How Did I Miss This One?

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:21:25 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, SD Dave wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:08:37 -0600,
>> (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, SD Dave wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:06:47 -0600,
>>>> (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The companies aren't going to care if it costs employees an extra $2.00
>>>>>to show up at 8am vs 8:15am.
>>>>
>>>> Get a better contract.
>>>
>>>Not everyone drives for living.
>>
>> My point with that line was more along the lines that if $2 will drive
>> you broke, you're getting screwed on your pay. At least, for the job
>> you have implied you do.
>
>Then you missed the point entirely or have a reading comprehension
>problem.
>
>Scott thinks that congestion taxing will encourage companies to start
>work at different times to spread out the traffic through the day. I
>countered saying that companies won't give a **** about the extra taxes
>imposed on their employees and retain whatever start times they wish. I
>then gave an example of such lack of care regarding traffic congestion on
>the part of a company that is recent in my life.

I gotcha so far.

My real point was that if that keeps you from taking a job with me,
great. I don't interview people in the way that's ideal to them, I
never have, and never will. I interview as it is convenient for me.
If someone wants money from my employer, believe you me I will make
the interview the most difficult day of work with me they'll ever
have.

I don't want to hire some lazy or cheap asshole who can't spend a few
dollars or a little extra energy to meet a deadline. Maybe I'm wrong,
but that's just the way I work. I won't normally make an employee
spend $2 daily to get to work on time, but I'll see if they're willing
to before I agree to work with them given the opportunity.

>Wether or not I would find the $2 expensive or not isn't part of the
>arguement. What is the arguement is wether congestion taxing would have a
>benefit to driving. I believe it won't change a thing because current
>congestion levels already encourage those who can start earlier or later
>do so. What remains clogging the roads are people who don't have a choice
>and taxing them for their employer's start time isn't going to get the
>employer to change it.

It remains that you were not yet employed by the person who asked you
to make it there at 8. If you want the job, you'll make it there when
it's convenient for them.

To put it really simple: If you want me to bend over backwards to hire
you, sorry, I have 46 other applicants to interview.

I'm only arguing this from the POV of Hiring Dave, not Nice Dave, the
Dave who usually posts here. When I'm hiring I see no reason to go
too far being nice. People will see that side of me after they're
hired, if they are.

Dave "Why Isn't My DNS Switched Yet?" Hogan

In article >, Ned Carlson wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 20:57:32 -0800, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>> Chicagoland, by contrast, has some
>> seriously aging rail infrastructure that is over 150 years old in some
>> places.
>
> That would be amazing, considering that the first train in Chicago ran
> about 150 years ago! What exists of that first train (Chicago & Galena
> Union/CNW) would be under the roadbed of the current UP West Metra line.

Supposedly if one is lucky, a ghostly image of Abe Lincoln's funeral
train becomes visible from the 31st street bridge over the tracks from
time to time... Just a chicago ghost story... For all I know it's
entirely false...

In article >, SD Dave wrote:
> It remains that you were not yet employed by the person who asked you
> to make it there at 8. If you want the job, you'll make it there when
> it's convenient for them.

Which is the POINT! Convenient for them. Period. Congestion taxing won't
make a friggin difference in the traffic congestion patterns because the
time people have to be at work will remain the same. Employers won't
care, it's what they want, when they want. Those with the freedom to
change their start times to avoid traffic have already done so.

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

>>Automated roads are not trains.
>
> But they will behave like trains. That convoy of Buicks, each
> precisely 15 feet behind the one in front, resembles nothing so much
> as a train of railroad cars.

They won't behave like trains. Trains have tracks and are tied together.
Their condition is also doesn't range from perfection to Judy's beater.

>>Take a close look at some of the cars
>>your fellow citizens are driving when in a parking lot some day. Tell me
>>if they are fit for 90mph machine controlled or not. The first time
>>judy's homemade retreads explode while under computer control at 90mph
>>will have the computer controlled roads set to the lowest common
>>demonator speed.

> Actually, a blowout on a computer-controlled car is both less likely
> and less dangerous. For one thing, the wheels will have sensors for
> both temperature and air pressure, and will be able to sense the
> conditions that could lead to a blowout and take pre-emptive action.

Judy's car won't. And I'll bet that they never take away the brake pedal
away from the driver. And that's how a blow out turns into a spin.

> And, if a blowout occurs anyway (such as by hitting a pothole or other
> road debris), not only will the computer be more capable of safely
> guiding the vehicle to the side of the road, but all the other
> vehicles in close proximity will automatically make way for the
> disabled car, thanks to the local area wireless network that the cars
> will communicate over.

You're asking a lot of this computer. A lot from the lowest beater on the
road. And if you think a blow out is the worst thing that can happen to a
beater, you haven't spent enough time on the south side of chicago to see
what utter crap people will drive.

Are you sure that computer will be able to tell a blow out from a busted
ball joint? how will it handle a locked rear axle because the diff fluid
leaked out? There are so many possible spectactular failures. The first
one at 90mph will insure that the computer speed is dropped to 50mph or
less. Even if it's initially for a few months to improve the system....
remember that temporary speed limit we got when Nixon was office that
lasted for over 20 years and in some parts of the nation it's still in
effect?

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 21:08:14 -0800, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

>
> The C&NW's Milwaukee division (then known as the Chicago & Milwaukee
> RR) had pushed as far north as Waukegan by 1854. While some of that
> line was elevated in 1910, and all the original strap rail was
> replaced long ago, there might be some parts (say a bridge or other
> structure) dating from the early days.

