Overmod Convicted One Take two identical rubberbands. Put one in the freezer over night, and then compare the two the following morning. Or for that matter use certain common O-rings...
Convicted One Take two identical rubberbands. Put one in the freezer over night, and then compare the two the following morning.
Or for that matter use certain common O-rings...
For those who may not remember:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raMmRKGkGD4
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
OvermodI personally can't imagine any problem in developing a combination of face material, core foam, and blowing-agent compositions and pressures that would not produce a reliable, UV- and contaminant-resistant strip that would bottom-anchor to a "legal" HDPE or whatever flangeway bottom filler across the width of a crossing (with approach nose pieces either end) which would reliably compress away in flange contact but not substantially under transient bicycle content or even sustained contact by even suicide-minded scooter pilots. While Euclid's sources may be selective in addressing how they handle their materials selection and fabrication,
I'm sure you looked at the illustrations that Euclid linked to. With the hollow cell that deforms under the weight of the rail wheel, but not under the weight of a scooter.
I'd be really, truly amazed if someone could develop an elastomeric that would withstand thousands of cycles per week in freezing temperatures, for very long.
Add to that, the material must remain rugged on hot summer days, that is going to be a pretty remarkable material.
If you design it like a tire, it has to do what a tire does. Interestingly there is a long and fascinating history of various ultimately-defective attempts to get tires to run compatibly at high speed over jointed rail with self-guarding frogs, which does have technological solutions but not commercial ones.
Anyone who looks at this problem will comprehend that a single central chamber will not succeed under the multiple stressing conditions: the 'face' has one set of concerns, and the bearing foam in the core very different ones. That battle was partially fought and lost with foam-filled ag and off-road tires, but then fought and won with the last generation of run-flats in European practice.
In any case, much of the argument appears to be predicated on the quaint American notion that the actual filler to TOR needs to be the 'only' part of the whole solution, that it needs to be 'fire and forget' in deployment, and that it needs to be designed and placed to be permanent. None of my own designs (since I was about 16) have suffered from those misconceptions, and I would like to think that Euclid's discussed ones won't.
As previously noted, the highway authority and not the railroad is responsible for the whole cost of the filler system, whether or not they delegate its provision or maintenance to railroads. They are also responsible for periodic maintenance and its effective documentation, and timely forwarding if defects or impending/overt failure, as necessary; it is ridiculous to have a railroad mandated to do this system-wide when local resources can do it 'distributed' (and use a government, socially-funded, repository as a clearinghouse both for information and cumulative data storage)
In my designs at least the 'face' is not continuous: there are periodic screw attach points molded 'through' that are overdesigned not to be fatigue or exposure fail points, and the strip is held to the underlying HDPE or whatever with security screws in addition to aggressive assisted with surface activation. Removal is relatively simple; replacement either taps back into existing holes or, with only slight and logically-understandable 'displacement' along the flangeway, self-tapped into new areas of HDPE. If you make the core foam a highly contrasting color, or put in material that visibly extrudes colored indicator through any crack or candalism damage, even casual inspection by town employees or an 'informed' public will give perfectly adequate warning of a need to repair or replace.
Convicted One Overmod I personally can't imagine any problem in developing a combination of face material, core foam, and blowing-agent compositions and pressures that would not produce a reliable, UV- and contaminant-resistant strip that would bottom-anchor to a "legal" HDPE or whatever flangeway bottom filler across the width of a crossing (with approach nose pieces either end) which would reliably compress away in flange contact but not substantially under transient bicycle content or even sustained contact by even suicide-minded scooter pilots. While Euclid's sources may be selective in addressing how they handle their materials selection and fabrication, I'm sure you looked at the illustrations that Euclid linked to. With the hollow cell that deforms under the weight of the rail wheel, but not under the weight of a scooter. I'd be really, truly amazed if someone could develop an elastomeric that would withstand thousands of cycles per week in freezing temperatures, for very long. Add to that, the material must remain rugged on hot summer days, that is going to be a pretty remarkable material.
