Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Do Railroad Managers Secretly Favor PTC?
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
<p>[quote user="schlimm"]</p> <p>The men who worked after [the coupler conversion], who saved many lives and fingers compared to those before would see things differently than you do.[/quote]</p> <p><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva;font-size:small;">I don’t see why you conclude that. Where have I ever implied that the switch to MCB couplers was undesirable for any reason? Where have I suggested that I do not see the injuries to trainmen as having been a problem?</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva;font-size:small;">A couple posts above, you clearly implied that the industry was negligent for being indifferent to the injuries and refusing to adopt the Janney coupler for twenty years while it was available to solve the injury problem. I dispute that. You said it was ready to be put into use in 1873, but the railroads did not apply it at all until the government mandate of 1893. So you implied that the railroads were indifferent to the injuries for twenty years, and would have continued their indifference had the government not stepped in with the mandate. </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva;font-size:small;">Yet the MCB coupler was not ready to apply until 1888, and not adequately perfected until 1893. The mandate was made in 1893 because the pace of conversion seemed too slow. Maybe it was, but we will never know how quickly the conversion would have been accomplished without the mandate. The only way to have judged the pace of conversion was by how much took place between 1888 and about 1992. And as I mentioned above, the Janney coupler was fraught with developmental problems during that four year phase. Those problems were undoubtedly somewhat responsible for holding back the rate of conversion.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva;font-size:small;">So overall, I see no way that history proves that the coupler mandate was necessary or speeded up the conversion. It is possible that it did, but no more than a possibility. I also do not see any analogy between the coupler mandate and the PTC mandate. I would say that the burden of complying with the coupler mandate was a walk in the woods compared to the PTC mandate. </span> </p>
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy