Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #488750 > unrolled thread
| Started by | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-12-19 07:00 -0500 |
| Last post | 2017-12-23 15:09 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 175 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-19 07:00 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-12-19 08:37 -0600
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 09:49 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-19 10:00 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-19 09:56 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-12-19 08:53 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 12:20 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 14:27 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-12-19 15:24 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 18:39 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-19 20:53 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-12-20 10:08 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 13:19 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-12-20 10:32 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-12-20 12:11 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-20 21:52 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-12-21 10:56 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-21 19:24 -0500
Re: Muppets "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-12-19 16:48 -0600
Re: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-19 18:08 -0500
Re: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-19 18:26 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-19 15:01 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 18:46 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-19 15:56 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 19:25 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-19 16:44 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 20:01 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-20 07:59 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 13:07 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-21 10:31 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-21 14:33 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-21 12:00 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-21 16:06 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-12-21 12:14 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-12-21 17:58 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-22 12:58 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-12-22 15:21 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-22 16:12 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-12-20 01:32 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-19 20:40 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-20 08:02 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-12-20 16:47 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 13:16 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 10:50 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 14:17 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-20 22:00 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 08:08 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-20 08:09 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-12-20 09:17 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 13:26 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-21 10:37 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-12-21 10:58 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-21 11:17 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 14:14 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 14:18 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 14:48 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 16:04 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 16:55 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 16:59 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 18:30 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 19:40 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-20 22:03 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-21 10:41 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-20 22:03 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Michael A Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 22:38 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-21 10:52 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-21 14:53 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-21 12:32 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-21 19:30 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-21 16:37 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-22 08:57 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-22 10:23 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Michael A Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-12-22 17:23 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-22 14:53 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-22 18:57 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-22 20:10 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Michael A Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-12-22 20:57 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-22 19:07 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-22 19:04 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-23 07:39 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-23 15:03 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-23 12:09 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-23 15:17 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-23 15:27 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-23 20:49 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-24 07:50 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-24 16:56 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-24 14:37 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-24 17:51 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-24 15:15 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-24 18:41 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-24 23:33 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-25 05:48 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-25 09:57 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-25 17:29 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Joseph Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> - 2017-12-25 20:38 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-25 21:23 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-25 18:47 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-12-25 19:09 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Michael A Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-12-26 00:33 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-26 15:13 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-25 22:10 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-25 07:18 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-25 18:25 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-12-29 02:01 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-28 21:42 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-28 19:47 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-29 01:04 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-28 23:56 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-25 10:55 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-12-28 21:41 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-24 18:39 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-12-24 07:46 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-24 12:23 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-25 21:57 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-23 20:47 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 13:31 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-12-20 18:36 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 14:10 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-12-20 12:13 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 16:41 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 16:42 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-12-20 14:16 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-12-20 22:56 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 15:12 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-12-20 15:26 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-12-20 23:37 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 18:42 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 16:26 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-12-21 08:45 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-12-21 09:29 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-12-20 15:30 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-20 22:08 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 18:36 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-20 22:09 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 15:28 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-20 14:02 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-20 16:33 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-20 21:09 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-20 22:55 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-21 09:38 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-21 18:06 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-21 21:59 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-22 02:56 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-22 11:45 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-22 18:02 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-22 22:39 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-22 23:01 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-12-23 09:05 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-23 10:04 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Michael A Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-12-23 14:00 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-23 20:51 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-23 06:15 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-23 14:38 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-23 17:43 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-23 21:25 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-12-24 09:58 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-24 08:29 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-24 06:06 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-12-24 17:53 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-24 03:41 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-24 09:12 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-24 15:32 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-12-23 08:52 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-23 14:40 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-12-23 19:49 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-23 14:55 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-12-23 20:03 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-23 17:53 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-12-22 20:49 +0000
Re: OT: Muppets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-12-22 16:26 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-12-22 15:36 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-23 08:19 -0500
Re: OT: Muppets bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-12-23 06:30 -0800
Re: OT: Muppets bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-12-23 15:09 -0500
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-20 19:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p1evuo$udp$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #488905 |
bitrex wrote on 12/20/2017 6:30 PM: > On 12/20/2017 04:59 PM, rickman wrote: > >>>> which indicated the actual station in Orlando is Sanford and I was able to >>>> get a price from Amtrak, $920 round trip for two and one car. Airfare is >>>> very inexpensive and this would pay for a lot of car rental. My >>>> understanding is the auto train is mostly snow birds. >>>> >>> >>> Oh, okay, some guy on the Internet didn't like it. Not big surprise, >>> bitchin' is what those review sites are made for. >> >> Yes, there is no shortage of bitchin', especially by you. Did you read >> the complaints? No, you would rather speculate on what runs are >> profitable and which aren't. >> > > Ya, some of his major complaints seem to be that you have to wait for your > automobile to be loaded and unloaded from a train that hauls a couple > hundred automobiles which have to be loaded and unloaded, that a train that > terminates in Orlando not Ft. Lauderdale leaves you kinda far from Ft. > Lauderdale, and that the train speeds up and slows down. That he couldn't sleep on a sleeper train. You seem to be saying that it shouldn't be expected to get rest when traveling by train. That's the point. Planes are much better in that regard. Instead of dealing with travel on two days each way, by plane it eats up one day each way and saves money. -- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-20 22:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <349m3dlm55b9uoufd9pdgqbf9cksithsc0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #488887 |
