>
Race and Sex Hegemons to Control the Skies:
https://townhall.com/columnists/ilanamercer/2022/10/22/race-and-sex-hegemons-to-control-the-skies-n2614850
>
And doesn't the Navy have some dead female carrier pilots too? Something for you to Google, Slow Johnny.
>
Andre Jute
Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. -- Sir Walter Scott, "Marmion"
>

On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 3:30:18 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> >
> Race and Sex Hegemons to Control the Skies:
> https://townhall.com/columnists/ilanamercer/2022/10/22/race-and-sex-hegemons-to-control-the-skies-n2614850
> >
> And doesn't the Navy have some dead female carrier pilots too? Something for you to Google, Slow Johnny.
> >
> Andre Jute
> Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. -- Sir Walter Scott, "Marmion"
> >

For these sorts of reasons I will not fly despite the California urge now to spend most of your free time in Hawaii.

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 5:10:26 PM UTC+1, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 3:30:18 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > >
> > Race and Sex Hegemons to Control the Skies:
> > https://townhall.com/columnists/ilanamercer/2022/10/22/race-and-sex-hegemons-to-control-the-skies-n2614850
> > >
> > And doesn't the Navy have some dead female carrier pilots too? Something for you to Google, Slow Johnny.
> > >
> > Andre Jute
> > Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. -- Sir Walter Scott, "Marmion"
> > >
> For these sorts of reasons I will not fly despite the California urge now to spend most of your free time in Hawaii.
>
Fly Air Woke
-- and croak.
>
-- AJ
>

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 11:49:53 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 5:10:26 PM UTC+1, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 3:30:18 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > >
> > > Race and Sex Hegemons to Control the Skies:
> > > https://townhall.com/columnists/ilanamercer/2022/10/22/race-and-sex-hegemons-to-control-the-skies-n2614850
> > > >
> > > And doesn't the Navy have some dead female carrier pilots too? Something for you to Google, Slow Johnny.
> > > >
> > > Andre Jute
> > > Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. -- Sir Walter Scott, "Marmion"
> > > >
> > For these sorts of reasons I will not fly despite the California urge now to spend most of your free time in Hawaii.
> >
> Fly Air Woke
> -- and croak.
> >
> -- AJ
> >

California is so anti-business now that all of the real companies that aren't forced to be here are long gone. And now Gavin Loathsome under the guise of public announcements is using taxpayer money to tell everyone what a fine job he is doing. California is the absolutely perfect climate for vineyards and yet even the WINE companies are leaving. Better to fight less than ideal weather than the taxes and public corruption of California.

One of the major French rail companies was going to show California how to build a bullet train but the atmosphere was so anti-business that they pulled out leaving what was left of the California company to show their ineptitude by changing from the safe wider rail to the standard rail width. At least I worked for BART and know something about rail systems. Liebermann has never held a real job in his entire life and wanted to argue that narrow gauge American rail systems are plenty wide enough. Pretty plainly he is a idiot that loves to make loud noises about things he has never experienced and knows nothing about.

Hey Liebermann, you stupid ass, is it time you quote that fine reference Wikipedia? After all, THEY know all about rail systems because of all of their extensive experience with them.

Am 26.10.2022 um 23:45 schrieb Tom Kunich:
> On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 11:49:53 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 5:10:26 PM UTC+1, cycl...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 3:30:18 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> Race and Sex Hegemons to Control the Skies:
>>>> https://townhall.com/columnists/ilanamercer/2022/10/22/race-and-sex-hegemons-to-control-the-skies-n2614850
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
And doesn't the Navy have some dead female carrier pilots too? Something
for you to Google, Slow Johnny.
>>>>>
>>>> Andre Jute Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we
>>>> practice to deceive. -- Sir Walter Scott, "Marmion"
>>>>>
>>> For these sorts of reasons I will not fly despite the California
>>> urge now to spend most of your free time in Hawaii.
>>>
>> Fly Air Woke -- and croak.

> California is so anti-business now that all of the real companies
> that aren't forced to be here are long gone.

I'm sure somebody took my billionaire company boss at gunpoint, telling
him "You must open a California office. You must buy a second house in
California and live in California 100 days per year minimum. You must
pay the workers in California 60% more than the workers in Germany or
Pennsylvania".

Why did that guy not also say "you must offer Rolf a job in Palo Alto,
or alternatively ioncrease his wage to what he would earn in Palo Alto",
please?

> One of the major French rail companies was going to show California
> how to build a bullet train but the atmosphere was so anti-business
> that they pulled out leaving what was left of the California company
> to show their ineptitude by changing from the safe wider rail to the
> standard rail width.

Please let me tell you: the war on rail width pretty much ended in 1860,
when Brunel (GWR) started re-laying all their track to standard width;
at least this made the upgrade to double track quite affordable.

The main point of Bullet trains is that they are affordable because they
use standard rail width world-wide; Japan started with 'Bullet Trains'
in Standard width where everything else in Japan was Cape Width. Spain
is laying High-speed tracks in standard width , with changeover points
to their larger width on the traditional slow lines.

Only Russia has tried setting up wide high-speed Trains (but with German
rather than French technology).

