Malcolm Laughlin <mlaughlinnyc@...>
I will try to keep my response to this afternoon’s postings in the spirit of the following from Mike Brock.
> The thread will remain open for replies. I would also remind the members that this is a discussion within the scope of the group. It should also be conducted within the rules of the group...meaning in a civil manner.
> “Malcolm has decided to oppose the idea, no matter what he's told. For his sake, and for the others in his camp, I've stopped trying to explain further.”
Trying to observe last four words of the above quopte from Mike, I can sympathize with Tony’s frustration in having a theory apparently dear to his heart logically questioned after its being uncontested for several years. But ……. no point going further absent a summary of information buried in the archives about what Tim G actually did calculate.
One other comment that should have a response
> 1) The loco-regional interchange model. This model says that by
virtue of proximity, connecting road percentages will be higher than
roads that are further away. ………..No data sets have been offered to support this model.
There are no data sets that truly support either model. Because railroads didn’t keep counts of foreign cars on line by ownership, the necessary data sets probably never existed. So the choice is between
a) a model that begins with a distribution in proportion to ownership, supported by a miniscule set of observed data not representative of any whole railroad.
b) a region/distance based model based on purely qualitative factors that are known to have influenced cars to move towards their home railroads.
My basic contention is that there is no reason to believe that some unknown factors negated the fiive factors that I mentioned in a way that caused cars to distribute themselves in proportion to ownership.
Malcolm Laughlin, Editor 617-489-4383
New England Rail Shipper Directories
19 Holden Road, Belmont, MA 02478