Overmod I personally can't imagine any problem in developing a combination of face material, core foam, and blowing-agent compositions and pressures that would not produce a reliable, UV- and contaminant-resistant strip that would bottom-anchor to a "legal" HDPE or whatever flangeway bottom filler across the width of a crossing (with approach nose pieces either end) which would reliably compress away in flange contact but not substantially under transient bicycle content or even sustained contact by even suicide-minded scooter pilots. While Euclid's sources may be selective in addressing how they handle their materials selection and fabrication,
Regarding what I highlighted in red above:
The hollow cell deforms under the force of the wheel weight, but the range of deformation is limited to only the depth of the wheel flange, or about one inch. So the hollow elastomer form is compressed by the wheel load, but the deformation is stopped after progressing just one inch. And at that point, the hollow voids in the elastomer extrusion are not even fully collapsed.
So while the wheel weight load to the rail may be teens of tons, the actual loading to the elastomer flangeway filler may be only a few hundred pounds. And that loading is on the relatively compressible, hollow void structure within the extruded form of the flangeway filler.
It is not even remotely similar or even analogous to running over a tire with a train.
Nor is is similar to the o-ring failure on the Space Shuttle.
EuclidIt is not even remotely similar or even analogous to running over a tire with a train.
I thought that the logic was roughly approximate to your submission that " tires have been tried multiple times and fail all the time because they can't be used in cold weather "
Convicted One Euclid It is not even remotely similar or even analogous to running over a tire with a train. I thought that the logic was roughly approximate to your submission that " tires have been tried multiple times and fail all the time because they can't be used in cold weather "
Euclid It is not even remotely similar or even analogous to running over a tire with a train.
You must be referring to this from one of my posts on the previous page:
Quote:
“Tried multiple times & fails all the time...could only be used in warm weather states and cigarettes set the pliable flangeway filler on fire.”
Rail seal products are made from thick rubber just like tires, and that is why tires have been tried multiple times and fail all the time because they can't be used in cold weather and cigarettes set them on fire.
***************************************************************
The word "Quote" at the start of the start of the part in red means the part in red is quoted from MC from around page 1 or 2.
I don't know whether it is accurate or not, but I doubt it. I have seen these products in photos and videos, and they look like very heavy rubber like that of rubber tires for cars and trucks. I do not see those tires being set afire from cigarettes. Nor do I see them being only useble in warm weather. Therefore, I don't believe the claim that these flageway products have never been made workable because of catching fire from cigarettes or not working in cold weather.
My understanding is that both the SFRS and FF are in need of regulatory approval for use in heavy rail systems. I do not know where they are at in the process of approval, but the resistance is likely to be much greater with FF because it actually fills the flangeway, and must be compressed by the passing train.
However, I find no evidence that either product is being stopped by a failure to successfully perform their intended function. So I doubt that either flammability or temperature performance are practical obstacles to widespread use.
But apparently what is an obstacle is railroad industry resistance to the concept because it reduces the extra space around the actual flangeway envelope. Apparently, the industry completely rejects the FF out of fear that it could cause a derailment.
However the rail transit industry apparently has accepted the concept and applied it on a widespread basis. Perhaps they may look at it differently than does the heavy rail industry because transit is public sector, and heavy rail is private sector.
Euclid... However the rail transit industry apparently has accepted the concept and applied it on a widespread basis. Perhaps they may look at it differently than does the heavy rail industry because transit is public sector, and heavy rail is private sector.
Rail Transit is not running 15K foot trains at 60 MPH. Derail a transit car or two is very different than derailing a freight train that can be hauling everything from 'air' to bulk commodities to methylethyldeath. Such a derailment can involve 30 - 60 or more cars.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidYou must be referring to this from one of my posts on the previous page: Quote: “Tried multiple times & fails all the time...could only be used in warm weather states and cigarettes set the pliable flangeway filler on fire.” Rail seal products are made from thick rubber just like tires, and that is why tires have been tried multiple times and fail all the time because they can't be used in cold weather and cigarettes set them on fire.
Quote: “Tried multiple times & fails all the time...could only be used in warm weather states and cigarettes set the pliable flangeway filler on fire.”
Yes, I was referring to your language following the quote you attributed to MC.
Your language appeared to be intentionally facetious, so I thought you might appreciate a similarly spirited reply.
The "normal" use of tires in which they are successfully applied being other than the application we are discussing here.
Sticking my head further in the barrel, It wouldn't surprise me that if a flangeway was filled with combustable material, and a wind-whipped cigarette butt ignited those materials, a fire sufficient to damage the elastomer in the flangeway might result.
