Built like a Mercedes (?)

I'll confess I haven't seen an analysis of this in a number of years,
but the last time I did so, rail proved to be the single most efficient
form of transportation (cargo or passenger) on the planet. Yes, a fair
amount of rolling stock has to be moved, but a) you don't have to expend
fuel to hold the rolling stock in the air like you do with air
transport), b) rolling friction is damn near as low as any system yet
developed, and c) wind resistance is minimal (smallest frontal
area/cargo ratio of anything).

Where are you getting the claim that trains use more fuel per passenger
mile than cars?

 

I've got 4 over 200k, and one over 400k. American cars (Chrysler
products). The one with over 400k did a big chunk of that with plain old
dinosaur oil, and it sure wasn't changed every 3k. I didn't run them to
9k and up until after converting them to synthetic, more like 5k-6k on
dino oil. Back when I logged a minimum of 25k miles/year, it just wasn't
practical to change oil every 3k. That would have meant changing oil
every 6 weeks!

 

Thin air most likely.

Graham

 

Sheesh, I hope they *don't* build anything like Mercedes. I've had
experience with several Mercs and some of the engineering is quite
honestly.....bizarre.....for lack of a better term.

God help you if you ever get into trouble on the road with one....

 

Boy - someone needs to go to Haiti or Burkina Faso. Quite densely
populated compared to the USA, Canada, Europe, or even South Africa,
and 2 of the 5 poorest countries in the world.

 

Because they have already gone through that cycle. and / or they will
go through it again. In the late fifties the American companies almost
collapsed due to labour problems. In the UK that happened in the
sixties/seventies.
Don't for one minute think the EU is immune to the problems American
companies have gotten into.

 

glad to be of help pooh bear.

you have also been a fine example on your own part. you have shown
once again what how prissy, arrogant and obnoxious your kind can be.

 

no no pooh bear. you are confusing what is in your head with where he
got his answer. considering your obvious disabilities in that area, i
understand, so i am just pointing it out to you for the sake of being
polite.

say hi to tigger and rabbit, would you?

 

I would say that most American workers would not be as objectionable to pay
cuts or reductions in benefits if they were applied across the board. The
problem is that while the workers are constantly asked to give back,
management continues at its current pay and benefits and in many cases,
gives themselves a bonus for the cost savings made by the workers below
them.

Once again, you show a significant lack of intelligence or compassion. I
guess that's a British thing. The workers in most cases don't expect
immunity, only equal treatment. The problem is that management are the ones
that give themselves the immunity.

 

Perhaps subsidies is the wrong word but even in these "poor" countries, they
do divert resources and ignore rules to lower costs far below anything that
we could do.

Read above.

It is not always a matter of efficiency. Sometimes it is a matter of
following some requirements in some societies (like worker safety) that
other countries are willing to ignore.

 

Really, you do seem easily fooled.

 

Most of the fleet, LOL. While the damage was greater than we expected, it
was hardly most of anything and prior to that, we were shipping tons of
military supplies to GB prior to Pearl. Why do you think that was?

 

LOL, Churchill knew about the "surprise" attack on Perl before it happened
and so did Roosevelt. Roosevelt knew that this country needed a punch in
the face to motivate the people for what would come. Kind of lucky for us
that the most important ships in the Pacific were nowhere to be found during
this attack, huh, LOL! And of course, we were gearing up military
production prior to the war only to help our allies the British, right?!?!

 

Not at all. I was referring to the collective ass of the managers running
each company. Two companies, two collective asses but thanks for caring.

 

LOL, you are kidding, right.

 

That wasn't a practical operational system. 'Ship detectors' were

Nor were English ideas on radar practical until the U.S. put their
scientists in the same location as the English scientists.

--
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)

 

Because it shows you're an ignorant fascist.

Funy, I thought it showed he had good aim.

--
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)

 

Wrong!! How do you think you got the supplies from us that kept your
country alive until we entered the war. Entering a theatre does not mean
declaring war.

LOL, you are kidding right. Without our help you would not have survived.

Who said that it was just the US? The point is that if we didn't get
involved (by provoking the Japanese to attack) and our help and industrial
might helped to turn the war around.

I find it funny that you would call anyone a lying sack of SHIT there, POO
bear.

 

Parts travel both ways.

They sure do, and when they do, the price for them goes up. The point wasn't
that the parts had to travel, but that shipping them added to their total
cost. Unlike your examples, parts for foreign makes here in the states cost
much more (not just a dollar or two) than similar parts for domestic.

--
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)

 

LOL, and what planet are getting this history from? Are you really this
jealous of the US?

Perhaps because you are incapable of thought.

LOL, like I said, incapable of thought? Do you not remember that Hitler
thing, moron.

LOL, it does no such thing.

LOL, what an idiot.