Stating prices at retail inclusive of taxes
 

Adam H. Kerman wrote:
John Levine wrote:

I can't blame you, since it would take nearly five minutes to find a
copy online and read it.

And John returns to hissy-fit mode.

Grow up, child.

John Levine is continuing his unwelcome, unpleasant behavior in a
series of replies in email. I know he has no ability to comprehend
written words, but I'll explain yet again that he and I are not
having a private discussion and his email messages are unwelcome.
Do not send replies in email, ever, John. Stop being such a big baby.

Stating prices at retail inclusive of taxes
 

On 29-Jan-12 15:58, Clark F Morris wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 21:40:24 -0500, Sancho Panza
wrote:
On 1/28/2012 9:37 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Clark F wrote:
Basil wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken, the term "freeway" is only applied to roads which
are free to use. Tolled roads are called "turnpikes".

Freeway means limited access and no at grade intersections as opposed
to expressways which can have traffic lights and at grade
intersections.

. . . except where I live.

And the New York-New Jersey metropolitan region.

Ièm referring to what I recall as being the Manual for Uniform Traffic
Control devices definition where an expressway is a divided highway
with partial control of access as opposed to a freeway with full
control of access
(http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part1/part1a.htm).

Here is the relevant quote, for those too lazy to look it up:

"Section 1A.13 Definitions of Headings, Words, and Phrases in this Manual

Standard:
....
03 The following words and phrases, when used in this Manual, shall have
the following meanings:
....
71. Expressway—a divided highway with partial control of access.
....
77. Freeway—a divided highway with full control of access."



--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
 

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:22:08 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:
It's good when buses don't stop when there's no need to, and silly
when they do.

Except in busy areas (think Oxford St) where it would sail past
because it didn't see your signal. I much prefer the German approach
of "stop if someone is waiting" - if you're the only one there and it
isn't your bus just step back and shake your head to signal "no need
to stop".

I believe this is now the official London way.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

Stating prices at retail inclusive of taxes
 

On Jan 29, 5:10*pm, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
The tanks would not be directly on the roadway unless they were actually
deployed for battle on US soil, in which case I doubt anyone would care
about what it did to the pavement.
Otherwise, the tanks would be on transporters, which is why the
Interstate vertical clearance requirements are so high.

I stand corrected.

(I have seen tanks move on city streets.)

Stating prices at retail inclusive of taxes
 

On 29-Jan-12 17:56, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 29-Jan-12 14:02, wrote:
On Jan 29, 9:59 am, Bruce wrote:

Trivia question (no fair Googling the answer): What was the primary
justification/purpose of the Interstate Highway System?

Wasn't it originally a Department of Defence project, inspired by the
autobahn network in Germany?

It was never of Defense Dept project.

They didn't build it, but they designed it.

The seeds of the IHS were planted during WWI, when the Army found the
railroads insufficient for their needs and started planning on truck
convoys. A trial run in 1919 from Ft Meade, MD, to San Francisco, CA,
was led by one Lt. Dwight D. Eisenhower. The trip took two weeks, which
the Army considered a failure; Gen. Pershing submitted a map of proposed
national highways to Congress in 1922 to rectify the situation.
Pershing's map was the basis for the Interstate Highway System that
Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower eventually built.

Today, a similar convoy can move from coast to coast in three days.

All right, Stephen; we all know that story. The Army is still going to
design transport around civilian trucks of the day. In any event,
anyone reasonably familiar with geography and populations would have
come up with a similar map.

But you are trying to draw a direction connection between A and B;
it's tenuous at best.

If you don't see a direct connection between Lt. Dwight D. Eisenhower,
Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower, there's
really nothing I can do to help you.

S


--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

Government investment in Rail vs. Highway was Stating prices at retail inclusive of taxes
 

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 12:35:56 -0800 (PST), wrote:

much snipped

For reasons I can't understand, when the government builds and runs
roads the conservatives think that is a worthwhile govt endeavor, but
when the govt builds railroads, they think that's evil socialism.

If we could come with a way to run a stretch of rail line open to all
providers that can prove they are safe and handle even just compatible
types of traffic (intercity passenger at moderate high speed mixed
with intermodal, local passenger mixed with heavy haul, etc.) this
could change. There are interesting things happening in Europe but
much probably would not work in North America and there are mixed
results in Europe.

Clark Morris

Stating prices at retail inclusive of taxes
 

On Jan 30, 11:29*am, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

If you don't see a direct connection between Lt. Dwight D. Eisenhower,
Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower, there's
really nothing I can do to help you.

Actually, Eisenhower saw things very differently as president of the
US than he did as a military leader.

I would recommend Stephen Ambrose' writings on Eisenhower. (Ambrose
also did an excellent and balanced three-volume set on Nixon.)

