|
The boys must have their toys...
|
The boys must have their toys...
|
The boys must have their toys...
|
The boys must have their toys...
On 4/16/14, 12:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/16/2014 12:05 PM, 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. The only way high speed rail transit would make sense and be worth the taking of land by eminent domain and building cost is if the trains could run at 150+ mph between two or three cities, hours apart along the route. That's just not economically possible given the population density in most places and especially along the northeast corridor. It's been studied and rejected as being viable many times. Yeah, the buzz words sound great but the reality isn't there. Flying, as horrible as it is, is the only viable option. As I stated, DC-Philly-NYC-New Haven-Boston. Five stops. Time to move up from the antiquated trackage and gear. I remember when the Boston-Grand Central trains had to change engines in New Haven to go from diesel to electric into NYC. I hope they still aren't doing that. I've only "trained" recently from DC to New Haven. |
The boys must have their toys...
On 4/16/14, 12:42 PM, 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. Most of the Acelas I've been on make at least one stop in the Baltimore area, sometimes two, then a stop in Delaware, Philly, Newark, before arriving at Penn station. I'd have the Acela stop only in Philly between here and NYC, and with high speed trackage and equipment. Under two hours, portal to portal. New York City usually is a 4 to 5 hour drive from DC, depending on road maintenance and traffic. At least 250 miles from where I live. |
The boys must have their toys...
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 12:22:01 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 4/16/2014 12:05 PM, 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. The only way high speed rail transit would make sense and be worth the taking of land by eminent domain and building cost is if the trains could run at 150+ mph between two or three cities, hours apart along the route. That's just not economically possible given the population density in most places and especially along the northeast corridor. It's been studied and rejected as being viable many times. Yeah, the buzz words sound great but the reality isn't there. Flying, as horrible as it is, is the only viable option. The distance from Union Station, Washington, DC to Penn Station, NY, is about 226 miles. The Acela departing NY at 0600 arrives in DC at 0855. That's two hours and fify-five minutes. Driving time for me would be about 4 hours. It would take Harry about 20 minutes longer to get there from Huntington, MD (all according to Google Maps). It would take me about an hour to drive to Union Station, find parking, walk to the train and board, and I'm supposed to be there a half hour before departure time. That adds another hour and a half to my almost three hours of travel time. So, for a lot less money, and saving about a half hour, or more, in time, I can drive to New York. |
The boys must have their toys...
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. |
The boys must have their toys...
On 4/16/14, 1:18 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
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. I consider a lot of factors when I take a trip. Time and cost are only two of them. We're going up to New Haven later this year on the Acela, a four and a half hour trip, and pleasant...no Interstate traffic, comfortable, even scenic in a couple of places, and a decent snack car and clean bathrooms. No fuss, no muss. I don't drive to NYC. I prefer the train. There's really very little that is pleasant along I-95. |
The boys must have their toys...
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/16/14, 1:18 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: 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. I consider a lot of factors when I take a trip. Time and cost are only two of them. We're going up to New Haven later this year on the Acela, a four and a half hour trip, and pleasant...no Interstate traffic, comfortable, even scenic in a couple of places, and a decent snack car and clean bathrooms. No fuss, no muss. I don't drive to NYC. I prefer the train. There's really very little that is pleasant along I-95. Two years ago, we took the train to Glenwood Hotsprings, CO. Buddy's 70th b'day. Not cheap, but we had a sleeper, and couple meals. Could have driven, had a better room for the night, and probably cheaper for the 2 of us. If 4 had gone ride sharing, a lot cheaper. But was a fun trip as a group. Economically better? Probably not. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:52 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com