On 9/3/13 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 09:57:25 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

No, it's mostly a stigma, people think elevated trains, they think
noise, they think unsafe, etc. Add to that that for some reason beyond
me, there are a LOT of people in the U.S. who just fear and loathe any
new technology.

Elevated trains ARE noisier and if they derail, over a major road,
they are a lot more dangerous.
We are not talking about the Lake Street El here. You want that train
going 150 MPH or more.

BTW you keep saying "innovation" and "new technology" but this is 200
year old technology and every plan I have heard involves buying
existing technology from Europe or Japan. Were is the innovation?

Bringing high speed trains over from Europe would be new technology for
this country, because we have no capability anymore for passenger rail
innovation. We'd have to reverse engineer what they are doing across the
big pond.

In article , says...

On 9/3/13 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 09:57:25 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

No, it's mostly a stigma, people think elevated trains, they think
noise, they think unsafe, etc. Add to that that for some reason beyond
me, there are a LOT of people in the U.S. who just fear and loathe any
new technology.

Elevated trains ARE noisier and if they derail, over a major road,
they are a lot more dangerous.
We are not talking about the Lake Street El here. You want that train
going 150 MPH or more.

BTW you keep saying "innovation" and "new technology" but this is 200
year old technology and every plan I have heard involves buying
existing technology from Europe or Japan. Were is the innovation?

Bringing high speed trains over from Europe would be new technology for
this country, because we have no capability anymore for passenger rail
innovation. We'd have to reverse engineer what they are doing across the
big pond.

If they change the octane of gasoline and it makes cars go faster is that new technology or
an improvement on an existing technology. Fixed track trains are 200 years old and they only
thing that has changed is how the locomotive is powered.

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

In article ,
says...

On 9/3/13 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 09:57:25 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

No, it's mostly a stigma, people think elevated trains, they
think
noise, they think unsafe, etc. Add to that that for some reason
beyond
me, there are a LOT of people in the U.S. who just fear and
loathe any
new technology.

Elevated trains ARE noisier and if they derail, over a major road,
they are a lot more dangerous.
We are not talking about the Lake Street El here. You want that
train
going 150 MPH or more.

BTW you keep saying "innovation" and "new technology" but this is
200
year old technology and every plan I have heard involves buying
existing technology from Europe or Japan. Were is the innovation?

Bringing high speed trains over from Europe would be new technology
for
this country, because we have no capability anymore for passenger
rail
innovation. We'd have to reverse engineer what they are doing across
the
big pond.

If they change the octane of gasoline and it makes cars go faster is
that new technology or
an improvement on an existing technology. Fixed track trains are 200
years old and they only
thing that has changed is how the locomotive is powered.

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

Well, some things on the train tracks have changed. Railroad "ties"
are typically concrete now and the rail butts are welded and smooth.
Ever notice that the "clackity-clack" sound of a train travelling
down the track has disappeared?

On 9/4/13 9:12 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


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

Well, some things on the train tracks have changed. Railroad "ties" are
typically concrete now and the rail butts are welded and smooth. Ever
notice that the "clackity-clack" sound of a train travelling down the
track has disappeared?


Depends on where you are. The trackage from here to NYC and beyond is
pretty decent, and so is the trackage out to Chicago. I've not been
further west than Chicago on a train.

The trackage is absolutely miserable between here and Florida. I mean,
TERRIBLE. The rails are as crooked and bumpy as you can get and in some
places, you have to wonder why the rail car just doesn't hop off the
rails. CSX owns the rails and whatever the minimum is for upkeep, it
obviously spends less.

On 9/4/13 11:20 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 09:20:33 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 9/4/13 9:12 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


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

Well, some things on the train tracks have changed. Railroad "ties" are
typically concrete now and the rail butts are welded and smooth. Ever
notice that the "clackity-clack" sound of a train travelling down the
track has disappeared?


Depends on where you are. The trackage from here to NYC and beyond is
pretty decent, and so is the trackage out to Chicago. I've not been
further west than Chicago on a train.

The trackage is absolutely miserable between here and Florida. I mean,
TERRIBLE. The rails are as crooked and bumpy as you can get and in some
places, you have to wonder why the rail car just doesn't hop off the
rails. CSX owns the rails and whatever the minimum is for upkeep, it
obviously spends less.

CSX spends what it needs to for freight trains. Amtrak is just
freeloading on their track.,


Amtrak pays a train mile fee for using CSX tracks. A relative who was a
CSX exec told me what it was once, but that was years ago. In the
aggregate, the total Amtrak pays out for train mile fees around the
country is several hundred million dollars.

Freeloading...what an interesting term. I suppose when you rent a car
from Hertz, you are freeloading.

On 9/4/2013 11:27 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 9/4/13 11:20 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 09:20:33 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 9/4/13 9:12 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


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

Well, some things on the train tracks have changed. Railroad "ties"
are
typically concrete now and the rail butts are welded and smooth. Ever
notice that the "clackity-clack" sound of a train travelling down the
track has disappeared?