It's not so much that you have a "burning gasket" as you might have a flame damaged gasket. One that might not stand up to mechanical abuse...just something to think about
Having personal experience with moving joints employing similar materials in both commercial buildings and parking structures, I can tell you from experience that this risk is genuine.
BaltACD Euclid ... However the rail transit industry apparently has accepted the concept and applied it on a widespread basis. Perhaps they may look at it differently than does the heavy rail industry because transit is public sector, and heavy rail is private sector. Rail Transit is not running 15K foot trains at 60 MPH. Derail a transit car or two is very different than derailing a freight train that can be hauling everything from 'air' to bulk commodities to methylethyldeath. Such a derailment can involve 30 - 60 or more cars.
Euclid ... However the rail transit industry apparently has accepted the concept and applied it on a widespread basis. Perhaps they may look at it differently than does the heavy rail industry because transit is public sector, and heavy rail is private sector.
Given the weight similarity between most freight cars and transit, which is huge when loaded, the freight cars are even less likely to be derailed. Your argument is illogical contrafactual and an example of fear-mongering.
Freight Ines have plenty of derailments and how many are caused by crossing impediments? Of course they do manage to collide with each other all over and still have time to hit vehicles and pedestrians at those pesky crossings.
In practice, of course, tires use internal pressure in the chamber (which is why they're called 'pneumatic tires') and rely on controlled deformation in the side walls more then deflection in the tread. This was not entirely the case for the "Micheline" approach, which used controlled deflection of the tread to center and guide the wheel -- an approach that works well for short times even on modern tires, as a friend of mine who owned a '70s Chevy Nova found out: if the vehicle track measured across tire centers is the same as the gauge, and the tires are slightly deflated so the tread can become concave when loaded on a rail, a profound self-steering effect develops even up to high speed, similar to that of a coned wheel but acting in both directions and with built-in damping of oscillations. Michelin backed this up with a flange but with the assumption it would only be 'for emergencies' or when negotiating sharper curves, and had it worked dynamically in groups of eight or ten the way it did in theory, it might have revolutionized light vehicles on even fairly crappy jointed rail. In practice the things bounced like basketballs when excited by low joints, especially if there were a resonance in the suspension related to the 39' spacing (like that in the Alco Hi-Ads susceptible to harmonic rock).
Few of the actual effects in tires are common to actual crossing fillers, including those cited by Euclid. Nor, I think, is the material in current tire treads common to extruded fillers. However, bending stresses in the shapes shown in Euclid's reference material might be interesting in producing permanent deformation and stress-raised cracking if the material's glass transition is close to something that might be encountered environmentally... which is seen in [/quote]Nor is is similar to the o-ring failure on the Space Shuttle.[/quote]Of course it is, or rather would be if the crossing fillers, as in the Shuttle ring case, had the glass transition temperature set unfortunately high. Interestingly enough Morton Thiokol had foreseen this issue fairly carefully (as high, not low temperatures were the danger) and had a hard engineering note that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES were the boosters to be flown under about 41 degrees ambient.
It was 21 when the politically-motivated Challenger launch was attempted.
Recently there was a discussion of the 614T testing conducted in the mid-80s for American Coal Enterprises, in which Ross recounted quite a bit of experience at -35F. One place you can bet ambient temperature will be effectively heat-sinked is in components in contact with continuous steel rail. That will be one sidewall of the 'chamber' form. It had better remain amorphous and fully elastic below that temperature range...
Incidentally the range of deflection is probably less that an inch, but it's closer to the gauge side of the rail than the center of the extrusion, so either the chamber has to be asymmetrical or the bending greater on the gauge-side wall. And the deflection is determined by the maximum tolerable under bicycle or wheelchair spot pressure -- or by keeping the section from deflecting measurably at all under that load -- preserving the lowest possible resistance to deflection that can be tolerated by those vehicles and their users.
I also find it almost imcomprehensible that the face of such a filler would support, let alone sustain, combustion from a source as small and transient as a cigarette butt (or, now perhaps as likely in California, a marijuana roach). Or in fact, given the mass in the bearing face and contact with the heat sink of the rail, that even pouring lighted gasoline on it in an accident would cause more than surface char damage. Of course, the world is full of idiot designers who might leave flame-retardancy out of their mixture or surface treatment ASSuming it couldn't possibly see heat sources in use...
