On 9/2/2013 1:31 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 12:34:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 09:38:55 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Japan Railway Comp

Once you get away from the Boston - DC corridor, there are not many
places where people would ride a train. Even there, if you are not
spending your visit in the city center, you need a car.
We are not Japan nor Europe.
The only place with a similar population density is the NE megopolis
and they have a train

Yes we do, and we had two stops right within five miles of my home in
Essex... In all my years down there I knew two folks who used the train,
I know because I had to meet them at the station and drive them to where
they were actually going...

.... with my car....


One of the stations is in downtown Saybrook though so I saw it a lot...
it was always empty...



There certainly is if there was a viable one to ride.

There are plenty of trains in the US and they go off virtually empty.
That is why Amtrak is always on the public dole.
There are some routes that make sense and they succeed. Acela is one.
That does not translate well in most places.

Here in Florida they wanted to build a high speed train between Tampa
and Orlando. They problem is, they would really need to have a lot of
stops near both ends to make it attractive ... as a commuter train.
That is not conducive to "high speed".

You end up with the same problem I brought up before. You need a car
to get around Tampa and Orlando. Tourists are unlikely to travel in
between by train anyway. If they have a rental car, you are only
talking about a 1 - 1.5 hour drive. They would be at the other end,
checked into their hotel before you got through the train station on
both ends, if they "beamed" you to Tampa.

In article , says...

On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 13:49:37 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

Here in Florida they wanted to build a high speed train between Tampa
and Orlando. They problem is, they would really need to have a lot of
stops near both ends to make it attractive ... as a commuter train.
That is not conducive to "high speed".

You end up with the same problem I brought up before. You need a car
to get around Tampa and Orlando. Tourists are unlikely to travel in
between by train anyway. If they have a rental car, you are only
talking about a 1 - 1.5 hour drive. They would be at the other end,
checked into their hotel before you got through the train station on
both ends, if they "beamed" you to Tampa.

I agree wholeheartedly, our infrastructure sucks. Trouble is it sucks
because people like you are afraid of change and innovation.


A train offers absolutely NOTHING to "people" like me.
That is the problem.
I am not sure where I would take a train to

I just went to the WAMATA.com web site and plugged in my home address and my work address to
see what it would take to get from home to work. It will take 1 hour and 7 minutes and I get
to ride a bus to the Metro station, take a train a couple of stops and then take another bus
ride. It would take me 1 hour and 7 minutes and cost me $3.20. If I drive it takes 25 minutes
and about 1/4 of a gallon of gas. Even figuring in insurance and maintenance I would pay
about $2 at the most and I would get to work in less than 1/2 the time.

In article , says...

On 9/2/13 10:27 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

...can't compete with this:

Japan Railway Comp. (JR Tokai) (TYO:9022) (aka. "The Central Japan
Railway Comp.) is responsible for ferrying close to 400,000 passengers
a day between some of the largest cities in central Japan. While its
fastest bullet trains can cut the transit time from Tokyo to Osaka from
about 6 hours by car to about 2 hours and 20 minutes by bullet train, JR
Tokai is dreaming of a next generation maglev system that could go even
faster, completing the 500+ kilometer (310+ mile) journey in under an hour.



When you don't waste your money on the military, you can have nice things.

--------------------------------

Funds have been approved to develop high speed rail corridors in the US
however the Department of Transportation is still working on the safety
standards that will apply. Right now, the "crash worthiness" spec for
the trains is more than double (in terms of forces than can be
withstood without frame deformation) than the standards used in Europe
and Japan's high speed rail systems, i.e. almost 900,000 lbs versus
350,000 lbs.

The cost of designing and manufacturing such trains is a major
impediment, as is the cost of the rail system itself. Right now there
are Amtrak trains between Boston and Wash DC capable of doing over 200
mph however there are very limited stretches of track that would allow
speeds of even 150 mph. Plus, even if they could run at high speed,
they would never be able to sustain the speed very long without having
to stop at stations along the way. Not enough passenger usage for "non
stop" tracks.



Yeah, I've heard and read every excuse here for at least the last 20
years. The fact remains that in the operation of high speed trains,
we're still in the caboose.

If you take a look at the structure of our country it is not conducive to high speed trains.
There is too much money that gets spent on something that may not need the train service in
10 or 20 years. With busses and airplanes you can change the routes based upon changing
demographics in a matter of days without building a new set of rails. Trains have a purpose
and it isn't moving people efficiently. Hell, trains still need truck drivers at each enf of
the rail head.

On 9/2/2013 7:03 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 13:49:37 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

Here in Florida they wanted to build a high speed train between Tampa
and Orlando. They problem is, they would really need to have a lot of
stops near both ends to make it attractive ... as a commuter train.
That is not conducive to "high speed".

You end up with the same problem I brought up before. You need a car
to get around Tampa and Orlando. Tourists are unlikely to travel in
between by train anyway. If they have a rental car, you are only
talking about a 1 - 1.5 hour drive. They would be at the other end,
checked into their hotel before you got through the train station on
both ends, if they "beamed" you to Tampa.

I agree wholeheartedly, our infrastructure sucks. Trouble is it sucks
because people like you are afraid of change and innovation.


A train offers absolutely NOTHING to "people" like me.
That is the problem.
I am not sure where I would take a train to


Same here, I hate cities....

On 9/2/2013 8:07 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says...

On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 13:49:37 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

Here in Florida they wanted to build a high speed train between Tampa
and Orlando. They problem is, they would really need to have a lot of
stops near both ends to make it attractive ... as a commuter train.
That is not conducive to "high speed".

