The boys must have their toys...
 

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.

And the railroads are run really bad. I was talking to a person shipping
200 WW2 tanks from the SF Bay Area to the East Coast. Was cheaper on
trucks in the end. Railroad wanted $4800 a tank, 3 months to get them
there. Plus the safety inspector wanted bribes to allow them loaded.
Otherwise had to move them like 3/8 inch. Plus after 3 months of travel
they had a short time to unload before rent on the railcar kicked in.
Truck was only $6400 and a week delivery.

The boys must have their toys...
 

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/16/14, 3:12 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/16/14, 7:18 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/16/2014 6:41 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/16/14, 1:13 AM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/15/14, 4:50 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 4/15/2014 12:01 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/15/14, 11:50 AM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter hits more turbulence


Developed by Lockheed Martin, the F-35 is DOD’s most expensive
and most
ambitious acquisition program. The program is estimated to be
nearly
70 percent over budget

Continued software problems related to the Defense Department’s
F-35
Joint Strike Fighter program could lead to delivery delays of
less-capable aircraft at a long-term price tag that may prove
unaffordable, congressional investigators said today.

Developmental testing of software deemed critical to the F-35′s
initial
warfighting capability remains so far behind schedule, the
Marine Corps
may not receive all of the capabilities it expects when it
plans to
begin
flying the F-35. In addition, continued delays could push the
total
lifecycle cost of the F-35 from its current projected level of
$390.4
billion to an estimated $1 trillion — a figure with which DOD
program
officials disagree.

“Delays in developmental flight testing of the F-35’s critical
software
may hinder delivery of the warfighting capabilities the military
services
expect,� according to a report released today by the Government
Accountability Office. “Challenges in development and testing of
mission
systems software continued through 2013, due largely to delays in
software delivery, limited capability in the software when
delivered,
and
the need to fix problems and retest multiple software versions.
Delivery
of expected warfighting capabilities to the Marine Corps could be
delayed
by as much as 13 months. Delays of this magnitude could also
increase
the
already significant concurrency between testing and aircraft
procurement
and result in additional cost growth.�

In addition to delivery deadlines and weapon system capabilities
issues,
DOD also faces steep financial burdens related to the F-35
acquisition
effort. For the program to continue as planned, DOD will have to
dedicate
an average of $12.6 billion per year through 2037, with several
years
peaking at $15 billion, according to GAO. At $12.6 billion per
year, the
F-35 would consume almost one-quarter of DOD’s annual major
defense
acquisition funding.

“Annual funding of this magnitude clearly poses long-term
affordability
risks given the current fiscal environment,� GAO investigators
concluded.
“The F-35 fleet is estimated to cost around $1 trillion to
operate and
support over its lifetime. In a time of austere federal budgets,
cost
projections of this magnitude pose significant fiscal challenges.�

DOD plans call for spending $400 billion to develop and acquire
2,457
F-35s — known as the Joint Strike Fighter — through 2037, plus
hundreds
of billions of dollars in long-term spending to operate and
maintain the
aircraft. The F-35 family of next-generation fighter aircraft will
incorporate stealth technologies, which make it more difficult
to be
identified by radar, as well as advanced sensors and computer
networking
capabilities. DOD is developing three U.S variants for the Air
Force,
Navy and Marine Corps, as well as eight international variants
that
will be sold to allies.

The F-35, developed by Lockheed Martin, is DOD’s costliest and
most
ambitious acquisition program. The program is estimated to be
nearly 70
percent over budget.

- See more at:
http://fedscoop.com/f-35-joint-strik....lS4foNhR.dpuf





- - -

The Pentagon exists more than just partly to keep officers in
uniform
and defense contractors in business. What a fripping this F35
program
is.

This is a Congressional boondoggle! I understand the Pentagon,
does not
want this thing. But, Congress people want jobs in their
districts.


Generals are pussies who can't say no? Surely the defense
contractors
can be retrained to produce useful stuff, like high speed rails
and the
high speed trains that run on them.

That's not how it works Harry. Calif Bill is correct. The Defense
Department and Pentagon did not want to continue the F-35's
development.

It's Congress that is forcing it.

And we have a high speed rail boondoggle already being pushed here in
California.