Rolf

On Thursday, October 27, 2022 at 1:44:47 AM UTC-7, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Am 26.10.2022 um 23:45 schrieb Tom Kunich:
> > On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 11:49:53 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> >> On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 5:10:26 PM UTC+1, cycl...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 3:30:18 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>> Race and Sex Hegemons to Control the Skies:
> >>>> https://townhall.com/columnists/ilanamercer/2022/10/22/race-and-sex-hegemons-to-control-the-skies-n2614850
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> And doesn't the Navy have some dead female carrier pilots too? Something
> for you to Google, Slow Johnny.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Andre Jute Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we
> >>>> practice to deceive. -- Sir Walter Scott, "Marmion"
> >>>>>
> >>> For these sorts of reasons I will not fly despite the California
> >>> urge now to spend most of your free time in Hawaii.
> >>>
> >> Fly Air Woke -- and croak.
> > California is so anti-business now that all of the real companies
> > that aren't forced to be here are long gone.
> I'm sure somebody took my billionaire company boss at gunpoint, telling
> him "You must open a California office. You must buy a second house in
> California and live in California 100 days per year minimum. You must
> pay the workers in California 60% more than the workers in Germany or
> Pennsylvania".
>
> Why did that guy not also say "you must offer Rolf a job in Palo Alto,
> or alternatively ioncrease his wage to what he would earn in Palo Alto",
> please?
> > One of the major French rail companies was going to show California
> > how to build a bullet train but the atmosphere was so anti-business
> > that they pulled out leaving what was left of the California company
> > to show their ineptitude by changing from the safe wider rail to the
> > standard rail width.
> Please let me tell you: the war on rail width pretty much ended in 1860,
> when Brunel (GWR) started re-laying all their track to standard width;
> at least this made the upgrade to double track quite affordable.
>
> The main point of Bullet trains is that they are affordable because they
> use standard rail width world-wide; Japan started with 'Bullet Trains'
> in Standard width where everything else in Japan was Cape Width. Spain
> is laying High-speed tracks in standard width , with changeover points
> to their larger width on the traditional slow lines.
>
> Only Russia has tried setting up wide high-speed Trains (but with German
> rather than French technology).

The rail width was NOT set up by any logic. It was set up because that was the width of the wheels on a wagon with two draft horses pulling it. Because of this you have to have massive and expensive maintenance crews maintaining the tracks to a level that should not be necessary. It did not matter a whole lot when you had trains run on steam that had a top speed of 55 mph but it makes a hell of a lot of difference today when diesel trains pulling light passenger cars are running at 75 mph. BART cars have derailed simply because the tracks have had less than near perfect levels. Now, you may be willing to risk the lives of people riding the trains but it is my judgement that wider spacing would allow safer, higher speed trains.

What's more, with Japan experimenting with Maglev, methods of keeping a high speed train on its path become increasingly important.

Are you suggesting that your company CEO cannot afford to buy a home in the rare gated communities that have 24 hour policing? Perhaps you'd like to suggest that Palo Alto isn't getting more and more like East Palo Alto every day?

On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 12:57:46 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>The rail width was NOT set up by any logic. It was set up because that was the width of the wheels on a wagon with two draft horses pulling it.

There was a little logic involved, but it didn't have anything to do
with draft horses. Some fact checking:

"The width of railroad tracks is based on history that extends back to
Roman chariots-Fiction!"
<https://www.truthorfiction.com/railwidth/>
"Gabriel says there’s a statue by Franzoni in the Vatican museum that
is regarded as the most accurate known depiction of a Roman chariot.
The two horses are wider than the chariot and the chariot wheels
behind them."

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 20:36:22 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 12:57:46 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
><cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The rail width was NOT set up by any logic. It was set up because that was the width of the wheels on a wagon with two draft horses pulling it.
>
>There was a little logic involved, but it didn't have anything to do
>with draft horses. Some fact checking:
>
>"The width of railroad tracks is based on history that extends back to
>Roman chariots-Fiction!"
><https://www.truthorfiction.com/railwidth/>
>"Gabriel says there’s a statue by Franzoni in the Vatican museum that
>is regarded as the most accurate known depiction of a Roman chariot.
>The two horses are wider than the chariot and the chariot wheels
>behind them."

Given that the Roman Empire ended in about 400-something and the first
horse drawn tramway was built in the 1800', 1,400 years later, it
seems unlikely that the Romans had anything to do with railroads (:-)

In the U.S. the "heavy" wagons like the Conestoga had a body width of
about 4 feet which probably has something to do with the width of a
team of oxen or horses.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 10/27/2022 10:36 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 12:57:46 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The rail width was NOT set up by any logic. It was set up because that was the width of the wheels on a wagon with two draft horses pulling it.
>
> There was a little logic involved, but it didn't have anything to do
> with draft horses. Some fact checking:
>
> "The width of railroad tracks is based on history that extends back to
> Roman chariots-Fiction!"
> <https://www.truthorfiction.com/railwidth/>
> "Gabriel says there’s a statue by Franzoni in the Vatican museum that
> is regarded as the most accurate known depiction of a Roman chariot.
> The two horses are wider than the chariot and the chariot wheels
> behind them."
>
>