You end up with the same problem I brought up before. You need a car
to get around Tampa and Orlando. Tourists are unlikely to travel in
between by train anyway. If they have a rental car, you are only
talking about a 1 - 1.5 hour drive. They would be at the other end,
checked into their hotel before you got through the train station on
both ends, if they "beamed" you to Tampa.

I agree wholeheartedly, our infrastructure sucks. Trouble is it sucks
because people like you are afraid of change and innovation.


A train offers absolutely NOTHING to "people" like me.
That is the problem.
I am not sure where I would take a train to

I just went to the WAMATA.com web site and plugged in my home address and my work address to
see what it would take to get from home to work. It will take 1 hour and 7 minutes and I get
to ride a bus to the Metro station, take a train a couple of stops and then take another bus
ride. It would take me 1 hour and 7 minutes and cost me $3.20. If I drive it takes 25 minutes
and about 1/4 of a gallon of gas. Even figuring in insurance and maintenance I would pay
about $2 at the most and I would get to work in less than 1/2 the time.


And how would you get to work if you had anything to carry for work, or
deliver anything for work... Trains are only good for paperpushers and
vacationers anyway...

On 9/2/13 8:23 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:


And how would you get to work if you had anything to carry for work, or
deliver anything for work... Trains are only good for paperpushers and
vacationers anyway...



How would that impact you? You are unemployed and unemployable. What
would you be carrying or delivering to "work," since you don't work?

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..


I just went to the WAMATA.com web site and plugged in my home address
and my work address to
see what it would take to get from home to work. It will take 1 hour
and 7 minutes and I get
to ride a bus to the Metro station, take a train a couple of stops and
then take another bus
ride. It would take me 1 hour and 7 minutes and cost me $3.20. If I
drive it takes 25 minutes
and about 1/4 of a gallon of gas. Even figuring in insurance and
maintenance I would pay
about $2 at the most and I would get to work in less than 1/2 the
time.

-----------------------------

Just for kicks, I went to the Amtrak website and priced the
*cheapest* one-way fare from Boston to Charleston, SC.


Train would leave Boston at 9:30 pm and arrive in Wash DC at about 7
am the next morning.
Then a three hour layover in DC with a connection leaving at 9:55 am.
Arrive in Charleston, SC at 7:15 pm.

Total travel time: 22 hours. Cost: $289.00
I can fly there in 2.5 hours for less than that.
I can drive it in about 15-16 hours and not need to rent a car when I
got there.

A high-speed train would have to be non-stop and average almost 400
mph to be competitive with the airlines, time-wise.

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 18:16:12 -0400, wrote:

The problem is a lot of those right of ways have been ceded over to
the power companies for power lines and the Internet. That is where a
good chunk of the national fiber backbone is installed. Nobody wants
you digging roadbeds around that.
The existing ROW is being used for freight. They don't want that on HS
rail.

===

Don't forget about the interstate highway system, especially the air
rights over the medians, or the air rights over the freight lines.

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 18:16:12 -0400, wrote:

Harry is right, driving into NYC is bad but if you are going to the
burbs, from the burbs, driving it is.

===

Driving into all of the major cities is bad but burbs-to-burbs
describes a lot of what people do.

On 9/2/13 8:46 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"BAR" wrote in message
. ..


I just went to the WAMATA.com web site and plugged in my home address
and my work address to
see what it would take to get from home to work. It will take 1 hour and
7 minutes and I get
to ride a bus to the Metro station, take a train a couple of stops and
then take another bus
ride. It would take me 1 hour and 7 minutes and cost me $3.20. If I
drive it takes 25 minutes
and about 1/4 of a gallon of gas. Even figuring in insurance and
maintenance I would pay
about $2 at the most and I would get to work in less than 1/2 the time.

-----------------------------

Just for kicks, I went to the Amtrak website and priced the *cheapest*
one-way fare from Boston to Charleston, SC.


Train would leave Boston at 9:30 pm and arrive in Wash DC at about 7 am
the next morning.
Then a three hour layover in DC with a connection leaving at 9:55 am.
Arrive in Charleston, SC at 7:15 pm.

Total travel time: 22 hours. Cost: $289.00
I can fly there in 2.5 hours for less than that.
I can drive it in about 15-16 hours and not need to rent a car when I
got there.

A high-speed train would have to be non-stop and average almost 400 mph
to be competitive with the airlines, time-wise.





We can't do it because we can't do it because we can't do it. I get it.
We can't do anything anymore, and that's another example of why
conservatism is killing America, because we can't have nice trains, we
can't keep our interstates in good shape, we can't repair our bridges,
whatever, we can't do it because...we can't do it.

When we take the train to Jax, it usually works out to be a 13 hour
train trip. We leave in the evening and arrive the next morining, after
a good night's sleep aboard the train. No long waits to clear security
at the origin, no long wait for luggage at the termination. Compartment
includes private toilet, two bunk beds and two pretty decent meals.
Takes about the same time as driving, if I felt like driving without an
overnight stop, which I don't like doing. Would take much less time if
trackage and equipment were a lot better, but the trackage south of DC
is mostly CSX, and it doesn't give a **** about high speed passenger rail.

No worries about all the crap that accompanies airline travel.

About $700 round trip for two adults. Much more comfy than even first
class on a plane. Takes longer, sure, but it's overnight and you have to
sleep. Oh, and two first class airline tickets would be about $1000.

But we can't improve passenger rail transportation because this is
America and we can't things like that anymore. I get it.