Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer Eighteen pages and counting . . . MichaelSol, TomDiehl is right; you've hijacked this thread and have posted at least fourteen pages worth of your endless discourses trying to impress the unwary. APG is right, too. You do conveniently ignore relevant questions and go off on tangents hoping to confuse readers. If we all get together and tell you how impressed we are with you, will you let this thing go? Old Timer [/quote] How about providing some reference for your views, for starters? All you've done so far is to attack a logical premise and hard statistical data with nothing but your Democrat spitballs. You and Hillary make a nice couple. If you have a reference to your inference that the 1940's - 1950's dieselization improved the railroads ROI rather than degraded it, then by all means present it here in this thread. We won't even accuse you of trying to "hijack" this thread back to status quo of possible mythology as it relates to the *history* of dieselization into which we've all been indoctrinated. You seen to believe in some sort of conspiracy to undermine the credibility of the railroad press. What's it to you, anyway? Does it really harm you or your trade if it turns out that the method used by the industry to dieselize may not have been the best way to accompli***his task? Isn't the whole purpose of historical analysis meant to get it right, rather than allow myth to become percieved as reality? Most of us know that history isn't black and white, that there may be certain misconceptions that have been worked into the fabric of establishment, and to re-explore these possible misconceptions so that the factual record is not scewed, such is apt. Besides, we all know that the established railroad press is rife with gross misrepresentations of fact. Take the rail industry myth of highways being "subsidized" while railroads are entirely financed via the private sector - we all know that intercity highway corridors are all paid for mostly via user fees, it is only local roads that get de facto "subsidies", and of course the rail industry is immersed in various amounts of state and federal aid over the years. Or take the AAR's propaganda campaign that railroads are "taking trucks off our nation's roads and highways", when in fact the whole process of retrenchment of trackage and consolidation of rail terminals has actually forced more trucks onto the highways. Or the false premise that longhauls are more profitable than shorthauls, when actual cycle times relative to per car rates more often than not prove the opposite to be true. Nevermind, Old Timer, you go right on believing whatever the railroad press has established as *fact* over the years. 1940's Dieselization good, 10 year old steam bad. Longhaul good, shorthaul bad. Highways subsidized, railroads not. Trains take trucks off highways, not put more trucks on highways. There, now do you feel better?
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