+1

History of rail gauge and
technical/engineering/quality/longevity of modern rail
systems are utterly unrelated.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 7:33:57 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 10/27/2022 10:36 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 12:57:46 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> > <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The rail width was NOT set up by any logic. It was set up because that was the width of the wheels on a wagon with two draft horses pulling it.
> >
> > There was a little logic involved, but it didn't have anything to do
> > with draft horses. Some fact checking:
> >
> > "The width of railroad tracks is based on history that extends back to
> > Roman chariots-Fiction!"
> > <https://www.truthorfiction.com/railwidth/>
> > "Gabriel says there’s a statue by Franzoni in the Vatican museum that
> > is regarded as the most accurate known depiction of a Roman chariot.
> > The two horses are wider than the chariot and the chariot wheels
> > behind them."
> >
> >
> +1
>
> History of rail gauge and
> technical/engineering/quality/longevity of modern rail
> systems are utterly unrelated.
>
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

You may believe whatever you like. If you wish to believe that the auto wheelbase which was designed specifically to fit the roads of the day which were made by horse drawn wagons were not connected in any way that is your business. Likewisw, if you don't believe that rail gauge wasn't connected to the width of the roads which supplied all of the equipment and components to build that railroad (note the "road" part of railroad) that too is your business. The FACT that all of the early autos in both Europe and the US had the same wheelbase must certainly be a complete coincidence. The fact that roads ALL over the world had the same width certainly means nothing at all..

What is your proof is a "most accurate depiction" of a Roman Chariot is hardly any "proof" that roads were developed from Chariots rather than farm wagons.

On 10/28/2022 11:44 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> You may believe whatever you like. If you wish to believe that the auto wheelbase which was designed specifically to fit the roads of the day which were made by horse drawn wagons were not connected in any way that is your business. Likewisw, if you don't believe that rail gauge wasn't connected to the width of the roads which supplied all of the equipment and components to build that railroad (note the "road" part of railroad) that too is your business. The FACT that all of the early autos in both Europe and the US had the same wheelbase must certainly be a complete coincidence. The fact that roads ALL over the world had the same width certainly means nothing at all.

Wow.

First, Tom apparently doesn't understand the definition of "wheelbase."
He needs to look that up. (I'd give a link, but he'd claim it was a left
wing hoax website.)

And rail gauge is "connected" to road width of roads supplying rail
equipment? Does that mean it's now impossible to use a freeway to
deliver railroad rails, because freeways are too wide?

And is it still true that roads "ALL over the world have the same
width"? Really? Is that true even in Tom's neighborhood? It's certainly
not true in my riding territory. I find some roads are as narrow as 18
feet, some are as wide as 60 feet, and others are everything in between.

Tom has a really weird mind.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/28/2022 10:44 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 7:33:57 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 10/27/2022 10:36 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 12:57:46 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The rail width was NOT set up by any logic. It was set up because that was the width of the wheels on a wagon with two draft horses pulling it.
>>>
>>> There was a little logic involved, but it didn't have anything to do
>>> with draft horses. Some fact checking:
>>>
>>> "The width of railroad tracks is based on history that extends back to
>>> Roman chariots-Fiction!"
>>> <https://www.truthorfiction.com/railwidth/>
>>> "Gabriel says there’s a statue by Franzoni in the Vatican museum that
>>> is regarded as the most accurate known depiction of a Roman chariot.
>>> The two horses are wider than the chariot and the chariot wheels
>>> behind them."
>>>
>>>
>> +1
>>
>> History of rail gauge and
>> technical/engineering/quality/longevity of modern rail
>> systems are utterly unrelated.
>>

> You may believe whatever you like. If you wish to believe that the auto wheelbase which was designed specifically to fit the roads of the day which were made by horse drawn wagons were not connected in any way that is your business. Likewisw, if you don't believe that rail gauge wasn't connected to the width of the roads which supplied all of the equipment and components to build that railroad (note the "road" part of railroad) that too is your business. The FACT that all of the early autos in both Europe and the US had the same wheelbase must certainly be a complete coincidence. The fact that roads ALL over the world had the same width certainly means nothing at all.
>
> What is your proof is a "most accurate depiction" of a Roman Chariot is hardly any "proof" that roads were developed from Chariots rather than farm wagons.
>

It's entirely possible that one day the entire world could
change over to Russian wide gauge. Stupid and expensive, but
there's no logical inherent reason why it wouldn't work just
as well. Or some other new gauge. It's a relatively
capricious number and a few inches either way is not
functionally different. It's an historical anomaly that
modern standard gauge is roughly about like Roman wheel
width dimensions and has no deeper meaning.

p.s. I have owed autos with radically different wheel
width[1] there is no 'standard'.

