QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules Oh yeah? Well I have a whole lot more than that!!!! Sincerely solzrules r.p.n.a.s.s.b.u.t.t.h.e.a.d.w.i.e.n.e.r.s.c.h.n.i.t.z.e.l I SAID "too bad for me" . . . What else do you want? Old Timer
QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules Oh yeah? Well I have a whole lot more than that!!!! Sincerely solzrules r.p.n.a.s.s.b.u.t.t.h.e.a.d.w.i.e.n.e.r.s.c.h.n.i.t.z.e.l
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Correlation, in and of itself, NEVER shows cause and effect. It's a tool that can be used to support, or more properly, refute, a proposition. The lack of a correlation IS proof of a lack of cause and effect, but the converse is not true.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: QUOTE: QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Perhaps you'd like to agrue that the turnpikes CAUSED industrial decay in the rust belt? Not sure what your point is. correlation does not equal cause and effect..... "Correlation" as a statistical analytical tool is, however, much more reliable in showing cause and effect than the idea of waiving arms and insisting that "other things" were going on, and therefore can ipso facto be offered as "proof" that the demonstrated correlation is in error. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: QUOTE: QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Perhaps you'd like to agrue that the turnpikes CAUSED industrial decay in the rust belt? Not sure what your point is. correlation does not equal cause and effect.....
QUOTE: QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Perhaps you'd like to agrue that the turnpikes CAUSED industrial decay in the rust belt? Not sure what your point is.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Perhaps you'd like to agrue that the turnpikes CAUSED industrial decay in the rust belt?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl And here I thought YOU held consultants in such high regard. I guess not. As well as no refuting discussion. My actual opinion, as opposed to the one you fabricated for me, was posted as follows three weeks ago: QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Then as now, among consulting firms there were the blue chips -- very expensive -- second tier firms that did OK work, and cheap and dirty firms. Gibbs & Hill was the pre-eminent transportation consulting firm, having built up their reputation particularly during thirty years of work for the Pennsylvania Railroad. Gibbs & Hill along with Coverdale & Colpitts were the old line firms for this kind of work. There is neither an expression of high regard, nor your condecension of utter contempt for them. -- Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl And here I thought YOU held consultants in such high regard. I guess not. As well as no refuting discussion.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Then as now, among consulting firms there were the blue chips -- very expensive -- second tier firms that did OK work, and cheap and dirty firms. Gibbs & Hill was the pre-eminent transportation consulting firm, having built up their reputation particularly during thirty years of work for the Pennsylvania Railroad. Gibbs & Hill along with Coverdale & Colpitts were the old line firms for this kind of work.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I've already stated how I feel about consultants. You, on the other hand, have assigned godlike infallability to one consultant, so I offered the views of another consultant. So in outline form: Two Consultants. Same topic. Different opinions. The actual outline form: 1) You refuse to read one of them, because its drivel, even though you haven't read it. 2) You haven't fully read the second one yet, but you think you like him because you hope he contradicts the first one. 3) yet you know it all. That pretty well sums up your contributions. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I've already stated how I feel about consultants. You, on the other hand, have assigned godlike infallability to one consultant, so I offered the views of another consultant. So in outline form: Two Consultants. Same topic. Different opinions.
QUOTE: Originally posted by samfp1943 QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl We should start a poll and guess which name... ...is going to call me next. I'm going to say "idiot." I like "The Pennsylvania Pitbull." Got go with you, Nanaimo... Thirty-five pages, and most of the meat is in the first couple, no one is willing to give in, and it gets down to irrrational character assination. MIchael, Tom, neither one of you is gaining anything by this Three Stooges pie throwing rhetoric. When I worked for Harland Bartholomew some time ago there was an inside joke among the engineers and planners, that said, "...a consultant was anybody from out of town, that had a briefcase.". I think that the thing that got steam was the cost and maintenance of the infrastructure and population needed to keep them running. Best Regards, to all; Sam
QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl We should start a poll and guess which name... ...is going to call me next. I'm going to say "idiot." I like "The Pennsylvania Pitbull."
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl We should start a poll and guess which name... ...is going to call me next. I'm going to say "idiot."