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:18:48 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >bitrex wrote on 12/20/2017 2:14 PM: >> On 12/20/2017 11:09 AM, Joerg wrote: >>> On 2017-12-20 05:08, bitrex wrote: >>>> On 12/19/2017 07:44 PM, Joerg wrote: >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>>> True. That's in part because our nation is glued to the automobile and >>>>> in part because most people don't have any other options. >>>> >>>> Remember when Amtrak tried to get into the freight hauling business for >>>> a while? >>>> >>>> Trains like these were a common sight in the Northeast in the 1990s, >>>> couple coaches and about 10 intermodal freight and boxcars: >>>> >>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmINmRLAJr0> >>> >>> >>> It would make sense. I remember the passenger trains from my younger days >>> in Germany. They usually had at least one freight car, sometimes more. Not >>> only did this allow you to "check in" large baggage, it also made for a >>> fast shipment option. Once we had an issue with a custom power supply made >>> near Munich. Problem was, we were about 350mi or so north and time was of >>> the essence. So I looked at the train schedules, drove it to the next >>> station, gave it to the guy that loaded an Intercity train and about 5h >>> later it was in Munich where an engineer from the supplier also drove to >>> the station to pick it up. We had their measurement results and a mod >>> suggestion the same day. That wouldn't even have been possible with Fedex, >>> and this was in the 80's. >>> >> >> Amtrak has one train you can get your car packed up on, you'd think one way >> to increase long-distance profitability would be to run auto racks on the >> major cross-country routes to let you take your vehicle along with. > >My understanding is this is an expensive service. If you are going on >vacation you are better off either driving or renting a car when you get there. Absolutely correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-21 10:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fa2djcF5n3oU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #488887 |
On 2017-12-20 11:18, rickman wrote: > bitrex wrote on 12/20/2017 2:14 PM: >> On 12/20/2017 11:09 AM, Joerg wrote: >>> On 2017-12-20 05:08, bitrex wrote: >>>> On 12/19/2017 07:44 PM, Joerg wrote: >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>>> True. That's in part because our nation is glued to the automobile and >>>>> in part because most people don't have any other options. >>>> >>>> Remember when Amtrak tried to get into the freight hauling business for >>>> a while? >>>> >>>> Trains like these were a common sight in the Northeast in the 1990s, >>>> couple coaches and about 10 intermodal freight and boxcars: >>>> >>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmINmRLAJr0> >>> >>> >>> It would make sense. I remember the passenger trains from my younger >>> days >>> in Germany. They usually had at least one freight car, sometimes >>> more. Not >>> only did this allow you to "check in" large baggage, it also made for a >>> fast shipment option. Once we had an issue with a custom power supply >>> made >>> near Munich. Problem was, we were about 350mi or so north and time >>> was of >>> the essence. So I looked at the train schedules, drove it to the next >>> station, gave it to the guy that loaded an Intercity train and about 5h >>> later it was in Munich where an engineer from the supplier also drove to >>> the station to pick it up. We had their measurement results and a mod >>> suggestion the same day. That wouldn't even have been possible with >>> Fedex, >>> and this was in the 80's. >>> >> >> Amtrak has one train you can get your car packed up on, you'd think >> one way >> to increase long-distance profitability would be to run auto racks on the >> major cross-country routes to let you take your vehicle along with. > > My understanding is this is an expensive service. If you are going on > vacation you are better off either driving or renting a car when you get > there. > It is expensive, even in Europe where that service is more widespread. It is mainly used by people who absolutely have to have their own car available at the destination. Might be a remnant of the olden days where sometimes you could otherwise end up with a rental car that reeked of cold cigarette smoke. My dad had that happen and was very miffed about it. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-20 22:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <hv8m3d96booab270ug88f40slglmh0tlme@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #488885 |
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:14:00 -0500, bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >On 12/20/2017 11:09 AM, Joerg wrote: >> On 2017-12-20 05:08, bitrex wrote: >>> On 12/19/2017 07:44 PM, Joerg wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>>> True. That's in part because our nation is glued to the automobile and >>>> in part because most people don't have any other options. >>> >>> Remember when Amtrak tried to get into the freight hauling business for >>> a while? >>> >>> Trains like these were a common sight in the Northeast in the 1990s, >>> couple coaches and about 10 intermodal freight and boxcars: >>> >>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmINmRLAJr0> >> >> >> It would make sense. I remember the passenger trains from my younger >> days in Germany. They usually had at least one freight car, sometimes >> more. Not only did this allow you to "check in" large baggage, it also >> made for a fast shipment option. Once we had an issue with a custom >> power supply made near Munich. Problem was, we were about 350mi or so >> north and time was of the essence. So I looked at the train schedules, >> drove it to the next station, gave