[1]One of which could not fit on a US two-wheel tow dolly.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.yotatech.com-vbulletin/2000x1124/20141109_103107_3a191b627038ebb1ac4b02285846f4b052e238c0.jpg

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 11:10:45 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 10/28/2022 10:44 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 7:33:57 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 10/27/2022 10:36 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 12:57:46 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> >>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The rail width was NOT set up by any logic. It was set up because that was the width of the wheels on a wagon with two draft horses pulling it.
> >>>
> >>> There was a little logic involved, but it didn't have anything to do
> >>> with draft horses. Some fact checking:
> >>>
> >>> "The width of railroad tracks is based on history that extends back to
> >>> Roman chariots-Fiction!"
> >>> <https://www.truthorfiction.com/railwidth/>
> >>> "Gabriel says there’s a statue by Franzoni in the Vatican museum that
> >>> is regarded as the most accurate known depiction of a Roman chariot.
> >>> The two horses are wider than the chariot and the chariot wheels
> >>> behind them."
> >>>
> >>>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> History of rail gauge and
> >> technical/engineering/quality/longevity of modern rail
> >> systems are utterly unrelated.
> >>
> > You may believe whatever you like. If you wish to believe that the auto wheelbase which was designed specifically to fit the roads of the day which were made by horse drawn wagons were not connected in any way that is your business. Likewisw, if you don't believe that rail gauge wasn't connected to the width of the roads which supplied all of the equipment and components to build that railroad (note the "road" part of railroad) that too is your business. The FACT that all of the early autos in both Europe and the US had the same wheelbase must certainly be a complete coincidence. The fact that roads ALL over the world had the same width certainly means nothing at all.
> >
> > What is your proof is a "most accurate depiction" of a Roman Chariot is hardly any "proof" that roads were developed from Chariots rather than farm wagons.
> >
> It's entirely possible that one day the entire world could
> change over to Russian wide gauge. Stupid and expensive, but
> there's no logical inherent reason why it wouldn't work just
> as well. Or some other new gauge. It's a relatively
> capricious number and a few inches either way is not
> functionally different. It's an historical anomaly that
> modern standard gauge is roughly about like Roman wheel
> width dimensions and has no deeper meaning.
>
> p.s. I have owed autos with radically different wheel
> width[1] there is no 'standard'.
>
> [1]One of which could not fit on a US two-wheel tow dolly.
>
> https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.yotatech.com-vbulletin/2000x1124/20141109_103107_3a191b627038ebb1ac4b02285846f4b052e238c0.jpg
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

People that have changed the standard width of a car hardly counts does it? The wheels don't fit under the fenders because there's no standard.

"Average Width of a Car The average width of a car is between 5.6 and 6.2 feet, with most standard cars averaging around 70 inches wide. Width is one of the most important measurements for a vehicle’s dimensions because it determines where you’ll be able to park the car."

As I said, there are still wagon train tracks in the Rockies and Sierra Nevada mountains that have set up hard from rainy seasons to many year droughts that turn the mud into concrete.,

What is a horse harness width for a normal horse and wagon? 71" https://chimacumtack.com/pages/size-chart/ (I should note that horses today are a little larger than in the past when they couldn't be fed as much.

I want to ask you something - is it your opinion that this is all nothing more than a coincidence?

On 10/28/2022 3:15 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 11:10:45 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 10/28/2022 10:44 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 7:33:57 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 10/27/2022 10:36 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 12:57:46 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The rail width was NOT set up by any logic. It was set up because that was the width of the wheels on a wagon with two draft horses pulling it.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was a little logic involved, but it didn't have anything to do
>>>>> with draft horses. Some fact checking:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The width of railroad tracks is based on history that extends back to
>>>>> Roman chariots-Fiction!"
>>>>> <https://www.truthorfiction.com/railwidth/>
>>>>> "Gabriel says there’s a statue by Franzoni in the Vatican museum that
>>>>> is regarded as the most accurate known depiction of a Roman chariot.
>>>>> The two horses are wider than the chariot and the chariot wheels
>>>>> behind them."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> History of rail gauge and
>>>> technical/engineering/quality/longevity of modern rail
>>>> systems are utterly unrelated.
>>>>
>>> You may believe whatever you like. If you wish to believe that the auto wheelbase which was designed specifically to fit the roads of the day which were made by horse drawn wagons were not connected in any way that is your business. Likewisw, if you don't believe that rail gauge wasn't connected to the width of the roads which supplied all of the equipment and components to build that railroad (note the "road" part of railroad) that too is your business. The FACT that all of the early autos in both Europe and the US had the same wheelbase must certainly be a complete coincidence. The fact that roads ALL over the world had the same width certainly means nothing at all.
>>>
>>> What is your proof is a "most accurate depiction" of a Roman Chariot is hardly any "proof" that roads were developed from Chariots rather than farm wagons.
>>>
>> It's entirely possible that one day the entire world could
>> change over to Russian wide gauge. Stupid and expensive, but
>> there's no logical inherent reason why it wouldn't work just
>> as well. Or some other new gauge. It's a relatively
>> capricious number and a few inches either way is not
>> functionally different. It's an historical anomaly that
>> modern standard gauge is roughly about like Roman wheel
>> width dimensions and has no deeper meaning.
>>
>> p.s. I have owed autos with radically different wheel
>> width[1] there is no 'standard'.
>>
>> [1]One of which could not fit on a US two-wheel tow dolly.
>>
>> https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.yotatech.com-vbulletin/2000x1124/20141109_103107_3a191b627038ebb1ac4b02285846f4b052e238c0.jpg