In terms of safety, I'm not sure the filler needs to come to the top of the railhead. Rather the ones I see (on a very busy heavy rail line) slant down, more or less parallel to the flange outline.
charlie hebdo BaltACD Euclid ... However the rail transit industry apparently has accepted the concept and applied it on a widespread basis. Perhaps they may look at it differently than does the heavy rail industry because transit is public sector, and heavy rail is private sector. Rail Transit is not running 15K foot trains at 60 MPH. Derail a transit car or two is very different than derailing a freight train that can be hauling everything from 'air' to bulk commodities to methylethyldeath. Such a derailment can involve 30 - 60 or more cars. Given the weight similarity between most freight cars and transit, which is huge when loaded, the freight cars are even less likely to be derailed. Your argument is illogical contrafactual and an example of fear-mongering. Freight Ines have plenty of derailments and how many are caused by crossing impediments? Of course they do manage to collide with each other all over and still have time to hit vehicles and pedestrians at those pesky crossings.
As long as 'you and your device' are willing to accept total liability should your device cause a derailment and post a bond to cover the potential - have at it and have fun! $100M sound like a potentially adequate bond.
charlie hebdoIn terms of safety, I'm not sure the filler needs to come to the top of the railhead. Rather the ones I see (on a very busy heavy rail line) slant down, more or less parallel to the flange outline.
It is correct that this could be shy -- even an inch or two shy -- of being 'perfectly level' with the railhead; it is even relatively unlikely that the inch or two of ice or dirt that might accumulate in the resulting recess would pose much more derailment risk than similar accumulation in the flangeway of a crossing with the HDPE strip fillers.
It will literally take an act of Congress, or some scheme that caps or removes railroad liability for accidents related to or arising out of the full fullers, to get them established at crossings. I don't blame either the railroads or the AAR for fighting to ensure they stay out of becoming unfunded mandates or assumable risks for railroad companies.
It will literally take an act of Congress, or some scheme that caps or removes railroad liability for accidents related to or arising out of the full-height fillers, to get them established at crossings. I don't blame either the railroads or the AAR for fighting to ensure they stay out of becoming unfunded mandates or assumable risks for railroad companies.
I wonder if a 'transition' profile, an otherwise full-height filler with a groove in it corresponding in location and depth to what a locomotive would 'cut for itself' in fresh asphalt, would be more acceptable as an alternative?
Quite possibly and thanks for a cogent, yet thorough summary of the main types.
We are indeed focusing on two types flangeway devices. One of them is the flangeway filler (FF) that has to compress and rebound as it is contacted by the flanges. In effect, when there is no train passing, the flangeway is completely filled with a material that will support vehicles but compress to allow flanges to pass. As I mentioned, these seem to be widely accepted for transit lines, but have no chance of acceptance by heavy rail systems.
The other type of device is the SHALLOW FLANGEWAY RAIL SEAL (SFRS). This is to be distinguished from the basic RAIL SEAL which also has a flangeway, but it is deeper than the flangeway of the SFRS.
The basic RAIL SEAL is not intended to address the flangeway safety issue, but the SFRS is intended to add flangeway safety by making the flangeway as shallow as possible. The emphasis is on “Shallow.” The flangeway for SFRS is about 1.5” deep versus up to 8-9” deep for the deepest flangeways, including those without any RAIL SEAL device. The idea behind the SFRS is that you can’t get your foot stuck in a frying pan.
The most preferred approach would be to use the SFRS. It does not need to directly yield to the flange as the FF does. Although the industry is not satisfied with a flangeway that merely clears the flange. They want a lot of clearance. So they will at least be hesitant to approve the SFRS while completely rejecting the FF.
From what I gather, all three of these categories; FF, SFRS, and basic RS are all made of rubber and not polypropylene. This is because the resilience of rubber plays a role in all three device categories as follows:
For FF, the flangeway filler has to compress and rebound with the passage of flanges.
For SFRS, the flangeway floor has to compress and rebound if ice or dirt builds up on the floor and that layer then is contacted by the flange. If it does so, the flanges will clean the fouling layer out of the flangeway. It is the flexing action of the flangeway floor that bends and fractures the layer so the flanges can crush and eject it from the flangeway.