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: And here I thought YOU held consultants in such high regard. I guess not. As well as no refuting discussion. Oddly enough, I haven't offered an opinion on the book at all. But it does appear you already have by way of stating you don't respect the writer, because he is a consultant, the worst kind of course, those who work for foreign railways. Isn't that the question they ask politicians now: "Were you lying yesterday, or are you lying today?" How do you really feel about consultants? Get it off your chest. Best regards. Michael Sol
QUOTE: And here I thought YOU held consultants in such high regard. I guess not. As well as no refuting discussion.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl1/22/06: Ironically, this whole thesis is based on the writings of one engineering firm, which was basically the work of one or two engineers.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl1/23/06: ... some obscure study, done by someone working outside the US rail industry for a foreign railroad
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl1/24/06: Consultant----Loser Six---Half a dozen Different ways to say the same thing.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl2/2/06: I see I'm not the ONLY on that has such a high opinion of "consultants."
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehltoday: Out of curiosity, I turned back to the "Contributors" page where they introduce the authors and give a bit of background. Seems Jerry is "an international Railroad Consultant based in Seattle WA."
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehltoday: Out of curiosity, I turned back to the "Contributors" page where they introduce the authors and give a bit of background. Seems Jerry is "an international Railroad Consultant based in Seattle WA." Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, February 3, 2006 8:50 AM It seems I was right about the book "Diesel Victory." The opening article "How the Diesel Changed Railroading," by Jerry A Pinkepank starts with a quick comparison story of the steam and early diesel (NYC E-7's compared to PRR K-4). Then he goes on to outline the limitations of the steam loco, endurance differences, the closing of intermediate terminals (focusing on Crestline OH for his example), how diesel's standardization simplified operations, and their universality. Out of curiosity, I turned back to the "Contributors" page where they introduce the authors and give a bit of background. Seems Jerry is "an international Railroad Consultant based in Seattle WA." And (no, I'm not getting a piece of the action on these sales) this book is readily available so that >anyone< here can purchase it or check it out at the library. So it is possible for all to read the entire text. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, February 3, 2006 6:34 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl It also presupposes that ALL management studies, done by the industry itself would be published. Any study that shows management decisions weren't the best thing for the industry would be published on the front page of the Wall Street Journal? I don't think so. You represented to this forum that you knew all about them. That "presupposed" they had been published somewhere or that you had access to them. You had, in fact, lied about that. On that basis, we can "presuppose" that the absence of proof is exactly what it is: the absence of proof. Best regards, Michael Sol The one YOU "know about" and keep refering to isn't published anywhere, either. So the "absence of proof" claim is a wash. Since you like "selective editing," let me post the WHOLE statement. The way you try to spin things you should manage political campaigns. Along with another example of your juvenile name calling. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, February 3, 2006 6:30 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I'm not the one claiming that some obscure study I found , which refutes all the other studies done at the time by the railroads, is the final word, and that all these other studies were baloney. I suppose the engineering departments of all the railroads just pulled these facts and figures out of their collective butts and came to the conclusion that dieselization was a good idea that saved money over steam. Just in case there was any misunderstanding about all those studies: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Sorry, but since Brown's study goes against all the other studies done at the time, the proof of credibility is on his report, not the railroad's. Now TomDiehl claims: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I never stated I had any sources[/b]. You were the one claiming that I had them. Yes, your reading ability STILL hasn't improved. Exactly WHERE does it say I have any studies done by anybody? Or is it reading between the lines again? Also, see the response above. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, February 3, 2006 6:23 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl you've failed time and again to prove that he is more authoritative than the people that wrote the reports for the railroads. OMG, this is TOO funny. Let's take this one point at a time. "More authoritative." Sounds more like questioning the writers qualifications, not denying the report's existance. "than the people who wrote the reports for the railroads." I'm sorry WHAT did you say the sources were for the info in Brown's study? Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, February 2, 2006 11:10 PM Michael - we who tune in occasionally to laugh at your latest offerings sincerely appreciate your courteous reactions . . . (In case you are as dense about writing as your are about the rest of this thread, that is known as IRONY.) Don't look now, but your frustration is showing. Best regards, Old Timer Reply Edit MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Thursday, February 2, 2006 10:55 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl you've failed time and again to prove that he is more authoritative than the people that wrote the reports for the railroads. then: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I'm not the one claiming that some obscure study I found , which refutes all the other studies done at the time by the railroads, is the final word, and that all these other studies were baloney. I suppose the engineering departments of all the railroads just pulled these facts and figures out of their collective butts and came to the conclusion that dieselization was a good idea that saved money over steam. Just in case there was any misunderstanding about all those studies: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Sorry, but since Brown's study goes against all the other studies done at the time, the proof of credibility is on his report, not the railroad's. Now TomDiehl claims: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I never stated I had any sources. You were the one claiming that I had them. Not content with attempting to deny his own statements on "all those studies" he claimed existed, he then turned to Brown's study: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The one YOU "know about" and keep refering to isn't published anywhere, either. Tom Diehl today: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I questioned IF the report was ever published, I never stated it wasn't Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, February 2, 2006 10:04 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Funny, the reference I quoted was from a student at Penn State (note the State College address in his post). Since State College is the MAIN campus of Penn State, and the Lehigh Valley is at least 150 miles away, "readily accessible" still doesn't apply. Still a wash. What you actually said was QUOTE: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The one YOU "know about" and keep refering to isn't published anywhere, either. So the "absence of proof" claim is a wash. Once again, you have attempted to substitute a complete lie for what you actually stated. This is a habit with you. -- Michael Sol "Not readily accessible" means that the whole report is open only to your narrow interpretation. Penn State in Fogelsville (Lehigh Valley, near Allentown) only makes such reports available to students. Which seems to emphasize the "not readily accessible" claim. Sorry, but the truth is hurting your interpretation of history. I believe Mr. Miller stated: Brown's paper is in volume 175, so it is in the UP ANNEX, but it is not at the Lehigh Valley campus. Now, that was posted, you ignored it just to continue to try and manipulate this into "it wasn't just handed to me, TomDiehl, therefore it is an obscure report, because that is my definition of 'not accessible'." I asked you to post any one of the hundreds of reports that you claimed proved Brown wrong, and you couldn't post a one. Then you admitted you lied about that, you hadn't seen a one. We wasted pages and pages about your contentions about what those "studies" said. I cited my source. I reprinted several pages from that source., and I represented both its existence and its findings accurately. You have done nothing on this thead but lie about the sources of your contentions, lie about their existence, and now about how tough it is to go to the library. You have wasted everyone's time on a bunch of outright lies. Why do you persist? Because the lies are yours. The questioning of the library reference at Penn State was posted as I read the entries in sequence. Fogelsville (Lehigh Valley) is MUCH closer to me than University Park (State College). I'm not going on a four hour drive (one way) to find out you can't read a report any better than you can read posts in this forum. I asked QUESTIONS about Brown's methods and what he considered, since you were (at the time) the only person that made ANY reference that they had read this report. Now that we've seen an input from someone else who seems to have read the report, with MUCH difference in the statements than yours, it brings YOUR interpretation into question. Sorry, but your resorting to juvenile name calling brings your statements into DEEPER question. When you lack facts or REAL answers, you can always call us a bunch of poopie heads. You lied about your sources. Then you argued that Brown's paper was never actually published. Now your'e worried about the drive. Every hear about interlibrary loan? -- Michael Sol Starting with calling someone a liar, which you have to misquote them to justify your remark. Sounds like name calling to me. I never stated I had any sources. You were the one claiming that I had them. I questioned IF the report was ever published, I never stated it wasn't. Possibly buried in an archive at Penn State Main Campus (University Park) is hardly "readily accessible." was my statement. I stated that "driving four hours (one way) to find out your couldn't read a report any better than you read the posts here" wasn't worth it." You stating that this proves "I don't like to drive" just shows off your lack of reading ability once again. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Thursday, February 2, 2006 6:06 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl In his narrow minded interpretation, he has continually ignored or discounted questions that refute the Brown report, going so far as to call the people "stupid" or "idiots" because we dare to dispute or question the findings Cite, with specificity, where on this thread any person was called an "idiot" or "stupid" based on disputing Brown's conclusions -- the conclusions you said you refused to read., but which you also said you questioned, but that which you also maintained were "refuted" by "questions." -- Michael Sol Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, February 2, 2006 3:59 PM I had forgotten about your graph and I will review it. Reply Edit MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Thursday, February 2, 2006 3:48 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Dieselization did correspond to a declining ROI, but that, in and of itself, does not equate to cause and effect. That's the question. And I am not persuaded yet that dieselization was "the" cause, or even "a" cause because, as you say, there were other economic shocks to the railroad business in those years. Another assumption that needs to be questioned is the one that ROI was dropping steadily between 1950 and 1960. In fact, it was not declining downwards on a nice linear path, but jumped up and down between 2% and 4% all throughout that decade. The average probably shows a linear drop, but the annual data is all over the place, so that may be something else to consider if someone wanted to be "rigorous" about numbers. I posted a graph early in the thread showing ROI between 1950 and 1975, so there would be no question as to what was represented in that regard, Best regards, Michael Sol Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Thursday, February 2, 2006 3:45 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by AnthonyV In contrast, the Diesel road fleet averaged over 3,800 hours per year in the mid 1950's. To add a slightly different perspective, if hours are logged to pull tonnage, and a fleet of lower horsepower units naturally need to operate more in order to pull the same tonnage, you might well find that using the standard, "locomotive" hour, that the 1950s Diesels were, by that standard, as good or better than the larger horsepower units today, even though the larger units today pull much more tonnage per unit. Yet, no one would argue that a 1954 EMD Diesel is, using that standard, superior to a 2006 road Diesel, merely because it had to work harder to get the job done. Best regards, Michael Sol Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Steam Locomotives versus Diesels Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, February 2, 2006 3:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Dieselization did correspond to a declining ROI, but that, in and of itself, does not equate to cause and effect. That's the question. And I am not persuaded yet that dieselization was "the" cause, or even "a" cause because, as you say, there were other economic shocks to the railroad business in those years. Another assumption that needs to be questioned is the one that ROI was dropping steadily between 1950 and 1960. In fact, it was not declining downwards on a nice linear path, but jumped up and down between 2% and 4% all throughout that decade. The average probably shows a linear drop, but the annual data is all over the place, so that may be something else to consider if someone wanted to be "rigorous" about numbers. Thanks. Reply Edit 1234567»Last » Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl It also presupposes that ALL management studies, done by the industry itself would be published. Any study that shows management decisions weren't the best thing for the industry would be published on the front page of the Wall Street Journal? I don't think so. You represented to this forum that you knew all about them. That "presupposed" they had been published somewhere or that you had access to them. You had, in fact, lied about that. On that basis, we can "presuppose" that the absence of proof is exactly what it is: the absence of proof. Best regards, Michael Sol The one YOU "know about" and keep refering to isn't published anywhere, either. So the "absence of proof" claim is a wash.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl It also presupposes that ALL management studies, done by the industry itself would be published. Any study that shows management decisions weren't the best thing for the industry would be published on the front page of the Wall Street Journal? I don't think so. You represented to this forum that you knew all about them. That "presupposed" they had been published somewhere or that you had access to them. You had, in fact, lied about that. On that basis, we can "presuppose" that the absence of proof is exactly what it is: the absence of proof. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl It also presupposes that ALL management studies, done by the industry itself would be published. Any study that shows management decisions weren't the best thing for the industry would be published on the front page of the Wall Street Journal? I don't think so.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I'm not the one claiming that some obscure study I found , which refutes all the other studies done at the time by the railroads, is the final word, and that all these other studies were baloney. I suppose the engineering departments of all the railroads just pulled these facts and figures out of their collective butts and came to the conclusion that dieselization was a good idea that saved money over steam. Just in case there was any misunderstanding about all those studies: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Sorry, but since Brown's study goes against all the other studies done at the time, the proof of credibility is on his report, not the railroad's. Now TomDiehl claims: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I never stated I had any sources[/b]. You were the one claiming that I had them.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I'm not the one claiming that some obscure study I found , which refutes all the other studies done at the time by the railroads, is the final word, and that all these other studies were baloney. I suppose the engineering departments of all the railroads just pulled these facts and figures out of their collective butts and came to the conclusion that dieselization was a good idea that saved money over steam.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Sorry, but since Brown's study goes against all the other studies done at the time, the proof of credibility is on his report, not the railroad's.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I never stated I had any sources[/b]. You were the one claiming that I had them.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl you've failed time and again to prove that he is more authoritative than the people that wrote the reports for the railroads.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl you've failed time and again to prove that he is more authoritative than the people that wrote the reports for the railroads.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I never stated I had any sources. You were the one claiming that I had them.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The one YOU "know about" and keep refering to isn't published anywhere, either.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I questioned IF the report was ever published, I never stated it wasn't