> People that have changed the standard width of a car hardly counts does it? The wheels don't fit under the fenders because there's no standard.
>
> "Average Width of a Car The average width of a car is between 5.6 and 6.2 feet, with most standard cars averaging around 70 inches wide. Width is one of the most important measurements for a vehicle’s dimensions because it determines where you’ll be able to park the car."
>
> As I said, there are still wagon train tracks in the Rockies and Sierra Nevada mountains that have set up hard from rainy seasons to many year droughts that turn the mud into concrete.,
>
> What is a horse harness width for a normal horse and wagon? 71" https://chimacumtack.com/pages/size-chart/ (I should note that horses today are a little larger than in the past when they couldn't be fed as much.
>
> I want to ask you something - is it your opinion that this is all nothing more than a coincidence?
>

It's all meaningless to the context in which you introduced
it. Some may find it historically interesting. None of it is
dispositive to rail gauge. Period.

'Average auto' width does not encompass 'all autos' (I was
not speaking of owner-modified vehicles). Even among
'average' auto width, 5.6 to 6.2 is a ten percent variance,
a range well beyond rail tolerance anyway.

pffft.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 1:47:43 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 10/28/2022 3:15 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 11:10:45 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 10/28/2022 10:44 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 7:33:57 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> On 10/27/2022 10:36 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 12:57:46 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> >>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The rail width was NOT set up by any logic. It was set up because that was the width of the wheels on a wagon with two draft horses pulling it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There was a little logic involved, but it didn't have anything to do
> >>>>> with draft horses. Some fact checking:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "The width of railroad tracks is based on history that extends back to
> >>>>> Roman chariots-Fiction!"
> >>>>> <https://www.truthorfiction.com/railwidth/>
> >>>>> "Gabriel says there’s a statue by Franzoni in the Vatican museum that
> >>>>> is regarded as the most accurate known depiction of a Roman chariot..
> >>>>> The two horses are wider than the chariot and the chariot wheels
> >>>>> behind them."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> +1
> >>>>
> >>>> History of rail gauge and
> >>>> technical/engineering/quality/longevity of modern rail
> >>>> systems are utterly unrelated.
> >>>>
> >>> You may believe whatever you like. If you wish to believe that the auto wheelbase which was designed specifically to fit the roads of the day which were made by horse drawn wagons were not connected in any way that is your business. Likewisw, if you don't believe that rail gauge wasn't connected to the width of the roads which supplied all of the equipment and components to build that railroad (note the "road" part of railroad) that too is your business. The FACT that all of the early autos in both Europe and the US had the same wheelbase must certainly be a complete coincidence. The fact that roads ALL over the world had the same width certainly means nothing at all.
> >>>
> >>> What is your proof is a "most accurate depiction" of a Roman Chariot is hardly any "proof" that roads were developed from Chariots rather than farm wagons.
> >>>
> >> It's entirely possible that one day the entire world could
> >> change over to Russian wide gauge. Stupid and expensive, but
> >> there's no logical inherent reason why it wouldn't work just
> >> as well. Or some other new gauge. It's a relatively
> >> capricious number and a few inches either way is not
> >> functionally different. It's an historical anomaly that
> >> modern standard gauge is roughly about like Roman wheel
> >> width dimensions and has no deeper meaning.
> >>
> >> p.s. I have owed autos with radically different wheel
> >> width[1] there is no 'standard'.
> >>
> >> [1]One of which could not fit on a US two-wheel tow dolly.
> >>
> >> https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.yotatech.com-vbulletin/2000x1124/20141109_103107_3a191b627038ebb1ac4b02285846f4b052e238c0.jpg
> > People that have changed the standard width of a car hardly counts does it? The wheels don't fit under the fenders because there's no standard.
> >
> > "Average Width of a Car The average width of a car is between 5.6 and 6..2 feet, with most standard cars averaging around 70 inches wide. Width is one of the most important measurements for a vehicle’s dimensions because it determines where you’ll be able to park the car."
> >
> > As I said, there are still wagon train tracks in the Rockies and Sierra Nevada mountains that have set up hard from rainy seasons to many year droughts that turn the mud into concrete.,
> >
> > What is a horse harness width for a normal horse and wagon? 71" https://chimacumtack.com/pages/size-chart/ (I should note that horses today are a little larger than in the past when they couldn't be fed as much.
> >
> > I want to ask you something - is it your opinion that this is all nothing more than a coincidence?
> >
> It's all meaningless to the context in which you introduced
> it. Some may find it historically interesting. None of it is
> dispositive to rail gauge. Period.
>
> 'Average auto' width does not encompass 'all autos' (I was
> not speaking of owner-modified vehicles). Even among
> 'average' auto width, 5.6 to 6.2 is a ten percent variance,
> a range well beyond rail tolerance anyway.
>
> pffft.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

"Why did the English build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that’s the gauge they used.

Why did “they” use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons which used that wheel spacing."

I spent all of my youth around the railroad. I worked three years for BART. There isn't anywhere I can go from my home without crossing railroads. As I said, I couldn't care less that people want to place the gauge on Roman chariots. They were based on WAGONS that hauled all of the food to market. Are you old enough to remember farm wagons?