Stating prices at retail inclusive of taxes
 

In article ,
wrote:
On Jan 29, 11:07*am, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

Movement of tanks. *That is the origin of the clearance, lane width and
bridge-strength requirements--and in turn limits the height, width and
weight of new US tanks.

I'm not sure that's true.

demonstrating merely that you don't know what you don't know. grin

Tanks are not very kind to concrete roadway
surfaces,

True, but irrelevant in a combat environment.

nor do they move very fast,

Hah. Modern tanks are capable of moving -quite- fast (i.e. exceeding the
speed-limit on most U.S. highways), especially if you remove the governor
on the engine.

and of course drink up fuel.

Accurate -- Consumption is measured in "gallons per mile". grin

I
would think if tanks have to be moved any sort of distance they would
be loaded onto trains.

In combat situations, trains are rarely available to the aggressor.

For long=distance movement in a combat environment, "tank transporters",
a special-purpose heavy-duty semi-trailer rig is commonly used.


*HOWEVER*, tanks are *heavy* -- substantially surpassing the legal load
limits on most highways. An "M1A1", alone, NOT INCLUDING the weight of
the transporter vehicle, is close to double the legal weight limit on most
highways.

They are also _big_. TWELVE ft wide. (needless to say, that doesn't fit 'in'
a standard traffic lane, with any safety margin :) Eight ft tall -- not
including any antennas -- _before_ considering the height of the transporter.
(a flat- bed type trailer will have a bed level that is approximately 5' above
ground.)

Stating prices at retail inclusive of taxes
 

On Jan 30, 6:37*pm, (Robert Bonomi) wrote:

demonstrating merely that you don't know what you don't know. *grin

That goes both ways. You must have missed:

Jan 30, 9:45 am "I stand corrected."

Stating prices at retail inclusive of taxes
 

On 29-Jan-12 17:57, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 29-Jan-12 14:09, wrote:
On Jan 29, 11:07 am, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

Movement of tanks. That is the origin of the clearance, lane width and
bridge-strength requirements--and in turn limits the height, width and
weight of new US tanks.

I'm not sure that's true. Tanks are not very kind to concrete roadway
surfaces, nor do they move very fast, and of course drink up fuel. I
would think if tanks have to be moved any sort of distance they would
be loaded onto trains.

The tanks would not be directly on the roadway unless they were actually
deployed for battle on US soil, in which case I doubt anyone would care
about what it did to the pavement.

Otherwise, the tanks would be on transporters, which is why the
Interstate vertical clearance requirements are so high.

Transport is designed to current standards, not the other way around.

The "standards" of the day varied significantly from state to state and
were, in many places, completely insufficient for the Army's needs. The
entire purpose of the Interstate system was to unify and raise those
standards _to match the transport needs_.

In theory, the Army _could_ have tried to redesign their tanks, etc. to
the size, height and weight of a Model T or horse-drawn wagon--what much
of the US road infrastructure of the day could handle--but they probably
wouldn't have fared too well in battle.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

Truck clearances and army transport (was: Stating prices at retail inclusive of taxes)
 

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 29-Jan-12 17:57, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 29-Jan-12 14:09, wrote:
On Jan 29, 11:07 am, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

Movement of tanks. That is the origin of the clearance, lane width and
bridge-strength requirements--and in turn limits the height, width and
weight of new US tanks.

I'm not sure that's true. Tanks are not very kind to concrete roadway
surfaces, nor do they move very fast, and of course drink up fuel. I
would think if tanks have to be moved any sort of distance they would
be loaded onto trains.

The tanks would not be directly on the roadway unless they were actually
deployed for battle on US soil, in which case I doubt anyone would care
about what it did to the pavement.

Otherwise, the tanks would be on transporters, which is why the
Interstate vertical clearance requirements are so high.

Transport is designed to current standards, not the other way around.

The "standards" of the day varied significantly from state to state and
were, in many places, completely insufficient for the Army's needs. The
entire purpose of the Interstate system was to unify and raise those
standards _to match the transport needs_.

Here in Chicago, which may have more elevated railroads than anywhere
else, the required elevation standard was based on trucks of that era.
Why would any state have had lower vertical clearance standards than
required for trucks of that era?

Can you tell us what the hell state you are talking about that wouldn't
have had standard clearances for bridges being built for trucks currently
being sold?

Were there any significant number of trucks sold that exceeded 12' 6",
a common vertical height limit prior to 1956? Expressways in my area
prior to 1956 didn't have 13' 6" clearances until they were reconstructed.

btw, you are wrong: To this day there is no FEDERAL vertical height
standard on trucks. That's in state law. There are federal standards on
length, width, and weight of trucks. I found that on truckinfo.net. Don't
consult Wikipedia, which merely ripped off that Web site.

