Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
I have rarely seen a paper that is as difficult to absorb as the one linked to the first post of this thread.  To simplify its position as much as possible, let’s look at the summary of findings which it gives as follows:"II. Summary of Findings<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>At its core, the “positive train control” (PTC) mandate focuses strictly on improving the safety of train operations. The benefits being ascribed to PTC, however, are largely non-safety related and based on the assumption that the railroads and shippers will realize collateral benefits by implementing complementary technologies as part of PTC. This assumption, derived largely from the analyses of an early PTC-type project carried out in the late 1980s, ignores the tremendous strides that the US railroad industry has made in the past three decades in terms of productivity and efficiency – improvements driven in large part by the industry’s continuous pursuit of state-of-the-art operational processes and technology. These advances – and railroad plans to continue this process independent of PTC – greatly reduce the collateral benefits that might be realized by implementing PTC. In some cases, the implementation of PTC likely will be of no benefit or even have an adverse impact on railroads’ ability to fund technologies that would be of greater value in terms of increasing the quality and reliability of service to their customers."<o:p></o:p>. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Now just to make it as simple as possible, I have removed the less important phraseology, and it reads thus:   .  "II. Summary of Findings<o:p></o:p>At its core, the PTC mandate focuses strictly on improving the safety… The benefits, however, are largely non-safety related and based on the assumption that the railroads and shippers will realize collateral benefits… <o:p></o:p>This assumption… ignores the tremendous strides that the US railroad industry has made in the past three decades in terms of productivity and efficiency… <o:p></o:p>These advances – and railroad plans to continue this process independent of PTC – greatly reduce the collateral benefits that might be realized by implementing PTC. <o:p></o:p>In some cases, the implementation of PTC likely will be of no benefit or even have an adverse impact on railroads’ ability to fund technologies that would be of greater value in terms of increasing the quality and reliability of service to their customers."<o:p></o:p>  .<o:p></o:p>Can anybody translate this?  It seems to be opposing PTC, but I cannot imagine a more poorly made case for that position.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o: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