Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
1. Again, I never said regulators are "worthless", rather that too much oversight and committeethink can really gum up the works, severely reducing the ability of the risk takers to recoup their investment. Who's to say that even the allowances of the regulators won't come back to haunt the risk takers? Take the whole MTBE snafu, the feds were the ones that encouraged the production and use of MTBE in fuel, then when it's found to be contaminating groundwater, it's the makers of MTBE who stand to be sued to death while the feds wa***heir hands of the whole thing. 2. Again, someone brings up the whole "build it and prove me wrong" hypothetical, which of course can never be proven or disproven within the confines of this forum. An easy statement to make when there's nothing on the line for the statement maker. However, it can be stated with a certain degree of confidence that the increase in the revenue producing load factors tend to more than offset the cost and tare increases in the equipment, that's the nature of transportation technologies. If the load factor is tripled while the equipment cost factor is doubled, you come out ahead. The custom made equipment cost differentials are in theory temporary, and as the newer technologies become instituted the assembly line cost savings come into play. 3. Businesses do not knowingly engage in activities that would obviously result in litigation liabilities. To say that a business would simply engage in cost cutting to the point of knowingly risking safety (and the subsequent liabilities) is nonsensical. Businesses tend to have more inside knowledge of safety factors than beauracrats sitting in some office somewhere far away. There's always a gray area in which no one can know for certain what might or might not happen with new technologies and innovations. Who's to say the decision of the regulators may end up being more wrong than the decision of the business? 4. If anything wide can be loaded onto standard gauge track (simply widening the clearances), then why don't we go back to narrow gauge? Think of the cost savings in lower tare weight, after all it doesn't matter how wide the commodity is, it'll balance just fine on the tracks in defiance of the laws of physics. Gee, it works for the monorail concept (never mind that monorails envelop the supporting rail, not just sit upon it)! In general, gauge width will determine commodity width. 5. A double wide gauge can result in shorter trains, which can aid in terminal operations. It is easier and faster to work a double width of containers from both sides rather than singly. Also, the trend toward wider commodities is increasing, and having a surface transportation system that can handle these wider commodities would be beneficial.
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