In theory, the Army _could_ have tried to redesign their tanks, etc. to
the size, height and weight of a Model T or horse-drawn wagon--what much
of the US road infrastructure of the day could handle--but they probably
wouldn't have fared too well in battle.

Now you're moving the goal posts from vertical clearance to weight
that bridges can support. Of course bridges in rural areas were designed
for the vehicles that would cross them typically, straight-bodied trucks
that farmers might own.

The concept that roads and bridges would be designed for trucks that
don't exist is awfully odd.

Stating prices at retail inclusive of taxes
 

On 30-Jan-12 17:37, Robert Bonomi wrote:
*HOWEVER*, tanks are *heavy* -- substantially surpassing the legal load
limits on most highways. An "M1A1", alone, NOT INCLUDING the weight of
the transporter vehicle, is close to double the legal weight limit on most
highways.

Load limits are specified per axle or tandem, and tank transporters have
_lots_ of axles to spread the tank's weight out.

Also, the load limits are based on civilian traffic at high speed for
decades. It is well known that such limits can be exceeded at lower
speeds for short periods--such as a military convoy.

(The current tank transporters are only rated for 45mph, ironically
slower than modern tanks can move on their own.)

They are also _big_. TWELVE ft wide. (needless to say, that doesn't fit 'in'
a standard traffic lane, with any safety margin :)

.... and the standard traffic lane is exactly twelve feet wide. However,
the transporter is _not_ that wide; a tank hangs off both sides,
possibly over one shoulder or the other if the transporter is not
perfectly centered in the lane.

There are standard shoulder widths, too: ten feet on the left and twelve
feet on the right. However, they're not required to support the same
weight as the main lanes--which is fine since neither tanks nor
transporters should be driving on them.

Eight ft tall -- not including any antennas -- _before_ considering the
height of the transporter. (a flat- bed type trailer will have a bed
level that is approximately 5' above ground.)

Isn't the standard minimum bridge height 14ft6in? Hint: that's just
slightly taller than a tank or APC on a transporter.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

Stating prices at retail inclusive of taxes
 

Stating prices at retail inclusive of taxes
 

Stephen Sprunk wrote:

Isn't the standard minimum bridge height 14ft6in? Hint: that's just
slightly taller than a tank or APC on a transporter.

The standard bridge height is the height limit for trucks in that state,
plus six inches, which allows for a layer or two of asphalt being added
to the surface of a concrete highway.

Stating prices at retail inclusive of taxes
 

On 30-Jan-12 13:16, wrote:
On Jan 30, 11:29 am, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

If you don't see a direct connection between Lt. Dwight D. Eisenhower,
Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower, there's
really nothing I can do to help you.

Actually, Eisenhower saw things very differently as president of the
US than he did as a military leader.

I'm sure he did. However, it is ludicrous to suggest there is no
connection between Lt. Eisenhower's experience with the US highway
system, Gen. Eisenhower's experience with the German highway system, and
Pres. Eisenhower promoting major legislation to make the former more
like the latter.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

Stating prices at retail inclusive of taxes
 

In article ,
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 30-Jan-12 17:37, Robert Bonomi wrote:
*HOWEVER*, tanks are *heavy* -- substantially surpassing the legal load
limits on most highways. An "M1A1", alone, NOT INCLUDING the weight of
the transporter vehicle, is close to double the legal weight limit on most
highways.

Load limits are specified per axle or tandem, and tank transporters have
_lots_ of axles to spread the tank's weight out.

Some are, some are *not*.

'More axles' doesn't make any difference to a bridge span. grin.

(The current tank transporters are only rated for 45mph, ironically
slower than modern tanks can move on their own.)


Yup.

... and the standard traffic lane is exactly twelve feet wide. However,
the transporter is _not_ that wide; a tank hangs off both sides,
possibly over one shoulder or the other if the transporter is not
perfectly centered in the lane.

Oh my. We're having an agreement. grin

Tanks are "oversize", and "overweight" loads, and, under 'non warfare'
conditions, aren't moved on public roads without special permits, markings,
and escort vehicles. The transporters are built to be 'street legal'
when unloaded, so that they -can- use the highways without all that hoorah.

Eight ft tall -- not including any antennas -- _before_ considering the
height of the transporter. (a flat- bed type trailer will have a bed
level that is approximately 5' above ground.)

Isn't the standard minimum bridge height 14ft6in? Hint: that's just
slightly taller than a tank or APC on a transporter.

In the U.S., placarded if less than 13' 6", I believe. Max legal height
for vehicles w/o requiring 'oversize vehicle' permits and routing approval.

'Roofline' height for a, say, M1A1, on a transporter would be a bit over 13'.
Aux. 'fixtures', can add another 1+ ft. Yup. right close to Defense highway
clearance requirements.

CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
 

In article ,
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:

I don't know what a transit system would do if it simply sold unlimited
ride passes with no credit bank to debit from. Does anyone know of
an example? In Chicago, one type of CTA Cubic fare media, Chicago Card Plus,
can be used for both single trips and monthly passes. It's linked to a
credit card. The monthly pass is applied to the card after debiting the
fee from the credit bank, and can also be used at the same time to pay the
single fare for accompanying passengers, although just one pass can be
encoded on it at a time.


The ORCA card in use in the Puget Sound area does not necessarily have
to be linked to a credit card. Cards that do not have a registered
owner can only be recharged from a vending machine or transit agency
office rather than through the web site.

As far as I know, it is possible to put a monthly pass of various types*
on the card at these vending machines using cash or credit card, but in
either case the machine supposedly only uses the card information for
conducting the single transaction.

* There are some seven agencies, with a single route on an 8th, that use
the card as a possible fare media. Thus, the need for various agencies
to be able to load their type of monthly pass onto the card.

--
Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam due to e-mail address
harvesters on Usenet. Response time to e-mail sent here is slow.

CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
 

In message , at
21:46:42 on Mon, 30 Jan 2012, Glen Labah remarked:
I don't know what a transit system would do if it simply sold unlimited
ride passes with no credit bank to debit from. Does anyone know of
an example? In Chicago, one type of CTA Cubic fare media, Chicago Card Plus,
can be used for both single trips and monthly passes. It's linked to a
credit card. The monthly pass is applied to the card after debiting the
fee from the credit bank, and can also be used at the same time to pay the
single fare for accompanying passengers, although just one pass can be
encoded on it at a time.

The ORCA card in use in the Puget Sound area does not necessarily have
to be linked to a credit card. Cards that do not have a registered
owner can only be recharged from a vending machine or transit agency
office rather than through the web site.

The same is true of London's Oyster, although more recently they have
added an "auto-topup" facility when the stored credit falls below £8.

I've also got a bus smartcard, which simply has stored credit measured
in "days" (and can only be topped up at a particular travel centre),
where I can have unlimited travel on any day that I use it. But I don't
have to use it every day (like I would a conventional season ticket,
which are of course widely available for train and bus on smartcard). In
some cities that would be called a carnet (of day-tickets).

http://www.nctx.co.uk/nct-fares/easy...ider-citycard-
anytime-adult/

I don't buy it for the discount, as much as not having to find the exact
change to ride on the bus when paying the driver.
--
Roland Perry

CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
 

"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
I don't know what a transit system would do if it simply sold unlimited
ride passes with no credit bank to debit from. Does anyone know of
an example?

The ORCA card in use in the Puget Sound area does not necessarily have
to be linked to a credit card.

Same with the Clipper card used in the San Francisco area. A card can have both
passes and a cash balance for trips not covered by any of the passes. It works
on seven different transit systems and can handle a baffling array of passes and
discount plans. You can have a Muni monthly pass, and a BART High Value Discount
ticket which gives you $64 of BART credit for $60, as well as passes on other
systems and cash. Each agency's vending machines tend to sell its own pass as
well as loading cash.

Same with the PATH Smartlink card. You can add a daily, weekly, or
monthly pass for cash at vending machines.

There are doubtless others, but those are the ones I happen to have here.

R's,
John

CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
 

John Levine wrote:
Same with the Clipper card used in the San Francisco area. *A card can have both
passes and a cash balance for trips not covered by any of the passes. *It works
on seven different transit systems and can handle a baffling array of passes and
discount plans. *You can have a Muni monthly pass, and a BART High Value Discount
ticket which gives you $64 of BART credit for $60, as well as passes on other
systems and cash.

Is BART credit stored separately from otehr agencies' credit?

In the NYC region, the 7% Metrocard bonus when you load at least $10
applies to the credit you can use on any agency that takes Metrocard.
I'm not sure how they "fund" the bonus. (Consider that a card could
have been loaded multiple times, sometimes with the bonus and
sometimes without, so it's hard to figure out how much real cash
revenue the card balance represents.)

Jimmy

CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
 

Same with the Clipper card used in the San Francisco area. *A card can have both
passes and a cash balance for trips not covered by any of the passes. *It works
on seven different transit systems and can handle a baffling array of passes and
discount plans. *You can have a Muni monthly pass, and a BART High Value Discount
ticket which gives you $64 of BART credit for $60, as well as passes on other
systems and cash.

Is BART credit stored separately from otehr agencies' credit?

I haven't actually tried this, but it is my impression that if you add
$60 as BART credit, you get $64 good only on BART, while if you add
$60 as cash, you get $60 good on anything.

In the NYC region, the 7% Metrocard bonus when you load at least $10
applies to the credit you can use on any agency that takes Metrocard.

