Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 29-Jan-12 17:57, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
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.

Transport is designed to current standards, not the other way around.

The "standards" of the day varied significantly from state to state and
were, in many places, completely insufficient for the Army's needs. The
entire purpose of the Interstate system was to unify and raise those
standards _to match the transport needs_.

Here in Chicago, which may have more elevated railroads than anywhere
else, the required elevation standard was based on trucks of that era.
Why would any state have had lower vertical clearance standards than
required for trucks of that era?

Can you tell us what the hell state you are talking about that wouldn't
have had standard clearances for bridges being built for trucks currently
being sold?

Were there any significant number of trucks sold that exceeded 12' 6",
a common vertical height limit prior to 1956? Expressways in my area
prior to 1956 didn't have 13' 6" clearances until they were reconstructed.

btw, you are wrong: To this day there is no FEDERAL vertical height
standard on trucks. That's in state law. There are federal standards on
length, width, and weight of trucks. I found that on truckinfo.net. Don't
consult Wikipedia, which merely ripped off that Web site.

In theory, the Army _could_ have tried to redesign their tanks, etc. to
the size, height and weight of a Model T or horse-drawn wagon--what much
of the US road infrastructure of the day could handle--but they probably
wouldn't have fared too well in battle.

Now you're moving the goal posts from vertical clearance to weight
that bridges can support. Of course bridges in rural areas were designed
for the vehicles that would cross them typically, straight-bodied trucks
that farmers might own.

The concept that roads and bridges would be designed for trucks that
don't exist is awfully odd.

On 30-Jan-12 17:37, Robert Bonomi wrote:
*HOWEVER*, tanks are *heavy* -- substantially surpassing the legal load
limits on most highways. An "M1A1", alone, NOT INCLUDING the weight of
the transporter vehicle, is close to double the legal weight limit on most
highways.

Load limits are specified per axle or tandem, and tank transporters have
_lots_ of axles to spread the tank's weight out.

Also, the load limits are based on civilian traffic at high speed for
decades. It is well known that such limits can be exceeded at lower
speeds for short periods--such as a military convoy.

(The current tank transporters are only rated for 45mph, ironically
slower than modern tanks can move on their own.)

They are also _big_. TWELVE ft wide. (needless to say, that doesn't fit 'in'
a standard traffic lane, with any safety margin

.... and the standard traffic lane is exactly twelve feet wide. However,
the transporter is _not_ that wide; a tank hangs off both sides,
possibly over one shoulder or the other if the transporter is not
perfectly centered in the lane.

There are standard shoulder widths, too: ten feet on the left and twelve
feet on the right. However, they're not required to support the same
weight as the main lanes--which is fine since neither tanks nor
transporters should be driving on them.

Eight ft tall -- not including any antennas -- _before_ considering the
height of the transporter. (a flat- bed type trailer will have a bed
level that is approximately 5' above ground.)

Isn't the standard minimum bridge height 14ft6in? Hint: that's just
slightly taller than a tank or APC on a transporter.

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

wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:37*pm, (Robert Bonomi) wrote:

demonstrating merely that you don't know what you don't know. grin

That goes both ways. You must have missed:

Jan 30, 9:45 am "I stand corrected."

Hahahahahahahahaha

Stephen Sprunk wrote:

Isn't the standard minimum bridge height 14ft6in? Hint: that's just
slightly taller than a tank or APC on a transporter.

The standard bridge height is the height limit for trucks in that state,
plus six inches, which allows for a layer or two of asphalt being added
to the surface of a concrete highway.

On 30-Jan-12 13:16, wrote:
On Jan 30, 11:29 am, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

If you don't see a direct connection between Lt. Dwight D. Eisenhower,
Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower, there's
really nothing I can do to help you.

Actually, Eisenhower saw things very differently as president of the
US than he did as a military leader.

I'm sure he did. However, it is ludicrous to suggest there is no
connection between Lt. Eisenhower's experience with the US highway
system, Gen. Eisenhower's experience with the German highway system, and
Pres. Eisenhower promoting major legislation to make the former more
like the latter.

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

In article ,
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 30-Jan-12 17:37, Robert Bonomi wrote:
*HOWEVER*, tanks are *heavy* -- substantially surpassing the legal load
limits on most highways. An "M1A1", alone, NOT INCLUDING the weight of
the transporter vehicle, is close to double the legal weight limit on most
highways.

Load limits are specified per axle or tandem, and tank transporters have
_lots_ of axles to spread the tank's weight out.

Some are, some are *not*.

'More axles' doesn't make any difference to a bridge span. grin.

(The current tank transporters are only rated for 45mph, ironically
slower than modern tanks can move on their own.)


Yup.

... and the standard traffic lane is exactly twelve feet wide. However,
the transporter is _not_ that wide; a tank hangs off both sides,
possibly over one shoulder or the other if the transporter is not
perfectly centered in the lane.