Would that be a San Francisco-LA-San Diego high speed train? I'd sure
ride it in preference to the damned airplanes and SD airport.

And how many billions should we pay for the privilege of you being
able to
ride this train?


Right, because here in the Top of the Heap U.S.A. it's better to waste
trillions on an oversized military than to provide fast, reliable public
transportation in a heavily traveled corridor.

... that very few would use.



It's at least a six to seven hour drive from LA to SF, and flying, taking
into account the airport bull****, is a two hour misadventure.
A 200 mph train could make the trip in the same two hours, with much less
hassle. But, of course, we don't have high speed trains running anywhere
in Top of the Heap USA. Or even modern airports. Or highways that aren't
falling apart. But, hey, we do spend what, five times more on the
military than the next largest military spending nation. And get nothing
tangible out of it that we wouldn't get by cutting that military spending in half.

It will still take 6 hours. You have stops along the way, trains do not
travel 200mph most of the time, or even that fast. You do not think that
there would not be a TSA for trains, if they were fast and popular? How
much do you want to subsidize the ticket? $100? $300? We would be much
better off with a car train. Drive you car on the train, get out go to the
club car. 6-7 hours later, you drive off the car. Now you do not have to
rent a car, you are relaxed, maybe drunk, and if you could do it for $200,
you are cheaper than driving. And if the train ran on time, even if not
driving, you could use the club car to travel. Why do you need a 2 hour
trip. Takes only about an hour difference from my house to LA, driving vs.
flying. If no delays at the airport. Book ahead, and you can fly for less
than a $150 RT. And that is with a tax paying business, not a tax sump,
government business.


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.

Bull****. Cars and trucks pay through the nose. Electric cars are why
they are thinking of a milage tax. Those landing fees, and overpriced food
courts pay for the FAA and the airports.

The boys must have their toys...
 

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/16/14, 3:12 PM, Califbill wrote:
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.


A handful of hours in a train is enough for me. We've taken the sleeper
car to Florida a couple of times. The compartment and its bathroom were
ok, and the food and service were pretty good. But the trackage between
here and Florida is in terrible shape. It is owned, I think, by CSX.
Whoever does own it doesn't spend any serious money maintaining it, which
is why, I suppose that CSX has so many freight derailments. Also, the
train toots its horn as it approaches every crossing and there must be hundreds of them.

The train from here to Philly or NYC or even New Haven is fun. Longer than that, not fun.

And you want an over subsidized train? More a job program for overpaid
union workers.

The boys must have their toys...
 

On Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:13:24 PM UTC-4, Califbill wrote:
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.



And the railroads are run really bad. I was talking to a person shipping

200 WW2 tanks from the SF Bay Area to the East Coast. Was cheaper on

trucks in the end. Railroad wanted $4800 a tank, 3 months to get them

there. Plus the safety inspector wanted bribes to allow them loaded.

Otherwise had to move them like 3/8 inch. Plus after 3 months of travel

they had a short time to unload before rent on the railcar kicked in.

Truck was only $6400 and a week delivery.

The railroads in this country are heavily unionized. Paying union wages is expensive, and then the union inspectors are corrupt. Surprise!

The boys must have their toys...
 

On 4/18/14, 1:16 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:13:24 PM UTC-4, Califbill wrote:
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.



And the railroads are run really bad. I was talking to a person shipping

200 WW2 tanks from the SF Bay Area to the East Coast. Was cheaper on

trucks in the end. Railroad wanted $4800 a tank, 3 months to get them

there. Plus the safety inspector wanted bribes to allow them loaded.

Otherwise had to move them like 3/8 inch. Plus after 3 months of travel

they had a short time to unload before rent on the railcar kicked in.

Truck was only $6400 and a week delivery.

The railroads in this country are heavily unionized. Paying union wages is expensive, and then the union inspectors are corrupt. Surprise!



Funny stuff. Railroads pay living wages to their employees, and that
really, truly ****es off right-wing assholes.

The boys must have their toys...
 