Right. I agree that makes more sense, but I suspect that the issue
with the Clipper is that the agencies just moved their existing fare
structure onto Clipper. The other agencies have their own pass
programs and probably aren't interested in funding BART's discount
plan.

R's,
John

Stating prices at retail inclusive of taxes
 

On 30-Jan-12 23:40, Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 30-Jan-12 17:37, Robert Bonomi wrote:
*HOWEVER*, tanks are *heavy* -- substantially surpassing the legal load
limits on most highways. An "M1A1", alone, NOT INCLUDING the weight of
the transporter vehicle, is close to double the legal weight limit on most
highways.

Load limits are specified per axle or tandem, and tank transporters have
_lots_ of axles to spread the tank's weight out.

Some are, some are *not*.

'More axles' doesn't make any difference to a bridge span. grin.

However, load limits are calculated based on a series of axles/tandems
at least 96 inches apart. How much do you want to bet that's how far
apart the five non-tandem axles on a modern tank transporter are?

Still, a loaded transporter still exceeds the per-axle/tandem load
limit, but not by a very large margin. If you restrict a convoy to
travel in single file and split two lanes, which would be a requirement
anyway due to being overwidth, a span would have _less_ loading than is
possible with normal trucks in those two lanes. And that's just static
loading; once you figure in dynamic loading, the lower speed probably
means even that isn't strictly necessary.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

Truck clearances and army transport
 

On 30-Jan-12 21:39, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 29-Jan-12 17:57, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 29-Jan-12 14:09, wrote:
On Jan 29, 11:07 am, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Movement of tanks. That is the origin of the clearance, lane width and
bridge-strength requirements--and in turn limits the height, width and
weight of new US tanks.

I'm not sure that's true. Tanks are not very kind to concrete roadway
surfaces, nor do they move very fast, and of course drink up fuel. I
would think if tanks have to be moved any sort of distance they would
be loaded onto trains.

The tanks would not be directly on the roadway unless they were actually
deployed for battle on US soil, in which case I doubt anyone would care
about what it did to the pavement.

Otherwise, the tanks would be on transporters, which is why the
Interstate vertical clearance requirements are so high.

Transport is designed to current standards, not the other way around.

The "standards" of the day varied significantly from state to state and
were, in many places, completely insufficient for the Army's needs. The
entire purpose of the Interstate system was to unify and raise those
standards _to match the transport needs_.

Here in Chicago, which may have more elevated railroads than anywhere
else, the required elevation standard was based on trucks of that era.

It sounds like you're asking about civilian trucks, which are completely
irrelevant to the discussion; we're discussing highway standards to meet
_military_ needs.

Why would any state have had lower vertical clearance standards than
required for trucks of that era?

Because the local (not even state, at that point) authorities had no
reason to spend extra money building bridges and such to handle military
equipment that, until that point, had never attempted to use them.

Why do you think it took Lt. Eisenhower two months to cross the country?

Were there any significant number of trucks sold that exceeded 12' 6",
a common vertical height limit prior to 1956? Expressways in my area
prior to 1956 didn't have 13' 6" clearances until they were reconstructed.

I've seen bridges with clearances under 10ft. And it's not just about
height; it's also about width and weight.

In theory, the Army _could_ have tried to redesign their tanks, etc. to
the size, height and weight of a Model T or horse-drawn wagon--what much
of the US road infrastructure of the day could handle--but they probably
wouldn't have fared too well in battle.

Now you're moving the goal posts from vertical clearance to weight

Moving the goalposts? Look at the very first quote at the top of this
thread, Adam. You're the one that focused only on height; the rest of
us have been talking about _all_ dimensions.

The concept that roads and bridges would be designed for trucks that
don't exist is awfully odd.

The trucks _did_ exist: in the Army.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

Truck clearances and army transport
 

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 30-Jan-12 21:39, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 29-Jan-12 17:57, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 29-Jan-12 14:09, wrote:
On Jan 29, 11:07 am, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Movement of tanks. That is the origin of the clearance, lane width and
bridge-strength requirements--and in turn limits the height, width and
weight of new US tanks.

I'm not sure that's true. Tanks are not very kind to concrete roadway
surfaces, nor do they move very fast, and of course drink up fuel. I
would think if tanks have to be moved any sort of distance they would
be loaded onto trains.

The tanks would not be directly on the roadway unless they were actually
deployed for battle on US soil, in which case I doubt anyone would care
about what it did to the pavement.

Otherwise, the tanks would be on transporters, which is why the
Interstate vertical clearance requirements are so high.

Transport is designed to current standards, not the other way around.

The "standards" of the day varied significantly from state to state and
were, in many places, completely insufficient for the Army's needs. The
entire purpose of the Interstate system was to unify and raise those
standards _to match the transport needs_.

Here in Chicago, which may have more elevated railroads than anywhere
else, the required elevation standard was based on trucks of that era.

