Posted by Euclid on Tuesday, April 21, 2015 3:43 PM
So, why don’t you guys go and start your own thread about everything that is wrong with me instead of hijacking this one?
Because most reasonable adults have far better things to do than whine and complain about being picked on.
Friends, I have a suggestion: since the horse has not only been beaten but flayed, let us leave it alone.
Oh I see. You think you are right and I am wrong, so I am obligated to agree with you. There are a lot more people reading this than just the ones who show up and post every day. Explaining anything that is technical or complicated in a way that it can be understood is a challenge. Just because you think you understand it, does not mean that everybody else does. Not everybody is following this line by line. There has also been plenty of fair and constructive discussion here that has gone back and forth without any hostility or even disagreement, even
I like Euclid and miss him when he disappears. He’s very thinkful of pertainments to public safety.
I have been looking at this thread. I can only reply that all of the safety devices on the MMA engines were functionaing normally… normally that is for a manned train.
I am certain that there is no one that wants safe oil transport more than I.
I don’t have the answers beyond hiring more and better mechanical inspectors and more and better track inspections. To be honest I don’t think there as a technology answer to the probem , I see it more as an engineering issue. At the time of the Megantic wreck I was surprised that there was a volitile mixture of oxygen and fuel in the cars and that the void wasn’t filled with inert gas…
I don’t think that oil trains derail more than other un-newsworthy trains.
Randy
No one is hijacking your thread.
Why after the feedback you have received on your “theories” can’t you simply let is go and move on?
Why has this forum been subjected to 17 pages of your “yes but?”
Its time to give this a rest already!
And I suppose all these recent critical posts and comments concern oil trains?
I have a little Youtube clip of my own to add.
If y’all think this is a dead horse thread, ignore it. If you think Euclid isn’t taking the criticism or comments as wholly as you’d like, either just don’t post, or if you just can’t stand it, keep criticizing or educating … but stop insulting. In case you hadn’t noticed, this was his thread from the start, and nobody appointed any of us as thread police to shut it up, whether we like all the ‘yes but’ action and obtuse justification or not.
There are fairly firm Forum policies about ad hominem attacks and ridicule. I for one would greatly prefer it if we all respected them, and moved on.
You and Bucky are free to take your discourse here:
Bucky - I’m not saying I’m right and you’re wrong. I’m saying (as does Murray) that you’ve aired your thoughts, which is fine - what you haven’t been getting is buy-in from much of anyone, and what you have been getting a goodly amount of “that doesn’t square with reality.”
I, for one, can’t stand to see incorrect information posted here - I feel it necessary to debunk such claims, and I do. As has been noted here by many folks, you’ve posted stuff here that is little more than speculation while implying that it’s fact. And when you’re called on it, you come back with “yes, but…”
You also can’t seem to accept it when someone points out some fallacy in your reasoning.
What may seem perfectly obvious to you oftimes doesn’t bear the scrutiny of folks who have experience in the field.
I’m not always right - but at least if someone points it out to me, I’ll take them at their word.
'Nuf said.
I’ll consider myself free to take my discourse anywhere I please. And I will abide by Forum principle when I do.
I happen to agree that much of the discussion in this thread is in fact tiresome and repetitive, and that some of the comments Euclid has made are unjustified in tone and dismissive both of other people’s knowledge and of some of those people’s honest attempts to help him see better perspectives on this hobby-horse issue. However, I find it interesting that, although Dave Husman has been one of the more relentless critics of the idea and of the technical methods Euclid has been discussing, and has been the recipient of some of the most virulent ‘yes, but’ kinds of reply, he has not joined in the mockery and dismissal that have typified the last few posts. If one of Euclid’s ideas seems like a whopper, discuss it – the idea – as such. But the best thing to do, if you think the thread is pointless, is either ignore it or let it die in the usual course of these things; once it falls off the first page of active threads, it will disappear just like the earlier ones did.
Personally - I think Euclid needed to be at the TIGER grant summit a week ago to get his proposal organized, filed, and in the hands of proper review. That, not some Internet forum, is the sort of place he should be making his claims, defining his ideas, and gaining support for whatever practical system might eventually develop. I am deeply concerned that he is just 'sputin with folks on this and perhaps other forums, changing his detail back and forth in critical areas, without ever defining the set of ideas he’s proposing and then coming up with practical details to implement them. Until he gets further than that, it’s just Shari Lewis time…
That’s been tried, over and over. Bucky’s refusal to see the viewpoint of others is the fly in the pointment.
That said, I agree he has a right to post whatever he thinks but so do the others have a right to correct his misinformation. His unwillingness to accept that is what provokes other posters.
Thoroughly agreed … as long as correcting misinformation is the activity, and not just making fun of him or baiting him. Yes, it’s infuriating when he keeps on going with some wack perspective or seems to be intentionally misunderstanding what someone is trying to tell him. I myself have lost patience with a couple of his assertions, so I’m not trying to pretend I’m less atreous.
I do think it’s a bad precedent to try to run someone out of their own thread, though. I much preferred the gentle use of certain forms of off-topic post (root beer and candy being two notable ‘hints’) if for some reason the thread couldn’t be left to die a natural death.
I don’t wish to be part of the same, semi-monthly discussion at hand. However, I do have to say, as one of those that understands the Shari Lewis reference, that I think that is a spot-on observation, and funny as heck.
One thing all these ‘inovative solutions’ overlook is the maintenance required to keep them operating as intended. The maintenance required is far in excess of what is presently used to keep equipment in good repair and operating within it’s designed parameters.
Increased maintenance is increased cost. Who supplies the man power and picks up the tab?
Your solutions are too far out on the timeline - even if all hands were on deck - to be of any practical value to the situation at hand.
Most of the stuff my father was working on is specifically designed for maintenance, and the various costs are defined or at least estimated in the system design. One of the reasons for going a bit overboard with ‘connectivity’ is to make it as easy as possible to maintain the system in good running condition, and to ensure what I think is called ‘graceful degrade’ if any parts of it break or become disabled. If the various components are monitored (or monitor themselves) and the system can ‘phone home’ if anything about it starts going wrong - with a detailed account of what’s happening, how to fix it, and what components will be needed where - the real expense of maintenance (the emergency dispatch of manpower and equipment to distant locations, for example) can probably be avoided.
Yes, that increases the design and first costs, and puts additional complexity in the system. In the absence of some (relatively low-level) artificial intelligence this might create too many complex interactions to be safe. That’s an issue to be discussed under a separate thread from ongoing maintenance and support.
I think we are all agreed that the marginal cost of operating any ‘safe oil train’ system should eventually fall on the shippers (who may require some contribution from producers, etc.). Some percentage of the cost ‘ought’ to devolve on the Governmen
I don’t see any of that happening. The Government has not given any grants for PTC, all of the equipment, all of the installation and all of the maintenance is paid for by the railroads themselves, not the government. I see even less of an incentive for the government to get involved with oil train enhancements like ECP etc from a financial standpoint since its an even stickier wicket than PTC (more players).