About Us

F*O*A*D

On 4/16/14, 11:51 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 07:59:43 -0400, BAR wrote:

All of these "high-speed" rail projects are nothing more than jobs
programs. People are needed to build them, people are needed to operate
them and then people are needed to subsidize them to keep the jobs from
going away.

You forgot all the lawyers who get to file environmental, noise and
eminent domain suits.

"Nothing more than jobs programs."

What an asshole.

F*O*A*D

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.

KC

On 4/16/2014 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.

It's a convienience for a few who have the time and money to make it
worth while to use it to commute back and fourth to the city when
necessary...

I used to drop my neighbor off to take the train to the city a couple
times a week to check in with his office but he mostly worked at home in
Essex. Most times if he wasn't the only person on a car, he split it
with a couple riders at most and there were empty cars too. I did have a
limited experience, but I saw a lot of it on the line from Boston to NYC...

Mr. Luddite

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.

F*O*A*D

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.

F*O*A*D

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.

Poquito Loco

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.

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.

F*O*A*D

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.

Califbill

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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Too many toys	Frogwatch	ASA	41	September 27th 07 09:03 AM
toys	Scotty	ASA	0	November 2nd 05 02:47 AM
Best tow toys?	Trevor Miller	General	9	May 24th 04 08:12 PM
Cylinder Index - big boys with toys	Marsh Jones	General	13	October 10th 03 09:31 PM
Value of Toys!	CANDChelp	ASA	43	July 25th 03 11:59 AM

Menu

About Us