It sounds like you're asking about civilian trucks, which are completely
irrelevant to the discussion; we're discussing highway standards to meet
_military_ needs.

God you are unbelievably thick. Army trucks that use civilian roads are
designed to travel on civilian roads. There is no other standard.

Why would any state have had lower vertical clearance standards than
required for trucks of that era?

Because the local (not even state, at that point) authorities had no
reason to spend extra money building bridges and such to handle military
equipment that, until that point, had never attempted to use them.

Why do you think it took Lt. Eisenhower two months to cross the country?

I'm sure it had nothing to do with vertical clearance. They weren't
planning to cross Chicago. It had to do with fording streams, likely.

Were there any significant number of trucks sold that exceeded 12' 6",
a common vertical height limit prior to 1956? Expressways in my area
prior to 1956 didn't have 13' 6" clearances until they were reconstructed.

I've seen bridges with clearances under 10ft. And it's not just about
height; it's also about width and weight.

Uh, great. We've all seen such bridges. They were built for cars, not
trucks of any era.

not reading any more

Truck weights and bridges (was: Stating prices at retail inclusive of taxes)
 

Robert Bonomi wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:

Load limits are specified per axle or tandem, and tank transporters have
_lots_ of axles to spread the tank's weight out.

Some are, some are *not*.

'More axles' doesn't make any difference to a bridge span. grin.

Can you expound on that? Bridges have a rated weight limit. If truck
weight is at the limit, why wouldn't the bridge benefit from improved
live load weight distribution, particularly if truck length exceeds
span length?

Truck clearances and army transport
 

On 01-Feb-12 14:33, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 30-Jan-12 21:39, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 29-Jan-12 17:57, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 29-Jan-12 14:09, wrote:
On Jan 29, 11:07 am, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Movement of tanks. That is the origin of the clearance, lane width and
bridge-strength requirements--and in turn limits the height, width and
weight of new US tanks.

I'm not sure that's true. Tanks are not very kind to concrete roadway
surfaces, nor do they move very fast, and of course drink up fuel. I
would think if tanks have to be moved any sort of distance they would
be loaded onto trains.

The tanks would not be directly on the roadway unless they were actually
deployed for battle on US soil, in which case I doubt anyone would care
about what it did to the pavement.

Otherwise, the tanks would be on transporters, which is why the
Interstate vertical clearance requirements are so high.

Transport is designed to current standards, not the other way around.

The "standards" of the day varied significantly from state to state and
were, in many places, completely insufficient for the Army's needs. The
entire purpose of the Interstate system was to unify and raise those
standards _to match the transport needs_.

Here in Chicago, which may have more elevated railroads than anywhere
else, the required elevation standard was based on trucks of that era.

It sounds like you're asking about civilian trucks, which are completely
irrelevant to the discussion; we're discussing highway standards to meet
_military_ needs.

God you are unbelievably thick. Army trucks that use civilian roads are
designed to travel on civilian roads. There is no other standard.

There _were_ no civilian highway standards at the time, Adam. The Army
wisely designed their combat equipment for the combat environment, not
for easy transportation on civilian roads of unspecified standards.

The solution chosen was to improve highways to meet the Army's needs,
not to downgrade the Army's military capabilities.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

Truck clearances and army transport
 

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 01-Feb-12 14:33, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 30-Jan-12 21:39, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 29-Jan-12 17:57, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 29-Jan-12 14:09, wrote:
On Jan 29, 11:07 am, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

Movement of tanks. That is the origin of the clearance, lane
width and bridge-strength requirements--and in turn limits the
height, width and weight of new US tanks.

I'm not sure that's true. Tanks are not very kind to concrete roadway
surfaces, nor do they move very fast, and of course drink up fuel. I
would think if tanks have to be moved any sort of distance they would
be loaded onto trains.

The tanks would not be directly on the roadway unless they were actually
deployed for battle on US soil, in which case I doubt anyone would care
about what it did to the pavement.

Otherwise, the tanks would be on transporters, which is why the
Interstate vertical clearance requirements are so high.

Transport is designed to current standards, not the other way around.

The "standards" of the day varied significantly from state to state and
were, in many places, completely insufficient for the Army's needs. The
entire purpose of the Interstate system was to unify and raise those
standards _to match the transport needs_.

Here in Chicago, which may have more elevated railroads than anywhere
else, the required elevation standard was based on trucks of that era.

It sounds like you're asking about civilian trucks, which are completely
irrelevant to the discussion; we're discussing highway standards to meet
_military_ needs.

God you are unbelievably thick. Army trucks that use civilian roads are
designed to travel on civilian roads. There is no other standard.

There _were_ no civilian highway standards at the time, Adam.

The "standard" was bridges and clearances that existed on public
highways. For the 27th time, these bridges and clearances were
designed to trucks and traffic of the era they were built in for
local traffic needs, not anticipating trucks of the future, not
antipating Army convoys.

