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.



You are underestimating the car mileage via Hartford. It's at least 220
miles. And if you follow the Shoreline Train Route, it is even longer.
Unless there have been drastic changes in trackage, the train route from
Boston is through Rhode Island and then along the Connecticut shoreline.

Again, the Acela is even slower than it should be because of crappy
trackage and too many stops, although the tracks are better in that part
of NY/NEw England than from DC to Florida.

On 4/16/2014 5:46 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
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.



You are underestimating the car mileage via Hartford. It's at least 220
miles. And if you follow the Shoreline Train Route, it is even longer.
Unless there have been drastic changes in trackage, the train route from
Boston is through Rhode Island and then along the Connecticut shoreline.

Again, the Acela is even slower than it should be because of crappy
trackage and too many stops, although the tracks are better in that part
of NY/NEw England than from DC to Florida.


Personally, I'd rather travel by boat.

On 4/16/14, 5:58 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/16/2014 5:46 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
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.



You are underestimating the car mileage via Hartford. It's at least 220
miles. And if you follow the Shoreline Train Route, it is even longer.
Unless there have been drastic changes in trackage, the train route from
Boston is through Rhode Island and then along the Connecticut shoreline.

Again, the Acela is even slower than it should be because of crappy
trackage and too many stops, although the tracks are better in that part
of NY/NEw England than from DC to Florida.


Personally, I'd rather travel by boat.



It's a nice boat ride through LI Sound and then up to Boston.

When I was a kid, though, I was on the train at least once a month from
New Haven to Back Bay Station to visit grandparents and aunts and uncles
and cousins. It was a great train ride back then. At least once, I had
to navigate myself from Back Bay to Maverick Station to get to Revere
Beach via the BEYr streetcar line. My paternal grandparents lived there.
I was probably 11 years old at the time. Great adventure.

On 4/16/2014 6:19 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/16/14, 5:58 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:



Personally, I'd rather travel by boat.



It's a nice boat ride through LI Sound and then up to Boston.

When I was a kid, though, I was on the train at least once a month from
New Haven to Back Bay Station to visit grandparents and aunts and uncles
and cousins. It was a great train ride back then. At least once, I had
to navigate myself from Back Bay to Maverick Station to get to Revere
Beach via the BEYr streetcar line. My paternal grandparents lived there.
I was probably 11 years old at the time. Great adventure.

Not recommended travel for an 11 year old now-a-days.

On 4/16/14, 6:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/16/2014 6:19 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/16/14, 5:58 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:



Personally, I'd rather travel by boat.



It's a nice boat ride through LI Sound and then up to Boston.

When I was a kid, though, I was on the train at least once a month from
New Haven to Back Bay Station to visit grandparents and aunts and uncles
and cousins. It was a great train ride back then. At least once, I had
to navigate myself from Back Bay to Maverick Station to get to Revere
Beach via the BEYr streetcar line. My paternal grandparents lived there.
I was probably 11 years old at the time. Great adventure.

Not recommended travel for an 11 year old now-a-days.




No. I agree. Times were a lot simpler and safer back then.

On 4/16/14, 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:19:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Every form of motorized travel in this country is subsidized, Bilious.
I don't like commercial airlines. I do fly, but I don't enjoy it.

You can't even start to compare the direct cash infusions into rail
with the user tax supported government programs like the FAA, TSA or
the highway system.. In fact, gasoline taxes meant to support highways
are diverted to the rails.



There are many many more subsidies to transportation beyond what you
have mentioned. Here's an example. My wife takes a privately operated
commuter bus to and from DC every day. It's about 45 miles each way. The
fare is $3.75. The fare is subsidized by the state of Maryland. The
purchase of tickets for the bus can be handled via a pre-tax dollar
account.

The construction and maintenance and operation of airports is
subsidized. Research and development of passenger jets is subsidized.
The manufacture of passenger jets is subsidized. The ownership of
passenger jets is subsidized. Drilling for the oil from which to make
jet fuel for passenger jets is subsidized.

On 4/16/2014 8:37 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/16/14, 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:19:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Every form of motorized travel in this country is subsidized, Bilious.
I don't like commercial airlines. I do fly, but I don't enjoy it.

You can't even start to compare the direct cash infusions into rail
with the user tax supported government programs like the FAA, TSA or
the highway system.. In fact, gasoline taxes meant to support highways
are diverted to the rails.



There are many many more subsidies to transportation beyond what you
have mentioned. Here's an example. My wife takes a privately operated
commuter bus to and from DC every day. It's about 45 miles each way. The
fare is $3.75. The fare is subsidized by the state of Maryland. The
purchase of tickets for the bus can be handled via a pre-tax dollar
account.

The construction and maintenance and operation of airports is
subsidized. Research and development of passenger jets is subsidized.
The manufacture of passenger jets is subsidized. The ownership of
passenger jets is subsidized. Drilling for the oil from which to make
jet fuel for passenger jets is subsidized.


You're right. May as well add a few more trillions to rail subsidies
for something that very few will use. It's the Democratic way.

On 4/16/2014 8:31 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:22:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


I've never had the need or desire for a car when visiting NYC. When we
train to Connecticut, we simply rent a car when we get there.

So what does that have to do with high speed rail in California or
Florida. We agree the train works fine from DC to Boston. It does not
translate as well from Miami to Orlando.


It works. But it's not the high speed rail that Harry wants.

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 6:31:52 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/16/2014 6:19 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:



On 4/16/14, 5:58 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:







Personally, I'd rather travel by boat.







It's a nice boat ride through LI Sound and then up to Boston.



When I was a kid, though, I was on the train at least once a month from

New Haven to Back Bay Station to visit grandparents and aunts and uncles

and cousins. It was a great train ride back then. At least once, I had

to navigate myself from Back Bay to Maverick Station to get to Revere

Beach via the BEYr streetcar line. My paternal grandparents lived there.

I was probably 11 years old at the time. Great adventure.



Not recommended travel for an 11 year old now-a-days.

That's due to the influx of dangerous Republicans.

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 17:25:30 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 12:42:22 -0400, wrote:

It is 190 miles from Boston to New York. The Acela take 3.5 hours.

That is 54 MPH

===

Yes, and if you are going 'burb to 'burb, you can drive it in less
time.


I did drive to Elizabeth when I stayed there. That is actually not a
bad ride into town in the morning on Amtrak. IBM was at 2 Penn Plaza
so the only time I was outside was walking across the street from the
motel to the station.
If I stayed at the Penn Garbage, I took the Metroliner.

In the 80's we took the train in to NYC from East Islip. Much easier than
trying to park. Same with going in to DC, take the rapid transit, park
outside.