For the basic RS, the whole assembly has to compress like a rubber gasket upon installation in order to make a seal around the rail and keep dirt and water from getting under the rail and into the ballast.
If this self-cleaning of the flangeway is proven effective, this SFRS is a brilliant solution to the problem of flangeway cleaning and flangeway safety. Not only will this flangeway not derail trains, it may very well prevent derailments that might otherwise be caused by dirt or ice fouling of the flangeways.
But the industry has got to be convinced that they don’t need the Grand Canyon flangeway in order to hold dirt and ice in storage to prevent it from contacting the flange. Indeed, the Grand Canyon flangeway cannot be made self-cleaning, so it will always fill to the point where it must be cleaned of ice, or dirt as soon as these materials build to the point where they are contacted by the flanges.
So rather than having the Grand Canyon flangeway that provides the longest possible interval between manual cleanings, they can have the self-cleaning SFRS and not have the need for any manual cleanings at all. A need for manual cleanings can lead to derailments if not cleaned in time. A self-cleaning flangeway, with no need of manual cleanings, make derailments impossible.
+1
If that 'you can't trap your foot in a frying pan' is original, you have a really good Lorenzo Coffin-style slogan in the making.
I base my assessment on the material in the shallow-flangeway crossings I've seen on the type of wear or damage patterns I see, which are highly typical of medium to high density polyethylene or similar material. That's not to say that others aren't rubber or elastomer of some kind, or that some may have Zectron-like elasticity in a butyl composition.
Note that all the 'Grand Canyon' flangeways I have seen are essentially self-cleaning in that they are massively open below the edge of the filler' pieces defining the edge of the flange space. The ones on the LIRR in East Hampton appear to be designed to clear dirt and snow out of the entire flangeway space to where it can spill or be compressed across the ties and cribs in the gauge space, much as parking-lot vaults quickly take even the most severe storm runoff and remove it from the driving surface and surface drainage. This limits the active trapping of both debris and frozen water to just the open-bottom space occupied by about a 1.5" slot 'open to below' with metal-defined edges both sides.
All this of course merely makes trapping of transverse wheels a near-certainty over a fairly large gathering angle, and the 'lack of a bottom' guaranteeing full insertion which, for bicycle wheels, near-guarantees both a nasty spill and considerable irreversible wheel damage without sufficient visual warning. It would be possible to mitigate some of this with a grid, rather than continuous, filler at shallow-flangeway depth, and preserve most of the self-cleaning action, but there might still be danger of entrapment and spill. Perhaps the answer is a meshwork 'FF" that would support larger-diameter wheels and perhaps even casters so that they will effectively 'climb' either edge of the flange space as they turn without catching.
All this of course merely makes trapping of transverse wheels a near-certainty over a fairly large gathering angle, and the 'lack of a bottom' guaranteeing full insertion which, for bicycle wheels, near-guarantees both a nasty spill and considerable irreversible wheel damage without sufficient visual warning. It would be possible to mitigate some of this with a grid, rather than continuous, filler at shallow-flangeway depth, and preserve most of the self-cleaning action, but there might still be danger of entrapment and spill. Perhaps the answer is a meshwork 'FF" that would support larger-diameter wheels and perhaps even casters so that they will effectively 'climb' either edge of the flange space as they turn without catching, sufficiently below the railhead that only a small percentage of the flange actually causes deflection of it.
The “Grand Canyon” flangeway is intended to be a repository so large, that you don’t have to clean it out often. Like a landfill, it is the size that makes it practical. Also the capacity is aided in delaying cleanout by the natural decomposition of material deposited. Ice and snow melt and the resulting water disappears by runoff, evaporation, and percolation. Dirt washes out or settles deeply into the ballast. Trash rots away. So in that sense, the “Grand Canyon” flangeway is like a septic tank always digesting much of its contents.
The obvious problem with the jumbo flangeway is its hazards to pedestrians. But there is also a downside that harms the interest of the railroad. One reference cites the fact that this internal consumption of debris eventually finds its way into the track bed and fouls the ballast, which then impedes drainage and causes frost heave of the ballast under the crossing. This causes the track under the crossing misalign with the connecting track outside of the crossing, thus forming a derailment hazard at the crossing. So while jumbo flangeways offer some benefit, they are also slowly poisoning the crossing by fouling the ballast.
