1. What Republican President since Nixon-and-Ford has not attempted something similar?
2. Were any successful?
3. Possibly regarding this issue Congress and the Senate are more attuned to USA Citizens' Wishes?
daveklepper3. Possilby regarding this issue Congress and the Senate are more attuned to USA Citizens' Wishes?
Possibly regarding this issue Congress is more interested in welfare for railroad workers and free rides for its constitunts with abusing the freight carriers as a side benefit.
Your post is equal to my saying that everyone who believes in ending long-distance passenger service is interested in abusing the elderly, infirm, and wounded who cannot fly and have good reasons to travel long distances in comfort.
I don't believe that you believe the exact words you posted. If you did, it would not speak well for you. Because if you did, you are saying that long-distance passeger train advocates, and/or their representatives in the House and Senate, deliberately wish to harm people.
As far as I know, only terrorists deliverately wish to harm people. Policemen wish to stop criminal behavior, and soldiers only to defend their countries.
A possible rephrasing of your post might be to say that these Congressmen and Senators wish to help railroad operting employees and give their constituants a free ride, even at the expense of the freight railroads.
CSSHEGEWISCHAnd just how old are the KC-135's that refuel just about every frontline aircraft that the Air Force flies?
Just about everything the Army uses is at least 40 years old, some of it is 60+ years old.
Blackhawk Helos: New in 1980.
Chinook Helos: Vietnam Era
Kiowa Helos (Bell Jet Ranger based): Late Vietnam Era
Apache Helos: New in 1980.
Tow Missile : New in 1970's
M4 Rifle which is a derivative of the M16: Vietnam Era
Gas Mask derivative of M17 design: Vietnam Era
M2 Machine Gun: WW II Vintage
Greese Gun: WW II Vintage
SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon): New in 1987.
Bayonette: Vietnam War Era
Humvee: New in 1985.
M1 Tank: New in 1980.
Baseball Grenades: Vietnam Era
M203 Grenade Launcher: Late Vietnam Era
MRAP: New in 2010 approx........yaaay! new equipment!!!
Flak Vest: Vietnam Era until post 2000, then upgraded to new bullet resistent vs shrapnel resistent features......uses Ceramic plates now instead of Kevlar.
Helmet: Upgraded with GWOT no longer use Kevlar Helmet or K-POT
Uniform: LOL, upgraded repeatedly with GWOT. Army has finally settled on WWII versions of its Dress Uniform but you won't see them worn for another 2 year yet but the Brown Army uniform is comming back with the aviator bomber jacket.
Even with all that old equipment, still most of it is superior to the modern stuff the Russians have. No clue on Chinese equipment.
Most of the money in the DoD budget goes for technolgical improvement vs brand new weapons or weapons platforms. For example you can email between vehicles now, and request an air strike by tapping twice on a touch screen with a topo map on it........almost everything is networked on a WAN now. DoD is even going to deploy secure cell phones in the not too distant future if they haven't already with Army cell phone apps so the device can be used for patient monitoring, GPS navigation, etc. Most units have laser range finders now so there is not much estimating of range anymore. So thats where they are spending money.
Equipment age wise, Similar to Amtrak. Keep up with technology wise, DoD is far superior to Amtrak and I would even say Amtrak lags the transportation industry when it comes to modern technology and the application of it. Amtrak is still somewhere in the 1970's or 1980's transportation technology wise for the most part.
About 5,000 M1A1 Abrams tanks were produced from 1986–92 and various upgrade packages have been added since.
"Possibly regarding this issue Congress and the Senate are more attuned to USA Citizens' Wishes?"
There's an old saying that "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". In the case of Amtrak there's the various Amtrak unions plus other union allies and the Rail Passenger's Association lobbying for it to continue on with no changes other than more money being given to it. There's no real organized lobby against it. Most of the people in the 48 states don't use it, don't consider using it, and outside of the NE and a few other corridors, Amtrak never crosses their minds. That's why the current status quo on rail passenger service is what we have now and will continue to have until the inevitable financial crisis occurs when the USA budget deficit finally grows too big.
I hope that Amtrak's problems don't result in or contribute to the USA freight rail network reverting back under heavy Fed regulation once again and they go downhill.