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Funny, the reference I quoted was from a student at Penn State (note the State College address in his post). Since State College is the MAIN campus of Penn State, and the Lehigh Valley is at least 150 miles away, "readily accessible" still doesn't apply. Still a wash. What you actually said was QUOTE: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The one YOU "know about" and keep refering to isn't published anywhere, either. So the "absence of proof" claim is a wash. Once again, you have attempted to substitute a complete lie for what you actually stated. This is a habit with you. -- Michael Sol "Not readily accessible" means that the whole report is open only to your narrow interpretation. Penn State in Fogelsville (Lehigh Valley, near Allentown) only makes such reports available to students. Which seems to emphasize the "not readily accessible" claim. Sorry, but the truth is hurting your interpretation of history. I believe Mr. Miller stated: Brown's paper is in volume 175, so it is in the UP ANNEX, but it is not at the Lehigh Valley campus. Now, that was posted, you ignored it just to continue to try and manipulate this into "it wasn't just handed to me, TomDiehl, therefore it is an obscure report, because that is my definition of 'not accessible'." I asked you to post any one of the hundreds of reports that you claimed proved Brown wrong, and you couldn't post a one. Then you admitted you lied about that, you hadn't seen a one. We wasted pages and pages about your contentions about what those "studies" said. I cited my source. I reprinted several pages from that source., and I represented both its existence and its findings accurately. You have done nothing on this thead but lie about the sources of your contentions, lie about their existence, and now about how tough it is to go to the library. You have wasted everyone's time on a bunch of outright lies. Why do you persist? Because the lies are yours. The questioning of the library reference at Penn State was posted as I read the entries in sequence. Fogelsville (Lehigh Valley) is MUCH closer to me than University Park (State College). I'm not going on a four hour drive (one way) to find out you can't read a report any better than you can read posts in this forum. I asked QUESTIONS about Brown's methods and what he considered, since you were (at the time) the only person that made ANY reference that they had read this report. Now that we've seen an input from someone else who seems to have read the report, with MUCH difference in the statements than yours, it brings YOUR interpretation into question. Sorry, but your resorting to juvenile name calling brings your statements into DEEPER question. When you lack facts or REAL answers, you can always call us a bunch of poopie heads. You lied about your sources. Then you argued that Brown's paper was never actually published. Now your'e worried about the drive. Every hear about interlibrary loan? -- Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Funny, the reference I quoted was from a student at Penn State (note the State College address in his post). Since State College is the MAIN campus of Penn State, and the Lehigh Valley is at least 150 miles away, "readily accessible" still doesn't apply. Still a wash. What you actually said was QUOTE: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The one YOU "know about" and keep refering to isn't published anywhere, either. So the "absence of proof" claim is a wash. Once again, you have attempted to substitute a complete lie for what you actually stated. This is a habit with you. -- Michael Sol "Not readily accessible" means that the whole report is open only to your narrow interpretation. Penn State in Fogelsville (Lehigh Valley, near Allentown) only makes such reports available to students. Which seems to emphasize the "not readily accessible" claim. Sorry, but the truth is hurting your interpretation of history. I believe Mr. Miller stated: Brown's paper is in volume 175, so it is in the UP ANNEX, but it is not at the Lehigh Valley campus. Now, that was posted, you ignored it just to continue to try and manipulate this into "it wasn't just handed to me, TomDiehl, therefore it is an obscure report, because that is my definition of 'not accessible'." I asked you to post any one of the hundreds of reports that you claimed proved Brown wrong, and you couldn't post a one. Then you admitted you lied about that, you hadn't seen a one. We wasted pages and pages about your contentions about what those "studies" said. I cited my source. I reprinted several pages from that source., and I represented both its existence and its findings accurately. You have done nothing on this thead but lie about the sources of your contentions, lie about their existence, and now about how tough it is to go to the library. You have wasted everyone's time on a bunch of outright lies. Why do you persist? Because the lies are yours. The questioning of the library reference at Penn State was posted as I read the entries in sequence. Fogelsville (Lehigh Valley) is MUCH closer to me than University Park (State College). I'm not going on a four hour drive (one way) to find out you can't read a report any better than you can read posts in this forum. I asked QUESTIONS about Brown's methods and what he considered, since you were (at the time) the only person that made ANY reference that they had read this report. Now that we've seen an input from someone else who seems to have read the report, with MUCH difference in the statements than yours, it brings YOUR interpretation into question. Sorry, but your resorting to juvenile name calling brings your statements into DEEPER question. When you lack facts or REAL answers, you can always call us a bunch of poopie heads.