Depends on where you are. The trackage from here to NYC and beyond is
pretty decent, and so is the trackage out to Chicago. I've not been
further west than Chicago on a train.

The trackage is absolutely miserable between here and Florida. I mean,
TERRIBLE. The rails are as crooked and bumpy as you can get and in some
places, you have to wonder why the rail car just doesn't hop off the
rails. CSX owns the rails and whatever the minimum is for upkeep, it
obviously spends less.

CSX spends what it needs to for freight trains. Amtrak is just
freeloading on their track.,


Amtrak pays a train mile fee for using CSX tracks. A relative who was a
CSX exec told me what it was once, but that was years ago. In the
aggregate, the total Amtrak pays out for train mile fees around the
country is several hundred million dollars.

Freeloading...what an interesting term. I suppose when you rent a car
from Hertz, you are freeloading.

When you don't pay your taxes, you are freeloading.

On 9/4/13 12:33 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 11:27:07 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 9/4/13 11:20 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 09:20:33 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 9/4/13 9:12 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


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

Well, some things on the train tracks have changed. Railroad "ties" are
typically concrete now and the rail butts are welded and smooth. Ever
notice that the "clackity-clack" sound of a train travelling down the
track has disappeared?


Depends on where you are. The trackage from here to NYC and beyond is
pretty decent, and so is the trackage out to Chicago. I've not been
further west than Chicago on a train.

The trackage is absolutely miserable between here and Florida. I mean,
TERRIBLE. The rails are as crooked and bumpy as you can get and in some
places, you have to wonder why the rail car just doesn't hop off the
rails. CSX owns the rails and whatever the minimum is for upkeep, it
obviously spends less.

CSX spends what it needs to for freight trains. Amtrak is just
freeloading on their track.,


Amtrak pays a train mile fee for using CSX tracks. A relative who was a
CSX exec told me what it was once, but that was years ago. In the
aggregate, the total Amtrak pays out for train mile fees around the
country is several hundred million dollars.

Freeloading...what an interesting term. I suppose when you rent a car
from Hertz, you are freeloading.

Avis makes a profit from my rental.
CSX is not even covering their costs from Amtrak and that is actually
tax money from people who never ride a train.


Costs? What costs? Certainly not additional wear and tear, since a short
passenger train weighs only a fraction of what a freight train ways, and
there are only a couple of passenger trains a day between here and
Florida. CSX's approach to track repair seems to be to repair it when a
freight train derails.

On 9/4/2013 12:41 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
Costs? What costs? Certainly not additional wear and tear, since a short
passenger train weighs only a fraction of what a freight train ways, and
there are only a couple of passenger trains a day between here and
Florida. CSX's approach to track repair seems to be to repair it when a
freight train derails.

"What a freight train ways." Really? Expected from Donnie, but you, Mr
English. Tsk tsk.

On 9/4/13 3:40 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 12:41:09 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 9/4/13 12:33 PM, wrote:

Avis makes a profit from my rental.
CSX is not even covering their costs from Amtrak and that is actually
tax money from people who never ride a train.


Costs? What costs? Certainly not additional wear and tear, since a short
passenger train weighs only a fraction of what a freight train ways, and
there are only a couple of passenger trains a day between here and
Florida. CSX's approach to track repair seems to be to repair it when a
freight train derails.

OK you may be right Amorak takes our tax money and gives it to CSX for
the use of their track.
How is that any more than another subsidy from people who never ride a
train to the few who do?



Our entire governmental system is based upon the many helping the few.
Why should train travel be any different?

Why should we be subsidizing the cost of flood insurance for those who
purchase it?

In article , says...

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

In article ,
says...

On 9/3/13 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 09:57:25 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

No, it's mostly a stigma, people think elevated trains, they
think
noise, they think unsafe, etc. Add to that that for some reason
beyond
me, there are a LOT of people in the U.S. who just fear and
loathe any
new technology.

Elevated trains ARE noisier and if they derail, over a major road,
they are a lot more dangerous.
We are not talking about the Lake Street El here. You want that
train
going 150 MPH or more.

BTW you keep saying "innovation" and "new technology" but this is
200
year old technology and every plan I have heard involves buying
existing technology from Europe or Japan. Were is the innovation?

Bringing high speed trains over from Europe would be new technology
for
this country, because we have no capability anymore for passenger
rail
innovation. We'd have to reverse engineer what they are doing across
the
big pond.

If they change the octane of gasoline and it makes cars go faster is
that new technology or
an improvement on an existing technology. Fixed track trains are 200
years old and they only
thing that has changed is how the locomotive is powered.

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

Well, some things on the train tracks have changed. Railroad "ties"
are typically concrete now and the rail butts are welded and smooth.
Ever notice that the "clackity-clack" sound of a train travelling
down the track has disappeared?

The locomotive still burns something to make the train move. There have been no real
technological improvements in trains since they first appeared 200 years ago.