The Army wisely designed their combat equipment for the combat
environment, not for easy transportation on civilian roads of unspecified
standards.

Good thing combat environments have higher standard truck weight and
width tolerances.

The solution chosen was to improve highways to meet the Army's needs,
not to downgrade the Army's military capabilities.

Bull****. If it were not anticipated that a large number of trucks FOR
CIVILIAN PURPOSES would ply the nation's highways, they wouldn't have
written standards to accomodate them. Interstates weren't built
for the United States Army.

Do get started on that book you are writing.

Looks like John Levine continues to pester me with replies in email.
His latest reply was utterly incoherent, so it's no wonder he refused
to post an article to Usenet.

I suppose his immaturity has reached the level at which I'll have to
write a procmail recipie. I really don't like doing that as normally
I don't mind if people contact me. I feel sorry for him.

transportation in remote places, Stating prices at retail inclusive of taxes
 

"John Levine" wrote in message
...
Any talks or projects for underwater tunnels between any of the Aleutian
Islands?

The largest "city" on the Aleutians is Dutch Harbor, pop. 4000. What
do you think?

Nord Kapp, population 3,224 has one, so what's the problem?

tim

Truck weights and bridges (was: Stating prices at retail inclusive of taxes)
 

In article ,
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Robert Bonomi wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:

Load limits are specified per axle or tandem, and tank transporters have
_lots_ of axles to spread the tank's weight out.

Some are, some are *not*.

'More axles' doesn't make any difference to a bridge span. grin.

Can you expound on that? Bridges have a rated weight limit. If truck
weight is at the limit, why wouldn't the bridge benefit from improved
live load weight distribution, particularly if truck length exceeds
span length?

An extreme case -- if the static weight of the vehicle exceeds the load at
which the span will collapse, and the span is longer than the wheelbase, it
doesn't matter whether it's a unicycle, or has wheels every 2 ft.

Or, consider a short span, just under the vehicle wheelbase. You can move
a two-axle load over that span that is nearly twice the 'collapse' loading,
because only half the load will be on the span at any time. Add a 3rd
axle, at the midpoint, and the total load on the span goes -up-.


Also, bridge spans, in general, tend to have a 'crown' along the length of
the span, as well as the side-to-side crowning. A side effect of that
longitudinal crowning is that interior axles carry somewhat more weight
than leading/trailing ones.

Truck weights and bridges (was: Stating prices at retail inclusive of taxes)
 

Robert Bonomi wrote:
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Robert Bonomi wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:

Load limits are specified per axle or tandem, and tank transporters have
_lots_ of axles to spread the tank's weight out.

Some are, some are *not*.

'More axles' doesn't make any difference to a bridge span. grin.

Can you expound on that? Bridges have a rated weight limit. If truck
weight is at the limit, why wouldn't the bridge benefit from improved
live load weight distribution, particularly if truck length exceeds
span length?

An extreme case -- if the static weight of the vehicle exceeds the load at
which the span will collapse, and the span is longer than the wheelbase, it
doesn't matter whether it's a unicycle, or has wheels every 2 ft.

Yes, I see your point on that.

Or, consider a short span, just under the vehicle wheelbase. You can move
a two-axle load over that span that is nearly twice the 'collapse' loading,
because only half the load will be on the span at any time. Add a 3rd
axle, at the midpoint, and the total load on the span goes -up-.

Yes, I see your point on that as well.

Also, bridge spans, in general, tend to have a 'crown' along the length of
the span, as well as the side-to-side crowning. A side effect of that
longitudinal crowning is that interior axles carry somewhat more weight
than leading/trailing ones.

Ok.

But what about the way spans are designed to flex? There are several
trigonometric formulas that apply (that I never learned). Aren't there
instances in which the same live load on various wheelbases can positively
or negatively impact the span's flexibility by creating different kinds
of deflection?

Truck weights and bridges (was: Stating prices at retail inclusive of taxes)
 

In article ,
Adam H. Kerman wrote:

But what about the way spans are designed to flex? There are several
trigonometric formulas that apply (that I never learned). Aren't there
instances in which the same live load on various wheelbases can positively
or negatively impact the span's flexibility by creating different kinds
of deflection?

Things get complicated, and messy, in the real world. wry grin

Longer distances between axles can serve to spread the load over a larger
part of the spam, without increasing peak loading.

Additional axles, on the same overall wheelbase, can reduce the 'rate of
change' of the load at a particular point, BUT they can also _increase_ the
peak load at a particular point. This can be significant, at/near the weakest
point -- mid-span.

