| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
The boys must have their toys...
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. |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Too many toys | ASA | |||
| toys | ASA | |||
| Best tow toys? | General | |||
| Cylinder Index - big boys with toys | General | |||
| Value of Toys! | ASA | |||
Hybrid Mode