CMStPnPEquipment age wise, Similar to Amtrak. Keep up with technology wise, DoD is far superior to Amtrak and I would even say Amtrak lags the transportation industry when it comes to modern technology and the application of it. Amtrak is still somewhere in the 1970's or 1980's transportation technology wise for the most part.
With Amtrak's financial footing they have difficulty in getting their 1980's purchased equipment maintained, let alone upgraded to 21st Century requirements. Give Amtrak the DOD financial footing and things would change. Give the DOD Amtrak's financial footing and we would be speaking another language.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDGive Amtrak the DOD financial footing and things would change.
Almost to the word what Amtrak's current CEO stated. Though I will say this. Amtrak management has proven to be highly risk averse to experimentation as well as very, very slow to catch on to changing consumer preferences. So I am not sure I would buy the line that if the company was flush with cash if it would make the appropriate decisions. I feel it is much more highly likely it would blow most of the cash on mismanagement. So I kind of understand why Congress is leary of giving it lots of money without a detailed list of what it chooses to spend the money on. Unlike most private companies, Amtrak Management needs close oversight and supervision on what their plans are. I think that is traceable to the comfort from past subsidies. In other words, they know if they screw up that Congress will appropriate money next year so the motivation to get things done right the first time or done cheaply is not as strong as it would be with a trully private company that had to live with it's past decisions and had no bail out mechanism. Which makes the risk averseness to experiment to improve....even harder to understand.
CMStPnP BaltACD Give Amtrak the DOD financial footing and things would change. Almost to the word what Amtrak's current CEO stated. Though I will say this. Amtrak management has proven to be highly risk averse to experimentation as well as very, very slow to catch on to changing consumer preferences. So I am not sure I would buy the line that if the company was flush with cash if it would make the appropriate decisions. I feel it is much more highly likely it would blow most of the cash on mismanagement. So I kind of understand why Congress is leary of giving it lots of money without a detailed list of what it chooses to spend the money on. Unlike most private companies, Amtrak Management needs close oversight and supervision on what their plans are. I think that is traceable to the comfort from past subsidies. In other words, they know if they screw up that Congress will appropriate money next year so the motivation to get things done right the first time or done cheaply is not as strong as it would be with a trully private company that had to live with it's past decisions and had no bail out mechanism. Which makes the risk averseness to experiment to improve....even harder to understand.
BaltACD Give Amtrak the DOD financial footing and things would change.
Starving men are generally risk averse to anything that may threaten their continued food supply. Amtrak has been on a starvation food supply since the day it was created - they know nothing else.
CMStPnPJust about everything the Army uses is at least 40 years old, some of it is 60+ years old.
You didn't list some of the newer wheeled vehicles, like the Stryker (a move away from tracked vehicles) and the MRAP.
MidlandMike CMStPnP Just about everything the Army uses is at least 40 years old, some of it is 60+ years old. You didn't list some of the newer wheeled vehicles, like the Stryker (a move away from tracked vehicles) and the MRAP.
CMStPnP Just about everything the Army uses is at least 40 years old, some of it is 60+ years old.
Military M16 - history
charlie hebdoAbout 5,000 M1A1 Abrams tanks were produced from 1986–92 and various upgrade packages have been added since.
The first M1A1 was delivered in 1980 as I stated. My first Army unit had them long prior to my arrival in 1984 and they obtained them in 1980. Also, consistent with what I said is they don't necessarily upgrade the weapons platform they upgrade the technology in it.
Unlike tanks before them, M1's were designed not to be throw away and have only been retired if they are battle damaged severely, which is rare. Typically they keep the hull and they are rebuilt. So some of the early 1980 M1's are probably still running today and were exported under arms programs. Still the basic weapons platform is almost the same now as it was in 1980. They may have changed in the innards in a few ways or added on reactive armor but it is not new. I believe the M1 tank line shut down a while back. They only need to remanufacture them now to keep them running. So far not a lot of damage to existing fleet from various attempts on the battlefield, so they might last another 40 years. Their best feature is the dash to cover or rapid acceleration. Makes them really hard to engage and hit.
Very first M1 prototype was produced in 1975.
M1A2 has the 2 because I believe they actually upgraded the armor to be more resilent along with the main gun to shoot more accurately and a further distance.
MidlandMikeYou didn't list some of the newer wheeled vehicles, like the Stryker (a move away from tracked vehicles) and the MRAP.