'Drive' wheels apply different forces on a span than "non-drive" wheels do.
Powered axles, in addition to the 'down' force of the load, provide a 'push'
towards the rear of the vehicle. Un-powered ones have the effect of adding
a push towards the -front- of the vehicle. This adds increased compression
effects _between_ the drive and non-drive axles, an a reduction before the
drive axles, as well as after the non-drive ones. These forces aren't large,
but can make for some significant changes as they pass over the mid-span
'divide'.

Truck clearances and army transport
 

On 01-Feb-12 20:03, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 01-Feb-12 14:33, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
It sounds like you're asking about civilian trucks, which are completely
irrelevant to the discussion; we're discussing highway standards to meet
_military_ needs.

God you are unbelievably thick. Army trucks that use civilian roads are
designed to travel on civilian roads. There is no other standard.

There _were_ no civilian highway standards at the time, Adam.

The "standard" was bridges and clearances that existed on public
highways. For the 27th time, these bridges and clearances were
designed to trucks and traffic of the era they were built in for
local traffic needs, not anticipating trucks of the future, not
antipating Army convoys.

*sigh* I never said that. You really need to learn to read what I
write rather than making up stuff just so you have something to argue with.

The solution chosen was to improve highways to meet the Army's needs,
not to downgrade the Army's military capabilities.

Bull****. If it were not anticipated that a large number of trucks FOR
CIVILIAN PURPOSES would ply the nation's highways, they wouldn't have
written standards to accomodate them. Interstates weren't built
for the United States Army.

So you think it's just a coincidence that the Interstate construction
standards happened to be exactly what the Army needed for their existing
equipment, as Gen. Eisenhower had experienced with the Autobahns in Germany?

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

cards, was E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
 

John Levine writes:

I usually have a rule that if I can pay by cash for smaller purchases
then I do that.

Why? If you get points for every purchase, why not charge everything
you can? That's what I do.

Because I like my privacy. Marketers LOVE people who leave big wide trails.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

cards, was E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
 

David Lesher writes:
I usually have a rule that if I can pay by cash for smaller purchases
then I do that.

Why? If you get points for every purchase, why not charge everything
you can? That's what I do.

Because I like my privacy. Marketers LOVE people who leave big wide trails.

Not to mention that using cash makes spending money somewhat more
visceral, which I kinda like... keeps spending down a bit maybe.

I find the U.S. credit/debit-card obsession just sort of weird...

-Miles

--
Innards, n. pl. The stomach, heart, soul, and other bowels.

cards, was E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
 

Not to mention that using cash makes spending money somewhat more
visceral, which I kinda like... keeps spending down a bit maybe.

I find the U.S. credit/debit-card obsession just sort of weird...

Other than a few toonies and loonies (Google if you don't know what they
are) in the glove compartment for parking meters and they are not really
required as most meters take credit cards, I never carry cash.

My newest debit card, arrived yesterday, lets me use it like a credit card
for on-line purchases and like a credit card when travelling outside Canada,
although it still debits my bank account.


--
Cheers.

Roger Traviss


Photos of the late HO scale GER: -

http://www.greateasternrailway.com

For more photos not in the above album and kitbashes etc..:-
http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l9...Great_Eastern/

cards, was E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
 

"Roger Traviss" writes:
Not to mention that using cash makes spending money somewhat more
visceral, which I kinda like... keeps spending down a bit maybe.

I find the U.S. credit/debit-card obsession just sort of weird...

Other than a few toonies and loonies (Google if you don't know what they
are) in the glove compartment for parking meters and they are not really
required as most meters take credit cards, I never carry cash.

Wacky!

-miles

--
"Suppose He doesn't give a ****? Suppose there is a God but He
just doesn't give a ****?" [George Carlin]

cards, was E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
 

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 22:20:56 +0900
Miles Bader wrote:
"Roger Traviss" writes:
Not to mention that using cash makes spending money somewhat more
visceral, which I kinda like... keeps spending down a bit maybe.

I find the U.S. credit/debit-card obsession just sort of weird...

Other than a few toonies and loonies (Google if you don't know what they
are) in the glove compartment for parking meters and they are not really
required as most meters take credit cards, I never carry cash.

Wacky!

He must be one of those bloody annoying people who insist on paying for
a 2.50 sandwich with a credit card and causing a huge queue of ****ed off
hungry customers behind him.

B2003

cards, was E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
 

cards, was E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
 

cards, was E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
 

In article ,
Robert Neville wrote:
d wrote:

He must be one of those bloody annoying people who insist on paying for
a 2.50 sandwich with a credit card and causing a huge queue of ****ed off
hungry customers behind him.

That may have been true 10 years ago. Current terminals handle credit card
transactions far faster than cash and in most cases, don't even require a
signature if the value is under a certain threshold.

In the UK pretty much all credit cards are authenicated by PIN. Very few
transactions are unauthenticated (except for pay-wave ones, which have a
limit of £10-£15).


--
Mike Bristow