Built like a Mercedes (?)

Discussion in 'General Motoring' started by Comments4u, Jan 29, 2006.

  1. Comments4u

    Huw Guest

    That is not the same as entering the war. At the same time Henry Ford was
    investing and developing business in the Third Reich, but I do not claim
    that it or he entered the war on Hitlers side although some would say so.



    Prior ot that,
    You said it "before we entered the war"

    PLONK.

    Huw
     
    Huw, Jan 31, 2006
  2. Comments4u

    Alan LeHun Guest

    Not forgotten, simply not considered as entering the European theatre,
    which fmpov, didnt occur until Germany declared war on the USA.

    Roosevelts vision in the face of public ignorance of the danger that
    Hitler posed to the new world as well as the old is well known and
    appreciated on this side of the pond, as is Churchills efforts in what
    was our darkest hour.
    We have similar conspiracy theories over here. Notably the Lusitania in
    1915.
    I do. A minor colloquial difference led to my misreading of your post
    (which, in context, does now make sense). To me, entering a theatre of
    war means to be at war (which didn't occur until 1941 anyway.)
     
    Alan LeHun, Jan 31, 2006
  3. Comments4u

    Huw Guest

    Yes you just do that and ask them after they have been back again and again
    and seen their friends killed and maimed with no end in sight.

    Huw
     
    Huw, Jan 31, 2006
  4. Comments4u

    DTJ Guest

    Oh but Scott, didn't you read the top posting bullshit about how
    everyone now has a 20GB connection, and we have 900 terrabyte drives
    on every one of the billion servers that Giganews has. Come now, why
    should we be concerned with waste. We are Americans by God!!!!

    *************************
    Dave
     
    DTJ, Jan 31, 2006
  5. Comments4u

    Jay Guest

    90% of all freight is cheaper to ship by truck than by rail in the U.S. call
    and get some qotes.
     
    Jay, Jan 31, 2006
  6. Comments4u

    DTJ Guest

    huw is who? I figured everyone plonked his chink ass a long time ago.

    *************************
    Dave
     
    DTJ, Jan 31, 2006
  7. Comments4u

    DTJ Guest

    Top posting corrected...
    Looks like another one for the kill filter...

    *************************
    Dave
     
    DTJ, Jan 31, 2006
  8. Comments4u

    DTJ Guest

    :)

    *************************
    Dave
     
    DTJ, Jan 31, 2006
  9. Comments4u

    Huw Guest

    Your lack of understanding, if repeated in corporate circles, explains a lot
    about how GM and Ford got where they are. If the train were efficient it
    would be utilised to a greater extent than is now the case. Ergo it is not
    efficient therefore it is not utilised.
    It is very efficient if it is loaded at the point of production and unloaded
    at the point of use. For instance it is good at carrying coal or ore from a
    mine to a smelter or power station. It is not efficient if manufactured
    goods or people have to be loaded and carried to the depot to be loaded onto
    the train and unloaded at the other end back to other transport to be
    distributed to the end points such as offices and shops unless these are
    concentrated in a small area around the end station.

    As far as passengers go then the car is more energy and cost efficient per
    passenger mile than the train. There are hardly any people disputing this
    except you. They may not like it and may have other valid arguments in
    favour of the train but they do not now dispute this fact.

    Since your basic premise is false then all your other assertions are equally
    false.

    Huw
     
    Huw, Jan 31, 2006
  10. Comments4u

    Bill Putney Guest

    I don't care either way, but that is certainly a poor argument. It
    would be a great argument if we were talking about reading books - but
    we're not. The only thing a newsgroup has in common with books is that
    they both contain words and ideas. Beyond that, the similarity stops.

    Bill Putney
    (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
    address with the letter 'x')
     
    Bill Putney, Jan 31, 2006
  11. Comments4u

    Huw Guest

    At those service intervals? They must be nearly as good as European cars
    then.

    Huw
     
    Huw, Jan 31, 2006
  12. Comments4u

    Huw Guest

    Yes. Plenty used as taxi's out there with upwards of 250,000 miles on them
    with no problems other than normal fast moving service parts.

    Huw
     
    Huw, Jan 31, 2006
  13. Comments4u

    Huw Guest

    Indeed.

    Huw
     
    Huw, Jan 31, 2006
  14. Comments4u

    Huw Guest

    Nothing is more telling. All your assumptions are wrong. It cannot be good
    for your self esteem.

