> > No...you provide a reference from Einstein showing that he specified
> > that the strikes are only simultaneous in the track frame then I will
> > graciously admit that I am wrong.
>
> From Einstein's book "Relativity".
>   "Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B which
>   are simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also
>   simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that
>   the answer must be in the negative.

In order to show directly that the answer must be in the negative Einstein
assumed erroneously that the train observer is moving horizontally wrt to
the defined horizontal light rays.  He is not.
The correct interpretation is that the train observer is moving in the
vertical direction wrt the defineds horizontal light rays.

>  . . .
>   When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous
>   with respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted
>   at the places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other
>   at the mid-point M of the length A-B of the embankment.

A-B are the ends of the train. That means that Einstein used the ends
of the train as markers for the lightning strikes. This means that if
the lightnings did strike simultaneously in the frame of the track they
must also strke simultaneously in the frame of the train. Einstein agreed
with this analysis.
Einstein obtained RoS by erroneously assumed that the train observer is
moving horizontally wrt to the defined horizontally moving light rays. In
real life,
both observers are moving vertically (up or down) wrt the defined
horizontal light rays. The train observer is moving faster (vertically) and
thus sees the light rays to be simultaneous at a later time. This is the
same explanation for the null result of the MMX.:-)

>  . . .
>   Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are
>   not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity
>   of simultaneity)."

Einstein used an erroneous assumption to derive the RoS.

>
> So let's see how gracious you can be.

I was right so I don't need to be gracious. :-)

Ken Seto