it to the guy that loaded an >> Intercity train and about 5h later it was in Munich where an engineer >> from the supplier also drove to the station to pick it up. We had their >> measurement results and a mod suggestion the same day. That wouldn't >> even have been possible with Fedex, and this was in the 80's. >> > >Amtrak has one train you can get your car packed up on, you'd think one >way to increase long-distance profitability would be to run auto racks >on the major cross-country routes to let you take your vehicle along with. I looked into this a number of times. There is a reason it's only used on one train, from one location to one other. It's no bargain and quite restrictive. IOW, another Amtrak loser. The bottom line is that, except for very limited routes, trains are losers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael A Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-20 22:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <L0G_B.12138$oE2.3199@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #488927 |
krw@notreal.com wrote:
>
> I looked into this a number of times. There is a reason it's only
> used on one train, from one location to one other. It's no bargain
> and quite restrictive. IOW, another Amtrak loser. The bottom line is
> that, except for very limited routes, trains are losers.
A large truck hit the Amtrak passenger station in Ocala a few years
ago. They closed it, instead of repairing it. They said that it was
breaking even, but it would never recover the costs to rebuild the building.
The nearest station is now a couple hour drive away.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-21 10:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fa2e6bF5rcgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #488927 |
On 2017-12-20 19:03, krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:14:00 -0500, bitrex > <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: > >> On 12/20/2017 11:09 AM, Joerg wrote: >>> On 2017-12-20 05:08, bitrex wrote: >>>> On 12/19/2017 07:44 PM, Joerg wrote: >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>>> True. That's in part because our nation is glued to the automobile and >>>>> in part because most people don't have any other options. >>>> >>>> Remember when Amtrak tried to get into the freight hauling business for >>>> a while? >>>> >>>> Trains like these were a common sight in the Northeast in the 1990s, >>>> couple coaches and about 10 intermodal freight and boxcars: >>>> >>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmINmRLAJr0> >>> >>> >>> It would make sense. I remember the passenger trains from my younger >>> days in Germany. They usually had at least one freight car, sometimes >>> more. Not only did this allow you to "check in" large baggage, it also >>> made for a fast shipment option. Once we had an issue with a custom >>> power supply made near Munich. Problem was, we were about 350mi or so >>> north and time was of the essence. So I looked at the train schedules, >>> drove it to the next station, gave it to the guy that loaded an >>> Intercity train and about 5h later it was in Munich where an engineer >>> from the supplier also drove to the station to pick it up. We had their >>> measurement results and a mod suggestion the same day. That wouldn't >>> even have been possible with Fedex, and this was in the 80's. >>> >> >> Amtrak has one train you can get your car packed up on, you'd think one >> way to increase long-distance profitability would be to run auto racks >> on the major cross-country routes to let you take your vehicle along with. > > I looked into this a number of times. There is a reason it's only > used on one train, from one location to one other. It's no bargain > and quite restrictive. IOW, another Amtrak loser. The bottom line is > that, except for very limited routes, trains are losers. > This is because they aren't customer-oriented enough. Sometimes when I have to visit a client in the Bay Area I look into using a train. Then I discover that there still is no reliable public transport to the next big train station (about 1h away), parking there is tough, not very safe and really expensive, the fare is much higher than my gas costs, the connections at the destination are iffy and the on-schedule record is paltry. When I go here ... https://www.amtrak.com/content/amtrak/en-us/stations/pcv.html ... and key in Placerville (Amtrak bus terminal) to San Jose I get: Quote "We were unable to process your request: Please correct the error(s) shown below and resubmit. Problem with Departure/Arrival Station or City Name: Please provide your departure or arrival station and resubmit. [Error ID: 572S]" That is _not_ how to run a passenger transport business. So I drive. Like pretty much everyone else does. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-21 14:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <cjU_B.12838$oE2.10667@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #488969 |
On 12/21/2017 01:52 PM, Joerg wrote: > On 2017-12-20 19:03, krw@notreal.com wrote: >> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:14:00 -0500, bitrex >> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>> On 12/20/2017 11:09 AM, Joerg wrote: >>>> On 2017-12-20 05:08, bitrex wrote: >>>>> On 12/19/2017 07:44 PM, Joerg wrote: >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>>> True. That's in part because our nation is glued to the automobile >>>>>> and >>>>>> in part because most people don't have any other options. >>>>> >>>>> Remember when Amtrak tried to get into the freight hauling business >>>>> for >>>>> a while? >>>>> >>>>> Trains like these were a common sight in the Northeast in the 1990s, >>>>> couple coaches and about 10 intermodal freight and boxcars: >>>>> >>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmINmRLAJr0> >>>> >>>> >>>> It would make sense. I remember the passenger trains from my younger >>>> days in Germany. They usually had at least one freight car, sometimes >>>> more. Not only did this allow you to "check in" large baggage, it also >>>> made for a fast shipment option. Once we had an issue with a custom >>>> power supply made near Munich. Problem was, we were about 350mi or so >>>> north and time was of the essence. So I looked at the train schedules, >>>> drove it to the next station, gave it to the guy that loaded an >>>> Intercity train and about 5h later it was in Munich where an engineer >>>> from the supplier also drove to the station to pick it up. We had their >>>> measurement results and a mod suggestion the same day. That wouldn't >>>> even have been possible with Fedex, and this was in the 80's. >>>> >>> >>> Amtrak has one train you can get your car packed up on, you'd think one >>> way to increase long-distance profitability would be to run auto racks >>> on the major cross-country routes to let you take your vehicle along >>> with. >> >> I looked into this a number of times. There is a reason it's only >> used on one train, from one location to one other. It's no bargain >> and quite restrictive. IOW, another Amtrak loser. The bottom line is >> that, except for very limited routes, trains are losers. >> > > This is because they aren't customer-oriented enough. Sometimes when I > have to visit a client in the Bay Area I look into using a train. Then I > discover that there still is no reliable public transport to the next > big train station (about 1h away), parking there is tough, not very safe > and really expensive, the fare is much higher than my gas costs, the > connections at the destination are iffy and the on-schedule record is > paltry. > > When I go here ... > > https://www.amtrak.com/content/amtrak/en-us/stations/pcv.html > > ... and key in Placerville (Amtrak bus terminal) to San Jose I get: > > Quote "We were unable to process your request: Please correct the > error(s) shown below and resubmit. > Problem with Departure/Arrival Station or City Name: Please provide your > departure or arrival station and resubmit. > [Error ID: 572S]" > > That is _not_ how to run a passenger transport business. > > So I drive. Like pretty much everyone else does. > Works fine for me, it's 100 bux round trip. Are you using a browser from the 21st century?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-21 12:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fa2k1oF77j6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #488975 |
On 2017-12-21 11:53, bitrex wrote: > On 12/21/2017 01:52 PM, Joerg wrote: >> On 2017-12-20 19:03, krw@notreal.com wrote: >>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:14:00 -0500, bitrex >>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 12/20/2017 11:09 AM, Joerg wrote: >>>>> On 2017-12-20 05:08, bitrex wrote: >>>>>> On 12/19/2017 07:44 PM, Joerg wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>>>> True. That's in part because our nation is glued to the >>>>>>> automobile and >>>>>>> in part because most people don't have any other options. >>>>>> >>>>>> Remember when Amtrak tried to get into the freight hauling >>>>>> business for >>>>>> a while? >>>>>> >>>>>> Trains like these were a common sight in the Northeast in the 1990s, >>>>>> couple coaches and about 10 intermodal freight and boxcars: >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmINmRLAJr0> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It would make sense. I remember the passenger trains from my younger >>>>> days in Germany. They usually had at least one freight car, sometimes >>>>> more. Not only did this allow you to "check in" large baggage, it also >>>>> made for a fast shipment option. Once we had an issue with a custom >>>>> power supply made near Munich. Problem was, we were about 350mi or so >>>>> north and time was of the essence. So I looked at the train schedules, >>>>> drove it to the next station, gave it to the guy that loaded an >>>>> Intercity train and about 5h later it was in Munich where an engineer >>>>> from the supplier also drove to the station to pick it up. We had >>>>> their >>>>> measurement results and a mod suggestion the same day. That wouldn't >>>>> even have been possible with Fedex, and this was in the 80's. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Amtrak has one train you can get your car packed up on, you'd think one >>>> way to increase long-distance profitability would be to run auto racks >>>> on the major cross-country routes to let you take your vehicle along >>>> with. >>> >>> I looked into this a number of times. There is a reason it's only >>> used on one train, from one location to one other. It's no bargain >>> and quite restrictive. IOW, another Amtrak loser. The bottom line is >>> that, except for very limited routes, trains are losers. >>> >> >> This is because they aren't customer-oriented enough. Sometimes when I >> have to visit a client in the Bay Area I look into using a train. Then >> I discover that there still is no reliable public transport to the >> next big train station (about 1h away), parking there is tough, not >> very safe and really expensive, the fare is much higher than my gas >> costs, the connections at the destination are iffy and the on-schedule >> record is paltry. >> >> When I go here ... >> >> https://www.amtrak.com/content/amtrak/en-us/stations/pcv.html >> >> ... and key in Placerville (Amtrak bus terminal) to San Jose I get: >> >> Quote "We were unable to process your request: Please correct the >> error(s) shown below and resubmit. >> Problem with Departure/Arrival Station or City Name: Please provide >> your departure or arrival station and resubmit. >> [Error ID: 572S]" >> >> That is _not_ how to run a passenger transport business. >> >> So I drive. Like pretty much everyone else does. >> > > Works fine for me, it's 100 bux round trip. Are you using a browser from > the 21st century? Latest and greatest Firefox, updated a few days ago. A good IT department tests their stuff with all common browsers, not just one. In case a browser is too old, too low in market share or otehrwise unsupported they must pop up a meaningful warning and not "Error ID: 572S". Else it is not a good IT department. This is not rocket science. I recently had a major bank (!) that obviously tested only with Chrome. Couldn't believe it. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-21 19:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jdko3dliec9o4t5pvtp3bnm16i1gv1gjn8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #488969 |
