Thread: CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
View Single Post
  #393   Report Post  
Old January 29th 12, 09:10 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london,misc.transport.rail.americas
Stephen Sprunk Stephen Sprunk is offline
external usenet poster
  
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2004
Posts: 172
Default Stating prices at retail inclusive of taxes
On 29-Jan-12 14:09, wrote:
On Jan 29, 11:07 am, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

Movement of tanks. That is the origin of the clearance, lane width and
bridge-strength requirements--and in turn limits the height, width and
weight of new US tanks.

I'm not sure that's true. Tanks are not very kind to concrete roadway
surfaces, nor do they move very fast, and of course drink up fuel. I
would think if tanks have to be moved any sort of distance they would
be loaded onto trains.

The tanks would not be directly on the roadway unless they were actually
deployed for battle on US soil, in which case I doubt anyone would care
about what it did to the pavement.

Otherwise, the tanks would be on transporters, which is why the
Interstate vertical clearance requirements are so high.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote