you not being able to arge the unarguable?
I never extrapolated anything to the whole world anyway. Most seemed to understand I was speaking about America.
I guess you have to believe that.
LOL.
Iraqi oil wasn't on the commodity market.
Think a bit wider - if Iraqi oil wasn't on the commodity market then there would now be a world shortage = higher prices. The US, being the biggest waster of oil is the most reliant on oil prices remaining artificially low. Anyway, we're wandering from railway politics to politics.
Greg.P.
I don't have an atlas handy, but working from roughly equivalent populations and much of Europe having 2-3 times the population density I'd guess that it has circa 1/2 - 1/3 the area. ;-)
Greg.P.
Spender spake thus:
Well, leaving aside the gross absurdity of your statement about Iraq's "elected" government, you've got it wrong. Forget about "cheap" oil: think about getting *enough* oil. That's what it's all about (stated as "strategic interests"). And of course the gov't doesn't set oil prices; that's done by the folks who *really* run things around here.
This does seem to be your favorite bogey-man. What, pray tell, given the lower axle loading for a given size of loco that more axles would lead to, would make three axle power trucks more destructive than two axle trucks?
Greg Procter spake thus:
You're talking about high-speed rail, which the US has never even made a pretense of having (well, except for, possibly, Acela in the Northeast Corridor, which isn't really high-speed, compared with, say, TGV). Besides which, freight, which makes up the overwhelming majority of rail traffic in most corridors here, never moves anywhere near that fast.
It's true that there are *some* stretches of "poorly maintained, uneven and misaligned" track here, but most of it is sufficient for our standards (i.e., 79 mph limits in most places).
Again, nobody's claiming that the US has anywhere near world-class rail service, but there's no point in just making up stuff about how bad you
*think* it is, a subject you're clearly out of your depth in.
LOL!
- Flange to rail angle of outer axles.
- side pressure of three axles against rails on curves.
But don't just take my word for it, check out modern loco designs around the world. The only three axle bogie locos being built in the last twenty years are US type heavy drag locos intended for slow speeds.
Regards, Greg.P.
Ok, 300km was overstating the situation ;-) Substitute 100km/hr (60 mph)
Err, I may not know much, but I do know that poorly maintained, uneven misaligned track isn't somewhere you want to run 100km/hr trains.
Sure, I've heard comments from people who've ridden on Amtrak trains in the last decade - the constant theme is how badly they ride, especially when they are actually moving! (that and the ficticious timetables)
So why are you commenting?
Regards, Greg.P.
Jesus, are you that naive? Are you that stupid?
Iraq has a huge occupation army in it, the majority being US troops.
Hadn't you noticed that?
No, not confused at all - here we do "big AND fast". I just like to remind some of our American friends that they aren't the only ones running freight trains...
Greater lateral forces on curves due to the long rigid wheelbase and excessive rail-head wear, which is why both GE and EMD have been developing radial-axle trucks. I know it seems Greg has a bee in his bonnet about this, but he is correct.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.