So when you greatly reduce the size of the maximum size flangeway, you reduce ballast fouling, but the flangeway has to be cleaned out more frequently because its storage capacity has been reduced. If it is not cleaned out frequently, the filling and packing with debris will eventually crowd out and lift the flanges to the point of derailment.
However, with the shallow flangeway rail seal, you attack the ice while it is thin, and you do so often. Every passing train cleans the flangeway.
Solution: have flangeways closed via solenoids until a train approaches, then proceed to open them after the gates are fully in the closed position. This way, nobody will get stuck unless they venture onto the tracks while the gates are fully closed, at which point they were probably suicidal anyway.
TrainsButSmallSolution: have flangeways closed via solenoids until a train approaches, then proceed to open them after the gates are fully in the closed position. This way, nobody will get stuck unless they venture onto the tracks while the gates are fully closed, at which point they were probably suicidal anyway.
Cost to design the system $$$$$. Cost to install the system $$$$$$$. Cost to maintain the system $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Not PSR friendly.
Sidewalk drawbridge!!!
BaltACD Cost to design the system $$$$$. Cost to install the system $$$$$$$. Cost to maintain the system $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Not PSR friendly.
I think you're underestimating the cost.... You also forgot liability.
Might make sense if the cost and liability was the responsibility of whoever owns the road crossing the railroad, but some very wamr places will freeze over before municipalities fork over the necessary funs to implement this.
I went back and reviewed that video of the wheelchair stuck on the track in Lodi. Regarding the seeming lack of urgency on the part of the guy in the chair, I could not see his expressions because his face was intentionally obscured in the video. But it is striking just how close of a call this actually was. He cleared the train with only a second or two to spare. I have a feeling that his overall discomfort of this event will lead him to be in the news again.
Here is the TSB report of the similar wheelchair mishap in Canada. Crossing/wheelchair fatality in Canada with extensive details of historical record of such accidents and related safety measures:
https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2016/r16m0026/r16m0026.html
In this case, two people were trying to get the chair and the victim off of the track, but failed. He was struck and killed and also one of the two rescuers was struck and badly injured. One point revealed in the report is just how heavy these powered wheelchairs actually are. They said that in the case of this accident in Canada, the chair and rider weighed about 500 lbs. This weight would certainly play a role in how tightly wheels might get jammed into a flangeway, and how much effort it would take to overcome the resistance of the jam plus the 500-lb. load of chair and rider.
I assume that getting the rider out of the chair would be readily achievable even if there is some kind of seat belt that would have to be released. But I wonder about rescuers being confused over the mission of getting the rider and the chair into the clear, versus just getting the rider into the clear and then going back for the chair if there is time.
To the point above about powered, automatic flangeway fillers:
I don’t think they are the answer, except maybe in the EU. For North American railroads, the fully developed solution already exists. It does not solve 100% of the multifaceted problem, but it prevents people in wheelchairs from getting killed. It is a simple product that will more than pay for itself by reducing liability. In addition, it will probably make a profit by reducing flangeway maintenance and the fouling of crossing ballast.
True, but this dude is whining about flangeways when there have been few or no cases involving flangeway fatalities, so realism isn't exactly the point.
TrainsButSmall True, but this dude is whining about flangeways when there have been few or no cases involving flangeway fatalities, so realism isn't exactly the point.
How many fatalties does it require to be concerned about it?
TrainsButSmallTrue, but this dude is whining about flangeways when there have been few or no cases involving flangeway fatalities, so realism isn't exactly the point.
I am not sure what saying 'few or no flangeway fatalities' is supposed to mean in the context of a thread about a "flangeway fatality" -- had he read the TSB report in the immediately preceding post, he would have learned the number for Canada alone to the report date (7) as well as a great deal of earlier recognition of and concern over the issue (much of which I had not been aware of). Note for example that in both the California and New Brunswick examples a stated likely cause was positioning the crossing-signal mast in the sidewalk; note also (with a nod to the Ashland grade-crossing discussion) that a safety device is what likely precluded the Canadian operator from reversing back to safety.
OM: Thank you for stating that so succinctly. It bugs me also to have participated in a thorough discussion of this issue, only to have someone crudely call Bucky a whiner, all the while he proposes a problematic active system.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.