Amen, Richard and Dennis. What I was trying to say all along. This should satisfy everyone who has a dog in this hunt, recognizing each perspective as part of the whole, but not THE whole, makes sense, but probably won't.
To: STMFC@...: rhendrickson@...: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:27:11 -0700Subject: Re: ADMIN: Re: [STMFC] Re: Freight car distribution
On Aug 21, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Dennis Storzek wrote:> [snip]> I personally think that time would be better spent studying the> prototype one is trying to model, identifying the consists of the> trains as best one can from consists, interchange statistics, photos,> movies, whatever is available, noting not only the overall car mix,> but specific instances of heavy concentrations, because those heavy> concentrations aren't random events, they MEAN something, and modeling> them helps to capture the feel of the prototype.>Bang on, Dennis. Thank you for stating so succinctly the case for researching the intended prototype intensively rather than getting absorbed in abstract statistics. Not to say that the statistics aren't enlightening, and that we shouldn't be grateful to those whose research made them available. However, they're not especially useful to a modeler, and may even be seriously misleading, until interpreted in the light of everything else that can be learned about the traffic on a particular RR at a particular place and time. I (and, I suspect, many others on this list) would be relieved if this turned out to be the last word on this subject, though I suspect that's too much to hope for.Richard Hendrickson