RAILWAYIST's Comments

RAILWAYIST...Bill Simpson must be a nut job like you. Rail gauge is 4' 8 1/2". A standard railcar extends from the ends of the rail 2-3'. 20' international shipping containers are 9' 6" wide. Times 2 = 19' width. That's over 7' over extension over the rails. Now tell me how many tunnels, bridges, sidings, etc can handle that type of WIDE LOAD? None. Without spending 50 Gazillion dollars to enlarge the rail infrastructure. So the QUADRAIL idea sounds as stupid as the crap you keep posting on the Railway blog. AMCAFF and Larry aren't naysayers they are a few of the people on the blog that actually work or have worked numerous years in the rail industry and understand it's capabilites and limitations. Facts shouldn't be mistaken for Naysaying. This is why everyone gets so turned off by your stupid sh** rambling. You know nothing of the industry or what it takes to operate it, yet throw out meaningless and ignorant ideas and concepts and think they can work or that they haven't been thought of before. Your act got old long ago.

BacktotheFuture — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 15:58:45 GMT

RAILWAYIST...Bill Simpson must be a nut job like you.

Rail gauge is 4' 8 1/2". A standard railcar extends from the ends of the rail 2-3'.

20' international shipping containers are 9' 6" wide. Times 2 = 19' width. That's over 7' over extension over the rails.

Now tell me how many tunnels, bridges, sidings, etc can handle that type of WIDE LOAD?

None. Without spending 50 Gazillion dollars to enlarge the rail infrastructure.

So the QUADRAIL idea sounds as stupid as the crap you keep posting on the Railway blog.

AMCAFF and Larry aren't naysayers they are a few of the people on the blog that actually work or have worked numerous years in the rail industry and understand it's capabilites and limitations.

Facts shouldn't be mistaken for Naysaying.

This is why everyone gets so turned off by your stupid sh** rambling. You know nothing of the industry or what it takes to operate it, yet throw out meaningless and ignorant ideas and concepts and think they can work or that they haven't been thought of before.

Your act got old long ago.

Dear RAILWAYIST: Re: CN Turbo Train blog. After the battle on your web blog, I wrote a paper on the Bering Strait Crossing and the QUADRAIL TRAINS. I have posted the paper on my website home page http://www.quadrail.org Click "Now Available" blue star, If you're interested. This ends my involvement with the Project Proposal. I did send a printed copy of my paper to the Russian Federation Ambassador to the United States a few weeks ago, however, I doubt that I'll get a reply. Regards, Bill

BillSimpson — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:16:13 GMT

Dear RAILWAYIST:

Re: CN Turbo Train blog.

After the battle on your web blog, I wrote a paper on the Bering Strait Crossing and the QUADRAIL TRAINS. I have posted the paper on my website home page http://www.quadrail.org

Click "Now Available" blue star, If you're interested.

This ends my involvement with the Project Proposal. I did send a printed copy of my paper to the Russian Federation Ambassador to the United States a few weeks ago, however, I doubt that I'll get a reply.

Regards,

Bill

Dear RAILWAYIST! Thanks for the words of encouragement! I'm not using the blog anymore after my run-in with " Heckle and Jeckle" on your CN TURBO TRAIN VIDEO blog. Anmccaff appears to be shallow in his thinking. The QUADRAIL HO model container rail car that I built was just for illustration purposes. It contains three rows of two, 20' long, containers (6 total) on a model of a QUADRAIL 52' flatcar. It is for comparison to a standard gauge flatcar that only holds two, 20' long, containers. A QUADRAIL version of a Gunderson 48', Double Stack, Well Car would hold three rows of two 20' long, or one 40' long containers on the bottom, plus three rows of 40', 45' or 48' long containers on the top. This works out to the equivalent of twelve 20' long containers, which is three times the capacity of a standard gauge Gunderson 48' long Double Stack Well Car. The other issues could be addressed but "Heckle and Jeckle" are not worth the time to explain to them. While in the military, in 1973, the base commander addressed the QPEC problem to the entire base. It hasn't gone away! "Heckle and Jeckle" are professional naysayers. Nothing will change them! Thank you for your input! Bill

BillSimpson — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:51:11 GMT

Dear RAILWAYIST!

Thanks for the words of encouragement! I'm not using the blog anymore after my run-in with "Heckle and Jeckle" on your CN TURBO TRAIN VIDEO blog. Anmccaff appears to be shallow in his thinking. The QUADRAIL HO model container rail car that I built was just for illustration purposes. It contains three rows of two, 20' long, containers (6 total) on a model of a QUADRAIL 52' flatcar. It is for comparison to a standard gauge flatcar that only holds two, 20' long, containers. A QUADRAIL version of a Gunderson 48', Double Stack, Well Car would hold three rows of two 20' long, or one 40' long containers on the bottom, plus three rows of 40', 45' or 48' long containers on the top. This works out to the equivalent of twelve 20' long containers, which is three times the capacity of a standard gauge Gunderson 48' long Double Stack Well Car.

The other issues could be addressed but "Heckle and Jeckle" are not worth the time to explain to them. While in the military, in 1973, the base commander addressed the QPEC problem to the entire base. It hasn't gone away!

"Heckle and Jeckle" are professional naysayers. Nothing will change them!

Thank you for your input!

Bill