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Funny, the reference I quoted was from a student at Penn State (note the State College address in his post). Since State College is the MAIN campus of Penn State, and the Lehigh Valley is at least 150 miles away, "readily accessible" still doesn't apply. Still a wash. What you actually said was QUOTE: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The one YOU "know about" and keep refering to isn't published anywhere, either. So the "absence of proof" claim is a wash. Once again, you have attempted to substitute a complete lie for what you actually stated. This is a habit with you. -- Michael Sol "Not readily accessible" means that the whole report is open only to your narrow interpretation. Penn State in Fogelsville (Lehigh Valley, near Allentown) only makes such reports available to students. Which seems to emphasize the "not readily accessible" claim. Sorry, but the truth is hurting your interpretation of history. I believe Mr. Miller stated: Brown's paper is in volume 175, so it is in the UP ANNEX, but it is not at the Lehigh Valley campus. Now, that was posted, you ignored it just to continue to try and manipulate this into "it wasn't just handed to me, TomDiehl, therefore it is an obscure report, because that is my definition of 'not accessible'." I asked you to post any one of the hundreds of reports that you claimed proved Brown wrong, and you couldn't post a one. Then you admitted you lied about that, you hadn't seen a one. We wasted pages and pages about your contentions about what those "studies" said. I cited my source. I reprinted several pages from that source., and I represented both its existence and its findings accurately. You have done nothing on this thead but lie about the sources of your contentions, lie about their existence, and now about how tough it is to go to the library. You have wasted everyone's time on a bunch of outright lies. Why do you persist?
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Funny, the reference I quoted was from a student at Penn State (note the State College address in his post). Since State College is the MAIN campus of Penn State, and the Lehigh Valley is at least 150 miles away, "readily accessible" still doesn't apply. Still a wash. What you actually said was QUOTE: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The one YOU "know about" and keep refering to isn't published anywhere, either. So the "absence of proof" claim is a wash. Once again, you have attempted to substitute a complete lie for what you actually stated. This is a habit with you. -- Michael Sol "Not readily accessible" means that the whole report is open only to your narrow interpretation. Penn State in Fogelsville (Lehigh Valley, near Allentown) only makes such reports available to students. Which seems to emphasize the "not readily accessible" claim. Sorry, but the truth is hurting your interpretation of history.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Funny, the reference I quoted was from a student at Penn State (note the State College address in his post). Since State College is the MAIN campus of Penn State, and the Lehigh Valley is at least 150 miles away, "readily accessible" still doesn't apply. Still a wash. What you actually said was QUOTE: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The one YOU "know about" and keep refering to isn't published anywhere, either. So the "absence of proof" claim is a wash. Once again, you have attempted to substitute a complete lie for what you actually stated. This is a habit with you. -- Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Funny, the reference I quoted was from a student at Penn State (note the State College address in his post). Since State College is the MAIN campus of Penn State, and the Lehigh Valley is at least 150 miles away, "readily accessible" still doesn't apply. Still a wash.
QUOTE: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The one YOU "know about" and keep refering to isn't published anywhere, either. So the "absence of proof" claim is a wash.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl In his narrow minded interpretation, he has continually ignored or discounted questions that refute the Brown report, going so far as to call the people "stupid" or "idiots" because we dare to dispute or question the findings
QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Dieselization did correspond to a declining ROI, but that, in and of itself, does not equate to cause and effect. That's the question. And I am not persuaded yet that dieselization was "the" cause, or even "a" cause because, as you say, there were other economic shocks to the railroad business in those years. Another assumption that needs to be questioned is the one that ROI was dropping steadily between 1950 and 1960. In fact, it was not declining downwards on a nice linear path, but jumped up and down between 2% and 4% all throughout that decade. The average probably shows a linear drop, but the annual data is all over the place, so that may be something else to consider if someone wanted to be "rigorous" about numbers.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Dieselization did correspond to a declining ROI, but that, in and of itself, does not equate to cause and effect.
QUOTE: Originally posted by AnthonyV In contrast, the Diesel road fleet averaged over 3,800 hours per year in the mid 1950's.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.