    Huw
     
    Huw, Jan 31, 2006
  15. Comments4u

    Bill Putney Guest

    Don't forget Joe Kennedy, the then U.S. ambassador to Britain, who was
    pro-Hitler and working against Churchill to keep the U.S. uninvolved in
    aiding Britain.

    Bill Putney
    (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
    address with the letter 'x')
     
    Bill Putney, Jan 31, 2006
  16. Actually a lot of roads, particularly freeways, have fairly gotty surfaces.
    And then they have these concrete slabs. Sounds a bit like being on a train
    with old tracks (with expansion spaces).

    Nevetheless, I still don't think one would compare with poor countries.

    DAS

    For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
     
    Dori A Schmetterling, Jan 31, 2006
  17. Comments4u

    Huw Guest

    To an extent the same is true in Europe. The domestically built Japanese
    branded cars are excellent. Not all of them are exciting, innovative, nice
    to drive or perfect but they are well built and long lasting while being
    durable and reliable in their respective classes. This has dragged the
    quality of European brands up because they have to be competitive to
    survive.
    Over the last few years Ford have actually been building really good cars
    like the Focus and the Mondeo instead of the rubbish they built pre mid
    90's. It is ironic that such a good car as the Mondeo is now actually
    outsold by a 'premium' model such as the BMW 3 series though. Maybe thay
    left it too late to build good cars?
    This is one reason, perhaps the only reason, that aquiring premium brands
    like Land Rover, Jaguar and Volvo was so important to Ford. They could see
    that a majority of customers in Europe were willing to pay a premium for a
    badge and for style as well as build and dynamic quality.
    It is most unfortunate that the UK Pound is so strong in relation to a weak
    Dollar which is detrimental to two of these brands profitability for Ford.

    Huw
     
    Huw, Jan 31, 2006
  18. Comments4u

    Max Dodge Guest

    The fact is that trains use more fuel per passenger mile than cars.

    False.
    They do here in the states.
    Not that cars ever receive government funding in the form of roads,
    signalling, road maintenance, rest areas, and emergency services, right?
    Your document isn't much help at all. While it discusses theory and physics,
    it never comes up with an actual fuel usage versus the automobile. However,
    it is telling that the conclusion is summed up as follows:

    "Thus one may say that passenger trains are potentially energy efficient,
    but in actual practice such trains turn out to be little more
    energy-efficient than the automobile. What institution changes are needed to
    realize the potential of rail's inherent energy-efficiency are not clear."

    Thus, even the author realizes that trains have the ability to be energy
    efficient compared to autos. However, since no solid numbers are put forth,
    only application of theory with no actual testing, it is impossible to say
    either way based on this document.


    http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/RR/261.pdf

    This document suggests that freight rail can move at up to 400 ton-miles per
    gallon. Trucks and autos will never touch that level. Ships will do much
    better.

    http://www.atlintracoastal.org/WW_Facts.htm

    About halfway down this page, you'll find a table noting emmissions from
    various freight hauling methods. Notable is the fact that trucks are a
    distant third to trains and waterway transit.

    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1215/is_9_203/ai_92284635

    This Railway Age article suggests that ton miles per gallon are much higher,
    at over 700.

    In the end, it appears you did little studying on this issue, and with
    figures suggested such as 400 ton-miles per gallon, I'd say your ship is
    sunk. A car would have to travel 200 miles on a gallon of fuel to match
    that.

    --
    Max

    "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
    soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
    -Ed Howdershelt (Author)


     
    Max Dodge, Jan 31, 2006
  19. I shall just add that ol' Max Dodge failed to comment on the Butte -
    Rochester journey. I have not yet come across his reply about capacity, but
    I haven't worked my way through the thread yet (UK example, double rail
    freight, reduce road freight by 10%).

    DAS

    For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
    ---

    [...]
    [...
     
    Dori A Schmetterling, Jan 31, 2006
  20. I'll try one more time: Trains are viable only on few routes in every
    country. The whole point is that trains carry very light loads in many
    places if a frequent service is maintained for those few people who care to
    travel.

    Re freight you haven't addressed the real-world situation. Once again:
    example Butte - Rochester in the USA.

    Sure, carrying 1000 tons of coal a thousand miles from railhead to railhead
    is efficient. But that's hardly the bulk of the freight carried.

    DAS

    For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
    ---

    [...]
    [...]
     
    Dori A Schmetterling, Jan 31, 2006
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.