I wonder if you think that I'm saying that some government entity set a standard before there was some sort of government strong enough to do so?

On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 4:06:16 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 1:47:43 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 10/28/2022 3:15 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 11:10:45 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > >> On 10/28/2022 10:44 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > >>> On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 7:33:57 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > >>>> On 10/27/2022 10:36 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > >>>>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 12:57:46 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> > >>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> The rail width was NOT set up by any logic. It was set up because that was the width of the wheels on a wagon with two draft horses pulling it.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> There was a little logic involved, but it didn't have anything to do
> > >>>>> with draft horses. Some fact checking:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "The width of railroad tracks is based on history that extends back to
> > >>>>> Roman chariots-Fiction!"
> > >>>>> <https://www.truthorfiction.com/railwidth/>
> > >>>>> "Gabriel says there’s a statue by Franzoni in the Vatican museum that
> > >>>>> is regarded as the most accurate known depiction of a Roman chariot.
> > >>>>> The two horses are wider than the chariot and the chariot wheels
> > >>>>> behind them."
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> +1
> > >>>>
> > >>>> History of rail gauge and
> > >>>> technical/engineering/quality/longevity of modern rail
> > >>>> systems are utterly unrelated.
> > >>>>
> > >>> You may believe whatever you like. If you wish to believe that the auto wheelbase which was designed specifically to fit the roads of the day which were made by horse drawn wagons were not connected in any way that is your business. Likewisw, if you don't believe that rail gauge wasn't connected to the width of the roads which supplied all of the equipment and components to build that railroad (note the "road" part of railroad) that too is your business. The FACT that all of the early autos in both Europe and the US had the same wheelbase must certainly be a complete coincidence. The fact that roads ALL over the world had the same width certainly means nothing at all.
> > >>>
> > >>> What is your proof is a "most accurate depiction" of a Roman Chariot is hardly any "proof" that roads were developed from Chariots rather than farm wagons.
> > >>>
> > >> It's entirely possible that one day the entire world could
> > >> change over to Russian wide gauge. Stupid and expensive, but
> > >> there's no logical inherent reason why it wouldn't work just
> > >> as well. Or some other new gauge. It's a relatively
> > >> capricious number and a few inches either way is not
> > >> functionally different. It's an historical anomaly that
> > >> modern standard gauge is roughly about like Roman wheel
> > >> width dimensions and has no deeper meaning.
> > >>
> > >> p.s. I have owed autos with radically different wheel
> > >> width[1] there is no 'standard'.
> > >>
> > >> [1]One of which could not fit on a US two-wheel tow dolly.
> > >>
> > >> https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.yotatech.com-vbulletin/2000x1124/20141109_103107_3a191b627038ebb1ac4b02285846f4b052e238c0.jpg
> > > People that have changed the standard width of a car hardly counts does it? The wheels don't fit under the fenders because there's no standard.
> > >
> > > "Average Width of a Car The average width of a car is between 5.6 and 6.2 feet, with most standard cars averaging around 70 inches wide. Width is one of the most important measurements for a vehicle’s dimensions because it determines where you’ll be able to park the car."
> > >
> > > As I said, there are still wagon train tracks in the Rockies and Sierra Nevada mountains that have set up hard from rainy seasons to many year droughts that turn the mud into concrete.,
> > >
> > > What is a horse harness width for a normal horse and wagon? 71" https://chimacumtack.com/pages/size-chart/ (I should note that horses today are a little larger than in the past when they couldn't be fed as much.
> > >
> > > I want to ask you something - is it your opinion that this is all nothing more than a coincidence?
> > >
> > It's all meaningless to the context in which you introduced
> > it. Some may find it historically interesting. None of it is
> > dispositive to rail gauge. Period.
> >
> > 'Average auto' width does not encompass 'all autos' (I was
> > not speaking of owner-modified vehicles). Even among
> > 'average' auto width, 5.6 to 6.2 is a ten percent variance,
> > a range well beyond rail tolerance anyway.
> >
> > pffft.
> > --
> > Andrew Muzi
> > <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> > Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> "Why did the English build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that’s the gauge they used.
>
> Why did “they” use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons which used that wheel spacing."
>
> I spent all of my youth around the railroad. I worked three years for BART. There isn't anywhere I can go from my home without crossing railroads. As I said, I couldn't care less that people want to place the gauge on Roman chariots. They were based on WAGONS that hauled all of the food to market. Are you old enough to remember farm wagons?
>
> I wonder if you think that I'm saying that some government entity set a standard before there was some sort of government strong enough to do so?

