OLD NEWS? or NEW?

[Bill Blackhurst]

We have no idea how many times this happens , especially when transporting on highways and the designers did not take into account overpass heights  all we hear about is some transport truck destroying something 

What's worse is when the DOT sublets a repaving job to an outside source, & they grind the pavement down as needed, then repave under an overpass, & lower the clearance height to the the bottom of the bridge overhead by building up the surface more than the original without changing the clearance sign to compensate for the shorter distance always saying "we were going to do that tomorrow"  . Along comes what is called an 18 wheeler condo high roof sleeper moving along @ their usual speed because they have been this same route forever, & WHAM  ! The whole upper section of the cab sleeper roof is torn off, the poor driver can't understand what just happened  , his co driver is to say the least jolted out of bed  , & his safety director is going crazy on the cell phone due to loss, & schedule  ! It all goes down hill from there!
Bill

[Richard]

A little snopes here, fwiw ...

Hello, Peter ...

I am a great fan of Snopes, and usually check everything ... especially political references. However, I didn't think to check this somewhat humorous historical article. First, because it sort of made sense and, second, because it was intended to be light humor using loosely connected historical possibilities.

Regardless, I think that this Snopes report is really interesting because of their own "disclaimer" in the first line which states, "This is one of those items that - although wrong in many of it's details - isn't exactly false in an overall sense."

What the heck does that mean? "isn't exactly false in an overall sense."
(I've never seen this kind of "back pedaling" in a Snopes report before.)

The person who wrote this then goes on to say, "and is perhaps more fairly labeled as "True, but for trivial and unremarkable reasons."

Peter, thanks for this very "interesting" and amusing Snopes link.

All the best,
Richard

[Rasputin]

Regardless, I think that this Snopes report is really interesting because of their own "disclaimer" in the first line which states, "This is one of those items that - although wrong in many of it's details - isn't exactly false in an overall sense."

What the heck does that mean? "isn't exactly false in an overall sense."
(I've never seen this kind of "back pedaling" in a Snopes report before.)

The person who wrote this then goes on to say, "and is perhaps more fairly labeled as "True, but for trivial and unremarkable reasons."

I could not figure out what they were saying also , it started to sound like our politicians double talk 

[core]

Richard,

Apologies my post might have seemed a little curt  Been rather busy and have had only a little time pop up for some air and PF forums 

fwiw the same anecdote pops up in model rocketry (forums, usenet, etc) every so often (for the past decade at least!) - that's where I learned a little more each time.

[playmofire]

I could not figure out what they were saying also , it started to sound like our politicians double talk 

I think what they mean is that although the account isn't completely true, there is a large element of truth in it, i.e. many rail gauges we have nowadays are based on previous vehicle gauges, which really is what you'd expect.  Innovators rarely start with a clean sheet, and this was certainly the case for rail transport as railways or tramways of one sort or another had pre-existed the steam engine for some time and it made sense to use the same gauge as it meant existing wagons could be used on the new system.  And, of course, the design of those original wagons was influenced by earlier wagons, again because it meant existing jigs etc could be used.  Moreover, the 4ft 8.5ins gauge in Great Britain also had the law behind it.  Every railway had to be authorised by Act of Parliament and by 1835 there was a standard clause in these Acts specifying the 4ft 8.5ins gauge.  An exception was the Great Western Act of 1835 which meant that Brunel could go ahead with the GWR broad gauge, although eventually this had to be abandoned because of the cost and inconvenience of transhipment where journeys started on standard gauge and ended on GWR broad gauge and vice versa.

[Richard]

Richard,

Apologies my post might have seemed a little curt  Been rather busy and have had only a little time pop up for some air and PF forums 

fwiw the same anecdote pops up in model rocketry (forums, usenet, etc) every so often (for the past decade at least!) - that's where I learned a little more each time.

No apology necessary, Peter ... 

I really appreciated and enjoyed your Snopes link and didn't think that you were curt at all. (Not even a "little" bit.) ... 

All the best,
Richard

 

[Little Jo]

And the pre-predecessor of the Mercedes-Benz S-class had been made larger than the one before and suddenly didn't fit anymore on the goods train for passenger cars ... so better the engineers had oriented on sizes used before ...

[Rasputin]

And the pre-predecessor of the Mercedes-Benz S-class had been made larger than the one before and suddenly didn't fit anymore on the goods train for passenger cars ... so better the engineers had oriented on sizes used before ...

I will volunteer to drive them to their destinations