On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 23:24:21 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 14:42:08 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

I'll betcha if a national poll was taken the majority of people would
prefer spending money on fixing roads and airports in lieu of building a
rail system network and trains capable of travelling 200+ mph.

The power grid isn't as big of a problem as you may think. Demand has
basically flat lined in the past several years and has actually dropped
in some. Smart grids and energy efficient devices have helped.



Not to worry. Nothing much is happening in refurbishing roads,
bridges, dams, infrastructure.

That must be a North East problem. Florida maintains it's roads
.

BTW who was talking about dams?
The environmentalists want all of them blown up anyway

On a recent trip to FL, the only 'bad' section of I-95 was through South Carolina. Most states have
done pretty well, with the interstates anyway. A couple years ago a trip to southern Utah found
great roads. The Boston beltway is a pure piece of crap.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 13:51:40 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 9/2/2013 11:36 AM, Hank© wrote:
On 9/2/2013 11:16 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
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.

And why is that?

Geography, and our business model... Trains just don't work here. Even
the fast one on the shoreline. It doesn't change traffic one bit down
the CT coastline, it really serves a few folks who find it easier to
commute between Boston, NYC, and DC from what i can see... but it's
never crowded, I can't see how it could ever be profitable.

The naysayers, the ones against progress, innovation and invention.

If folks don't want to ride a train they're 'naysayers'? What horse**** you come up with.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

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.

On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 10:26:00 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

Sure, CT to Long Island can be tough

===

Port Jeff ferry or New London to Orient Point !

On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 10:58:12 -0400, wrote:

What "subsidy".

===

The FAA and the air traffic control system.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 09:53:38 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

A fairly substantial bridge carrying I-95 over a river in Greenwich
collapsed about three decades ago.

===

I was over that bridge about an hour before it went down, couldn't
believe my ears when I heard the news in the morning.

That bridge failed more from engineering/design issues than it did
from deterioration. It was only about 30 years old at the time.

Again, those "issues" are usually the result of old bridges being re-
purposed and thus were never engineered to carry the traffic that they
are getting.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 09:49:34 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

What you don't realize is that many bridges carrying interstate traffic
were never engineered for that weight and frequency of traffic loads.
That is but one problem.

Why not? They were originally designed for trucks carrying tanks.

Now where on earth do you get THAT idea from???

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 09:57:25 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

there are a LOT of people in the U.S. who just fear and loathe any
new technology.

===

I think that's more a recent political phenomenon, largely inspired by
the Rush Limbaughs of the world. There was a time, not too far in
the past, when most people took pride in seeing new technology
developed. They need to see the advantages for themselves however
instead of being told they must adopt it.

I agree, and I really don't understand it! I guess it just goes to show
that for a lot of Americans, they'd rather get their education from Rush
than from reality!

In article ,
says...

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.

Please show me how elevated monorail trains (that IS what we are
discussing here) are any less safe than any other.

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?

Oh, I forgot, you were the one who claimed that because the automobile
was invented a long time ago, that our cars are the same as the model
T....

So, to answer, slender guideways which not only guide the train, but
give the system it's structural support. Great strides in high speed
guideway switching, and automation. Did you know that a monorail system
can actually be cheaper to build and maintain that a traditional line?

http://www.monorails.org/tmspages/News.html

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 07:31:23 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

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

Got it, it doesn't do anything for you, so no one should have access to
it.

Evidently 2/3ds of Floridians feel the same way based on how they
voted the issue.

Got it, 2/3rds of Floridians (who bothered with the poll) don't want it,
it's not good for anybody anywhere.