Unfortunately, they didn't publish the width between ruts in Pompeii. 79AD. Can someone visit to measure? https://www.world-archaeology.com/features/crosstown-traffic-driving-streets-pompeii/

On 10/28/2022 4:06 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 1:47:43 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 10/28/2022 3:15 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 11:10:45 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 10/28/2022 10:44 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 7:33:57 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/27/2022 10:36 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 12:57:46 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>>>>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The rail width was NOT set up by any logic. It was set up because that was the width of the wheels on a wagon with two draft horses pulling it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was a little logic involved, but it didn't have anything to do
>>>>>>> with draft horses. Some fact checking:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The width of railroad tracks is based on history that extends back to
>>>>>>> Roman chariots-Fiction!"
>>>>>>> <https://www.truthorfiction.com/railwidth/>
>>>>>>> "Gabriel says there’s a statue by Franzoni in the Vatican museum that
>>>>>>> is regarded as the most accurate known depiction of a Roman chariot.
>>>>>>> The two horses are wider than the chariot and the chariot wheels
>>>>>>> behind them."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> History of rail gauge and
>>>>>> technical/engineering/quality/longevity of modern rail
>>>>>> systems are utterly unrelated.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You may believe whatever you like. If you wish to believe that the auto wheelbase which was designed specifically to fit the roads of the day which were made by horse drawn wagons were not connected in any way that is your business. Likewisw, if you don't believe that rail gauge wasn't connected to the width of the roads which supplied all of the equipment and components to build that railroad (note the "road" part of railroad) that too is your business. The FACT that all of the early autos in both Europe and the US had the same wheelbase must certainly be a complete coincidence. The fact that roads ALL over the world had the same width certainly means nothing at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is your proof is a "most accurate depiction" of a Roman Chariot is hardly any "proof" that roads were developed from Chariots rather than farm wagons.
>>>>>
>>>> It's entirely possible that one day the entire world could
>>>> change over to Russian wide gauge. Stupid and expensive, but
>>>> there's no logical inherent reason why it wouldn't work just
>>>> as well. Or some other new gauge. It's a relatively
>>>> capricious number and a few inches either way is not
>>>> functionally different. It's an historical anomaly that
>>>> modern standard gauge is roughly about like Roman wheel
>>>> width dimensions and has no deeper meaning.
>>>>
>>>> p.s. I have owed autos with radically different wheel
>>>> width[1] there is no 'standard'.
>>>>
>>>> [1]One of which could not fit on a US two-wheel tow dolly.
>>>>
>>>> https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.yotatech.com-vbulletin/2000x1124/20141109_103107_3a191b627038ebb1ac4b02285846f4b052e238c0.jpg
>>> People that have changed the standard width of a car hardly counts does it? The wheels don't fit under the fenders because there's no standard.
>>>
>>> "Average Width of a Car The average width of a car is between 5.6 and 6.2 feet, with most standard cars averaging around 70 inches wide. Width is one of the most important measurements for a vehicle’s dimensions because it determines where you’ll be able to park the car."
>>>
>>> As I said, there are still wagon train tracks in the Rockies and Sierra Nevada mountains that have set up hard from rainy seasons to many year droughts that turn the mud into concrete.,
>>>
>>> What is a horse harness width for a normal horse and wagon? 71" https://chimacumtack.com/pages/size-chart/ (I should note that horses today are a little larger than in the past when they couldn't be fed as much.
>>>
>>> I want to ask you something - is it your opinion that this is all nothing more than a coincidence?
>>>
>> It's all meaningless to the context in which you introduced
>> it. Some may find it historically interesting. None of it is
>> dispositive to rail gauge. Period.
>>
>> 'Average auto' width does not encompass 'all autos' (I was
>> not speaking of owner-modified vehicles). Even among
>> 'average' auto width, 5.6 to 6.2 is a ten percent variance,
>> a range well beyond rail tolerance anyway.
>>
>> pffft.

> "Why did the English build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that’s the gauge they used.
>
> Why did “they” use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons which used that wheel spacing."
>
> I spent all of my youth around the railroad. I worked three years for BART. There isn't anywhere I can go from my home without crossing railroads. As I said, I couldn't care less that people want to place the gauge on Roman chariots. They were based on WAGONS that hauled all of the food to market. Are you old enough to remember farm wagons?
>
> I wonder if you think that I'm saying that some government entity set a standard before there was some sort of government strong enough to do so?
>

I said nothing of the sort.
Governments took over rail systems long after the many and
various gauge standards, most of which had come and gone by
then.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Fri, 28 Oct 2022 13:15:40 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>As I said, there are still wagon train tracks in the Rockies and Sierra Nevada mountains that have set up hard from rainy seasons to many year droughts that turn the mud into concrete.,

Yep:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=oregon+trail+wagon+ruts&tbm=isch>
<https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/places-to-see-oregon-trail-ruts.htm>

>What is a horse harness width for a normal horse and wagon? 71" https://chimacumtack.com/pages/size-chart/

I couldn't find any reference to the "width" of a horse harness or
your 71" figure. Where on the page did you find those?