I did list the MRAP, which is rapidly becomming a police vehicle since it will not last more then 2-3 min in a trully conventional war. Stryker has yet to prove itself but yeah I did not list all the Army stuff, the chunk I did list was enough to make the point.
Quote:
I agree 100%
daveklepperQuote: I hope that Amtrak's problems don't result in or contribute to the USA freight rail network reverting back under heavy Fed regulation once again and they go downhill. I agree 100%
I don't think it will be Amtrak's problems that would cause that to happen. *cough* PSR *cough*.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
alphas "Possibly regarding this issue Congress and the Senate are more attuned to USA Citizens' Wishes?"
NO!! Unless you define only those citizens as those with a lot of money, political super power, and following the party line. Look at the R support for the wall vs the general public's non support.
Huh!?? Unless the news I read is distorted, I think the President wants the wall, and Congress and the Senate do not.
There have been different results based upon various samples using different definitions of a "wall". It all depends on how a question is posed to the public and how statistically accurate a sample is. The overall news media touts the "wall" opinion surveys that are favorable to its political view. Those polling results often tend to be based upon responses from urban areas already very friendly to illegal or undocumented immigration and which are normally heavily democratic. Opinion surveys taken of a broader section of the public and using terminology such as a "barrier" rather than a "wall" are more sympathethic to the President.
The key for any polling as well as any other statistical analysis is "does the sample taken have at least a 95% probability rate?" That is usually the threshold for a sample being considered valid.
A goood example of how the 95% confidence level is important is the Feds publicly using a figure of about 13 Million illegally in the country. The Feds have been calculating this using the same formula since they started many years ago. A group of statisticans from MIT and Harvard researched this on their own after having done other statistical work for the Feds and becoming somewhat sceptical of how things in general were done. They first were able to prove the confidence level for the Feds method of analysing illegals was way below any acceptable level. Then they ran analysis of the available data in every way possible. The results showed that the lowest analysis that reached the 95% confidence level resulted in a minimum of over 17.6 illegals and the highest was 29 million. The Average and the Medium of all the samples that meet the 95% confidence level were 22.6 million and 23 million. Their results were made know in a scientific paper and eventually reported in the Wall Street Journal after they were made aware of the research and confirmed it was a non-political study. The rest of the US media basically ignored it. Trump was made aware of their research and that's when he began to use the 23 Million figure in his speeches.
alphasThere have been different results based upon various samples using different definitions of a "wall". It all depends on how a question is posed to the public and how statistically accurate a sample is.
To stay within the guidelines of Trains in regards to discussions. Start a thread on the National Railway of Guatemala. It explains in detail why spending even more than the over $100 Billion spent so far since World War II on Central America is a bad idea. Guatemala rebuilt it's national railway system and like a decade later scrapped it. Sad story on corruption. I am really surprised that TRAINS Magazine has tip-toed around the story. Maybe too political for them to handle within their own guidelines?
alphasA goood example of how the 95% confidence level is important is the Feds publicly using a figure of about 13 Million illegally in the country.
Let's see the citation for the research behind this assertion?
[quote user="charlie hebdo"]
alphas A goood example of how the 95% confidence level is important is the Feds publicly using a figure of about 13 Million illegally in the country.
https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/why-hidden-populations-are-so-hard-to-count
Yale: Although both are outstanding scholars, neither of them are statisticians or appear to have a solid background in conducting scientific surveys and polling. Their thesis is provocative, but their alternative methodology is not totally convincing to me, at least.
MIT: This Senior lecturer is a statistician.https://mitsloan.mit.edu/press/research-mit-sloans-mohammad-fazel-zarandi-finds-number-undocumented-immigrants-us-roughly-double-previous-estimates
One obvious problem is accounting for the millions of transients and undocumented immigrants who return to country of origin. Also assumptions about the many legally entering foreign nationals (mostly not from Central America but Europe and Asia) who overstay (visas or not) and get lost in the system.
Another problem to which the author admits is assemptions: “We don’t know the number of people who cross the border successfully—we only know when people get caught trying because the Department of Homeland Security fingerprints every person who gets apprehended,” he says. “From the apprehension data, it’s possible to infer how many people must have tried to cross the border.”
The research article (a tough read!!): https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201193
A critical commentary: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204199
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.