Oh my. We're having an agreement. grin

Tanks are "oversize", and "overweight" loads, and, under 'non warfare'
conditions, aren't moved on public roads without special permits, markings,
and escort vehicles. The transporters are built to be 'street legal'
when unloaded, so that they -can- use the highways without all that hoorah.

Eight ft tall -- not including any antennas -- _before_ considering the
height of the transporter. (a flat- bed type trailer will have a bed
level that is approximately 5' above ground.)

Isn't the standard minimum bridge height 14ft6in? Hint: that's just
slightly taller than a tank or APC on a transporter.

In the U.S., placarded if less than 13' 6", I believe. Max legal height
for vehicles w/o requiring 'oversize vehicle' permits and routing approval.

'Roofline' height for a, say, M1A1, on a transporter would be a bit over 13'.
Aux. 'fixtures', can add another 1+ ft. Yup. right close to Defense highway
clearance requirements.

In article ,
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:

I don't know what a transit system would do if it simply sold unlimited
ride passes with no credit bank to debit from. Does anyone know of
an example? In Chicago, one type of CTA Cubic fare media, Chicago Card Plus,
can be used for both single trips and monthly passes. It's linked to a
credit card. The monthly pass is applied to the card after debiting the
fee from the credit bank, and can also be used at the same time to pay the
single fare for accompanying passengers, although just one pass can be
encoded on it at a time.


The ORCA card in use in the Puget Sound area does not necessarily have
to be linked to a credit card. Cards that do not have a registered
owner can only be recharged from a vending machine or transit agency
office rather than through the web site.

As far as I know, it is possible to put a monthly pass of various types*
on the card at these vending machines using cash or credit card, but in
either case the machine supposedly only uses the card information for
conducting the single transaction.

* There are some seven agencies, with a single route on an 8th, that use
the card as a possible fare media. Thus, the need for various agencies
to be able to load their type of monthly pass onto the card.

--
Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam due to e-mail address
harvesters on Usenet. Response time to e-mail sent here is slow.

In message , at
21:46:42 on Mon, 30 Jan 2012, Glen Labah remarked:
I don't know what a transit system would do if it simply sold unlimited
ride passes with no credit bank to debit from. Does anyone know of
an example? In Chicago, one type of CTA Cubic fare media, Chicago Card Plus,
can be used for both single trips and monthly passes. It's linked to a
credit card. The monthly pass is applied to the card after debiting the
fee from the credit bank, and can also be used at the same time to pay the
single fare for accompanying passengers, although just one pass can be
encoded on it at a time.

The ORCA card in use in the Puget Sound area does not necessarily have
to be linked to a credit card. Cards that do not have a registered
owner can only be recharged from a vending machine or transit agency
office rather than through the web site.

The same is true of London's Oyster, although more recently they have
added an "auto-topup" facility when the stored credit falls below £8.

I've also got a bus smartcard, which simply has stored credit measured
in "days" (and can only be topped up at a particular travel centre),
where I can have unlimited travel on any day that I use it. But I don't
have to use it every day (like I would a conventional season ticket,
which are of course widely available for train and bus on smartcard). In
some cities that would be called a carnet (of day-tickets).

http://www.nctx.co.uk/nct-fares/easy...ider-citycard-
anytime-adult/

I don't buy it for the discount, as much as not having to find the exact
change to ride on the bus when paying the driver.
--
Roland Perry

"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
I don't know what a transit system would do if it simply sold unlimited
ride passes with no credit bank to debit from. Does anyone know of
an example?

The ORCA card in use in the Puget Sound area does not necessarily have
to be linked to a credit card.

Same with the Clipper card used in the San Francisco area. A card can have both
passes and a cash balance for trips not covered by any of the passes. It works
on seven different transit systems and can handle a baffling array of passes and
discount plans. You can have a Muni monthly pass, and a BART High Value Discount
ticket which gives you $64 of BART credit for $60, as well as passes on other
systems and cash. Each agency's vending machines tend to sell its own pass as
well as loading cash.

Same with the PATH Smartlink card. You can add a daily, weekly, or
monthly pass for cash at vending machines.

There are doubtless others, but those are the ones I happen to have here.

R's,
John

John Levine wrote:
Same with the Clipper card used in the San Francisco area. *A card can have both
passes and a cash balance for trips not covered by any of the passes. *It works
on seven different transit systems and can handle a baffling array of passes and
discount plans. *You can have a Muni monthly pass, and a BART High Value Discount
ticket which gives you $64 of BART credit for $60, as well as passes on other
systems and cash.

Is BART credit stored separately from otehr agencies' credit?

In the NYC region, the 7% Metrocard bonus when you load at least $10
applies to the credit you can use on any agency that takes Metrocard.
I'm not sure how they "fund" the bonus. (Consider that a card could
have been loaded multiple times, sometimes with the bonus and
sometimes without, so it's hard to figure out how much real cash
revenue the card balance represents.)

Jimmy