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 10/28/2022 6:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 10/28/2022 4:06 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 1:47:43 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 10/28/2022 3:15 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 11:10:45 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 10/28/2022 10:44 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 7:33:57 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/27/2022 10:36 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 12:57:46 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>>>>>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The rail width was NOT set up by any logic. It was set up
>>>>>>>>> because that was the width of the wheels on a wagon with two
>>>>>>>>> draft horses pulling it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There was a little logic involved, but it didn't have anything
>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>> with draft horses. Some fact checking:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The width of railroad tracks is based on history that extends
>>>>>>>> back to
>>>>>>>> Roman chariots-Fiction!"
>>>>>>>> <https://www.truthorfiction.com/railwidth/>
>>>>>>>> "Gabriel says there’s a statue by Franzoni in
>>>>>>>> the Vatican museum that
>>>>>>>> is regarded as the most accurate known depiction of a Roman
>>>>>>>> chariot.
>>>>>>>> The two horses are wider than the chariot and the chariot wheels
>>>>>>>> behind them."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> History of rail gauge and
>>>>>>> technical/engineering/quality/longevity of modern rail
>>>>>>> systems are utterly unrelated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You may believe whatever you like. If you wish to believe that the
>>>>>> auto wheelbase which was designed specifically to fit the roads of
>>>>>> the day which were made by horse drawn wagons were not connected
>>>>>> in any way that is your business. Likewisw, if you don't believe
>>>>>> that rail gauge wasn't connected to the width of the roads which
>>>>>> supplied all of the equipment and components to build that
>>>>>> railroad (note the "road" part of railroad) that too is your
>>>>>> business. The FACT that all of the early autos in both Europe and
>>>>>> the US had the same wheelbase must certainly be a complete
>>>>>> coincidence. The fact that roads ALL over the world had the same
>>>>>> width certainly means nothing at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is your proof is a "most accurate depiction" of a Roman
>>>>>> Chariot is hardly any "proof" that roads were developed from
>>>>>> Chariots rather than farm wagons.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It's entirely possible that one day the entire world could
>>>>> change over to Russian wide gauge. Stupid and expensive, but
>>>>> there's no logical inherent reason why it wouldn't work just
>>>>> as well. Or some other new gauge. It's a relatively
>>>>> capricious number and a few inches either way is not
>>>>> functionally different. It's an historical anomaly that
>>>>> modern standard gauge is roughly about like Roman wheel
>>>>> width dimensions and has no deeper meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>> p.s. I have owed autos with radically different wheel
>>>>> width[1] there is no 'standard'.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]One of which could not fit on a US two-wheel tow dolly.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.yotatech.com-vbulletin/2000x1124/20141109_103107_3a191b627038ebb1ac4b02285846f4b052e238c0.jpg
>>>> People that have changed the standard width of a car hardly counts
>>>> does it? The wheels don't fit under the fenders because there's no
>>>> standard.
>>>>
>>>> "Average Width of a Car The average width of a car is between 5.6
>>>> and 6.2 feet, with most standard cars averaging around 70 inches
>>>> wide. Width is one of the most important measurements for a
>>>> vehicle’s dimensions because it determines where
>>>> you’ll be able to park the car."
>>>>
>>>> As I said, there are still wagon train tracks in the Rockies and
>>>> Sierra Nevada mountains that have set up hard from rainy seasons to
>>>> many year droughts that turn the mud into concrete.,
>>>>
>>>> What is a horse harness width for a normal horse and wagon? 71"
>>>> https://chimacumtack.com/pages/size-chart/ (I should note that
>>>> horses today are a little larger than in the past when they couldn't
>>>> be fed as much.
>>>>
>>>> I want to ask you something - is it your opinion that this is all
>>>> nothing more than a coincidence?
>>>>
>>> It's all meaningless to the context in which you introduced
>>> it. Some may find it historically interesting. None of it is
>>> dispositive to rail gauge. Period.
>>>
>>> 'Average auto' width does not encompass 'all autos' (I was
>>> not speaking of owner-modified vehicles). Even among
>>> 'average' auto width, 5.6 to 6.2 is a ten percent variance,
>>> a range well beyond rail tolerance anyway.
>>>
>>> pffft.
>
>> "Why did the English build them like that? Because the first rail
>> lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad
>> tramways, and that’s the gauge they used.
>>
>> Why did “they” use that gauge then? Because the people who built
>> the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building
>> wagons which used that wheel spacing."
>>
>> I spent all of my youth around the railroad. I worked three years for
>> BART. There isn't anywhere I can go from my home without crossing
>> railroads. As I said, I couldn't care less that people want to place
>> the gauge on Roman chariots. They were based on WAGONS that hauled all
>> of the food to market. Are you old enough to remember farm wagons?
>>
>> I wonder if you think that I'm saying that some government entity set
>> a standard before there was some sort of government strong enough to
>> do so?
>>
>
> I said nothing of the sort.
> Governments took over rail systems long after the many and various gauge
> standards, most of which had come and gone by then.

Related to the "standards" (as you say, we have so many!):
https://english.nv.ua/business/ukrainian-farmers-ask-poland-to-build-wide-gauge-railway-track-to-gdansk-port-50280083.html

I was surprised to see such variation in Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_gauge_in_Europe

https://mediarail.wordpress.com/ukraine-wants-to-connect-to-europe-in-1-435mm/

When a new technology like railroads came into being during even early
industrial times, I'd have thought that the benefits of standardization
would have been apparent. Why not communicate at the outset to remove
senseless differences?

But then, in the 1990s lots of robot manufacturers were springing up.
I'd have thought they'd have standardized the flanges for attaching end
effectors, but no. We had to machine adapters to attach grippers to
robot wrists.

And one of the True/False questions I put on some Robotics exams was:
"Thanks to the ANSI standard robot wrist, almost all grippers easily
attach to almost all robots." The correct answer was "False."

--
- Frank Krygowski