Other than the right-of-way itself, there probably isn't much.
Consider the standards of railway construction in the mid 19th
century (at least in the midwest USA). Not much could've lasted,
what with heavier cars, widening of ROW for more tracks, and
so forth.

> Not sure where the "Class I mainline railroad" bit comes from,

If you can run 100 car double stack container or 15 car double-deck
commuter trains on it, that's probably a mainline railroad.

> but the
> structures in question were originally built for a predecessor to the
> Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul - most definitely a mainline
> railroad.

Yes, but that line was taken over by the CRT/CNS&M back in the
1920's. The track elevation was done by the CRT, not the
Milwaukee Road. http://www.chicago-l.org/stations/howard.html

>The Chicago, North Shore & Milwaukee (North Shore Line) also
> ran over this line, and its trains routinesly reached speeds of 80+
> MPH in places (though definitely not over those bridges).

And not over that line at all. The 90 MPH operation, what there was,
was over the grade level Skokie Valley route further inland. What's left
of that is the CTA Yellow Line.

> Finally, the
> Metra (ex C&NW) runs right next to the "L" through this area, and
> those viaducts also date from 1910.

True, and those were maintained by the C&NW (now UP).One of the reasons
that the C&NW didn't go to s--t like the Milwaukee & Rock Island is that
the C&NW was anal about maintaining its physical plant.

> Anyway, I was merely responding to Brent's comment that Metra trains
> seem to travel at 25 MPH, and was speculating at a possible
> explanation.

If Brent thinks Metra trains typically run at 25 MPH, either he ain't
seen or rode on one lately, or he had his mental timeline artificially
altered ('shrooms and peyote can do that).

> Does the Metra/UP North Line (ex-C&NW Milwaukee Division) qualify as a
> mainline railroad anymore? Or is it now relegated to commuter status?

AFAIK, it's still part of the UP, and the trains run at max Metra
speed, but there's not much if any freight traffic.

--
Ned Carlson www.tubezone.net
South Side of Chicago,IL USA
2/3/2006 1:14:39 AM

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> First, there are structuires still in use today that are almost 100
> years old (such as the bridge in this photograph:
> http://i1.tinypic.com/mx2gic.jpg). Perhaps there are a few
> 150-year-old ones left, as well.

That's all concrete. You have to go back further. Try stone and 19th
century riveted iron:

http://www.iit.edu/images_portal/photogrid_about_us.jpg
http://www.iit.edu/publications/cont...tos/metra5.jpg
http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/AOB1510.jpg

However it was apparently replaced in 2004:
http://images.google.com/images?q=me...et&btnG=Search

The original structure dated from at least the 1890s and was constructed
in a manner that was consistant with the green line 'L' (
http://www.thisisgrand.org/photo8.htm ) and IIT's main
building ( http://www.aviso.net/chicago/higherlearning/iit/ ) which is right
next to it.

These are the metra tracks directly east of the dan-ryan expressway BTW.

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 21:22:29 -0800, Scott en Aztlán wrote:


>
> First, there are structuires still in use today that are almost 100
> years old

Sure there are. Some are even older. The question is whether there's any
nearly 150 years old around Chicago. I doubt it.


> Second, in many cases, rights-of-way are wider than the number of
> tracks which remain in use. Some portions of the ROW which originally
> held 4, 5, or more tracks now contain only 2 as the number of trains
> decreased over the years.

That may be true today, but during the late 19th/early 20th
century, generally it wasn't. Also, during the early 20th century
most of the heavily used mainline track inside the city was elevated
to eliminate grade crossings, same as happened in NYC.
The original ROW is way down below present day tracks.

Furthermore, much of the actual ground & street level of the
City of Chicago was raised by fill in order to eliminate
marshes. In some cases you can see this first hand, where porches
and/or backyards of housing that predated the re-levelling
are below current street level.

>
>>Yes, but that line was taken over by the CRT/CNS&M back in the
>>1920's. The track elevation was done by the CRT, not the
>>Milwaukee Road.
>
> That is only true for the line north of University Place, which was
> not elevated until the 1930s. The line south of that point was
> elevated during 1908 - 1910, and that work was done by the St. Paul.
>

Grover Garfield (who has researched this more thoroughly that you
or I) states:
" "L" service entered Evanston by way of an agreement to use the tracks of
the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway on May 16, 1908, replacing the
steam service that the St. Paul had previously provided. The steam
railroad's original station remained, though the "L" constructed a
high-level platform station of simple frame construction, all of which was
demolished during the elevation of the tracks in 1909. (as per the 1907
franchise agreement from the City of Evanston)."

"In 1908, the Northwestern "L" was extended over the tracks of the Chicago,
Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway's tracks to Evanston. The tracks descended to
grade-level north of Wilson, but the original station remained in use."

IOW, no elevation was done until the L trains came, and it was done
expressly to facilitate L trains, the CM&StP steam passenger service
expired the same day the L trains showed up.

> Is that why some of those bridges haven't been painted since 1974, and
> are now rusting away?

In the 1970's, Northwestern Industries unloaded its railroad on its
employees, and Metra took over the commuter rail service. Don't blame this
on Ben Heineman and the old C&NW!

BTW, the idea of double-deck "commuter streamliners" in Chicago was
invented by the Burlington in 1950. Not by the C&NW.

--
Ned Carlson www.tubezone.net
South Side of Chicago,IL USA
2/4/2006 2:21:45 AM