On 4/18/14, 1:35 PM, wrote:
On Friday, April 18, 2014 1:22:19 PM UTC-4, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/18/14, 1:16 PM, wrote:

On Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:13:24 PM UTC-4, Califbill wrote:

And the railroads are run really bad. I was talking to a person shipping
200 WW2 tanks from the SF Bay Area to the East Coast. Was cheaper on
trucks in the end. Railroad wanted $4800 a tank, 3 months to get them
there. Plus the safety inspector wanted bribes to allow them loaded.
Otherwise had to move them like 3/8 inch. Plus after 3 months of travel
they had a short time to unload before rent on the railcar kicked in.

Truck was only $6400 and a week delivery.

The railroads in this country are heavily unionized. Paying union wages is expensive, and then the union inspectors are corrupt. Surprise!

Funny stuff. Railroads pay living wages to their employees, and that
really, truly ****es off right-wing assholes.


Polly want a cracker?


Here, I'll fix it for you: Railroads are forced to pay high wages to their union-protected corrupt employees, and that ****es off real working people who depend on their work achievements and ethics to get and retain the best paying jobs.

Have a nice day.


High wages? Salaries for railroad workers aren't that high. The median
is $42k, locomotive engineers are in the $50 to $60k range, conductors
in the $40k range.

You're just another right-wing asshole who resents hard-working
Americans and what they have to do to earn a living.

The boys must have their toys...
 

On 4/18/14, 3:59 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:22:19 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


Funny stuff. Railroads pay living wages to their employees, and that
really, truly ****es off right-wing assholes.

Actually what ****es us off is paying premium wages to "fire proof"
employees who fall asleep in the cab and crash their trains, derail
with hazardous cargo and put us all in danger..


I'd bet far more rail accidents and fatalities are the result of
corporate decisions, such as deferred maintenance, shorting of crews,
working of crews too many hours.

You righties are funny guys, in that you will readily dismiss all manner
of corporate misbehavior, but if you can pin a rap on a working stiff,
you're all for it.

The boys must have their toys...
 

On 4/18/14, 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 14:42:41 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


High wages? Salaries for railroad workers aren't that high. The median
is $42k, locomotive engineers are in the $50 to $60k range, conductors
in the $40k range.


Your numbers are low by about 35%

http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/ra...RCH_KO0,18.htm

Conductor $45k-87k $65k median

http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/en...0,8_KE9,17.htm

Engineer $50k-100k $70k median

Plus a very generous benefit package and an overtime package far above
what the law requires.
That may not sound like a lot of money in New York or California but
if you are out in flyover country that is a pretty good job.
One of my friends retired as a conductor on the Amtrack line from New
York up through Connecticut. Another friend was the conductor on the
Seminole Southern train here. My daughter actually got to run the
train once. It is pretty mind numbing work.



The salary ranges depend on the site, eh? The site I found had lower
numbers.

The boys must have their toys...
 

On 4/18/2014 4:34 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
I'd bet far more rail accidents and fatalities are the result of
corporate decisions, such as deferred maintenance, shorting of crews,
working of crews too many hours.

You righties are funny guys, in that you will readily dismiss all manner
of corporate misbehavior, but if you can pin a rap on a working stiff,
you're all for it.

That's deplorable. Why do the unions let management get away those
things? I thought the unions were supposed to protect and coddle the
employees.

The boys must have their toys...
 

On 4/18/2014 4:34 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/18/14, 3:59 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:22:19 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


Funny stuff. Railroads pay living wages to their employees, and that
really, truly ****es off right-wing assholes.

Actually what ****es us off is paying premium wages to "fire proof"
employees who fall asleep in the cab and crash their trains, derail
with hazardous cargo and put us all in danger..


I'd bet far more rail accidents and fatalities are the result of
corporate decisions, such as deferred maintenance, shorting of crews,
working of crews too many hours.

You righties are funny guys, in that you will readily dismiss all manner
of corporate misbehavior, but if you can pin a rap on a working stiff,
you're all for it.


Small sampling and just my observation from working with and knowing
many fellow "working stiffs", it seems to me that the ones who
complain most about their working conditions, pay and overall job
satisfaction have been those who belonged to unions. Maybe it's because
there is always that "management versus worker" mentality going on.
Always something to bitch about.

My son's father-in-law was union all his working career. He's a great
guy but we groan when the subject of work comes with him because it
ignites a half hour round of complaining and bitching about his former
employer. He's been retired for over 2 years and still can't get it out
of his system.