.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
And the people who are going to pay to convert every single car in N.A. are the same people who are going to pay to convert all of my rolling stock to Kadee couplers?
It would make switching cars an even more time-consuming and inefficient process than it already is. I can't think of any application for this system that wouldn't be more trouble than it's worth. The system as it is is as fail-safe as it can get; the advantages claimed would not be worth the trouble.
How would you handle cars in a hump yard? A flat yard?
After all, not all railroading is a unit-train type of operation, and even if it was this system wouldn't help things any.
Nice theorizing - you obviously used a lot of brain cells coming up with all the permutations you could think of.
EdKing
Right, Wyhog - the free market made its decision on this many years ago.
Lac Megantic was terrible, but how many of those have we had that your braking system would definitely have prevented? Not MIGHT have prevented, but definitely?
These arguments have been made in many areas. It would be possible to design an automobile in which the occupants could survive a 60 MPH crash uninjured. Trouble is, it would be so expensive no one could afford it, and so uncomfortable that no one would want to ride in it. So we have what we have, and tolerate the breakage.
EdKing
