BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Poquito Loco

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 12:42:22 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 12:05:31 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/16/14, 11:58 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:35:17 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

If open land existed between two remote cities and a high speed train
could actually run at 150 to 200 mph for most of the run it might make
sense and people might use it. But we don't have that space in many
places where people would want to travel and the number of stops between
the cities negates the whole allure of high speed train transportation.

One of the most used Amtrak routes are on the northeast corridor. It
still represents a tiny fraction of the traveling public however. It's
not high speed and will never be high speed. Land doesn't exist and
there are too many required stops.

Exactly right. The Acela boasts of speeds around 130-135 MPH but it
averages more like 60-65 and that is "train time" not the time at the
station parking, checking bags, security, boarding and getting off.

TSA is already talking about going into a full scale "airport" like
security system. We are just one threat away from it and the
government likes to get bigger.

Bull****. I've been on the Acela many times and when it is "train time,"
it is moving a hell of a lot faster than 65 mph. Even the ****ty old
trains running on the ****ty CSX trackage from here to Florida hit 80
mph during "train time" and maintain that pace through each of the seven
million or so unguarded railroad crossings.

It is 190 miles from Boston to New York. The Acela take 3.5 hours.

That is 54 MPH

DC is about 200 from NYC and it takes 2 hours and 45 minutes

That is 72 MPH if you don't stop in Philadelphia.

Harry would be much better off, time wise and cost wise, by driving.