On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 10:52:03 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> wrote: >On 2017-12-20 19:03, krw@notreal.com wrote: >> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:14:00 -0500, bitrex >> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>> On 12/20/2017 11:09 AM, Joerg wrote: >>>> On 2017-12-20 05:08, bitrex wrote: >>>>> On 12/19/2017 07:44 PM, Joerg wrote: >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>>> True. That's in part because our nation is glued to the automobile and >>>>>> in part because most people don't have any other options. >>>>> >>>>> Remember when Amtrak tried to get into the freight hauling business for >>>>> a while? >>>>> >>>>> Trains like these were a common sight in the Northeast in the 1990s, >>>>> couple coaches and about 10 intermodal freight and boxcars: >>>>> >>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmINmRLAJr0> >>>> >>>> >>>> It would make sense. I remember the passenger trains from my younger >>>> days in Germany. They usually had at least one freight car, sometimes >>>> more. Not only did this allow you to "check in" large baggage, it also >>>> made for a fast shipment option. Once we had an issue with a custom >>>> power supply made near Munich. Problem was, we were about 350mi or so >>>> north and time was of the essence. So I looked at the train schedules, >>>> drove it to the next station, gave it to the guy that loaded an >>>> Intercity train and about 5h later it was in Munich where an engineer >>>> from the supplier also drove to the station to pick it up. We had their >>>> measurement results and a mod suggestion the same day. That wouldn't >>>> even have been possible with Fedex, and this was in the 80's. >>>> >>> >>> Amtrak has one train you can get your car packed up on, you'd think one >>> way to increase long-distance profitability would be to run auto racks >>> on the major cross-country routes to let you take your vehicle along with. >> >> I looked into this a number of times. There is a reason it's only >> used on one train, from one location to one other. It's no bargain >> and quite restrictive. IOW, another Amtrak loser. The bottom line is >> that, except for very limited routes, trains are losers. >> > >This is because they aren't customer-oriented enough. Sometimes when I >have to visit a client in the Bay Area I look into using a train. Then I >discover that there still is no reliable public transport to the next >big train station (about 1h away), parking there is tough, not very safe >and really expensive, the fare is much higher than my gas costs, the >connections at the destination are iffy and the on-schedule record is >paltry. Ah, it's everyone else's fault that you can't ride a train wherever you want to go. Sorry, they don't see it that way. >When I go here ... > >https://www.amtrak.com/content/amtrak/en-us/stations/pcv.html > >... and key in Placerville (Amtrak bus terminal) to San Jose I get: > >Quote "We were unable to process your request: Please correct the >error(s) shown below and resubmit. >Problem with Departure/Arrival Station or City Name: Please provide your >departure or arrival station and resubmit. >[Error ID: 572S]" > >That is _not_ how to run a passenger transport business. > >So I drive. Like pretty much everyone else does. But it's everyone else's fault that they have no use for your train. I see.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-21 16:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fa32ehFacjbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #489002 |
On 2017-12-21 16:30, krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 10:52:03 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> > wrote: > >> On 2017-12-20 19:03, krw@notreal.com wrote: >>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:14:00 -0500, bitrex >>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 12/20/2017 11:09 AM, Joerg wrote: >>>>> On 2017-12-20 05:08, bitrex wrote: >>>>>> On 12/19/2017 07:44 PM, Joerg wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>>>> True. That's in part because our nation is glued to the automobile and >>>>>>> in part because most people don't have any other options. >>>>>> >>>>>> Remember when Amtrak tried to get into the freight hauling business for >>>>>> a while? >>>>>> >>>>>> Trains like these were a common sight in the Northeast in the 1990s, >>>>>> couple coaches and about 10 intermodal freight and boxcars: >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmINmRLAJr0> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It would make sense. I remember the passenger trains from my younger >>>>> days in Germany. They usually had at least one freight car, sometimes >>>>> more. Not only did this allow you to "check in" large baggage, it also >>>>> made for a fast shipment option. Once we had an issue with a custom >>>>> power supply made near Munich. Problem was, we were about 350mi or so >>>>> north and time was of the essence. So I looked at the train schedules, >>>>> drove it to the next station, gave it to the guy that loaded an >>>>> Intercity train and about 5h later it was in Munich where an engineer >>>>> from the supplier also drove to the station to pick it up. We had their >>>>> measurement results and a mod suggestion the same day. That wouldn't >>>>> even have been possible with Fedex, and this was in the 80's. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Amtrak has one train you can get your car packed up on, you'd think one >>>> way to increase long-distance profitability would be to run auto racks >>>> on the major cross-country routes to let you take your vehicle along with. >>> >>> I looked into this a number of times. There is a reason it's only >>> used on one train, from one location to one other. It's no bargain >>> and quite restrictive. IOW, another Amtrak loser. The bottom line is >>> that, except for very limited routes, trains are losers. >>> >> >> This is because they aren't customer-oriented enough. Sometimes when I >> have to visit a client in the Bay Area I look into using a train. Then I >> discover that there still is no reliable public transport to the next >> big train station (about 1h away), parking there is tough, not very safe >> and really expensive, the fare is much higher than my gas costs, the >> connections at the destination are iffy and the on-schedule record is >> paltry. > > Ah, it's everyone else's fault that you can't ride a train wherever > you want to go. Sorry, they don't see it that way. > No, that goes for about 1/2 million people around here, many of which regularly join the big trek on I-80 to Silicon Valley. It's not about me, I don't have to travel much. If we as a nation want to encourage more usage of public transport then the method above ain't working. >> When I go here ... >> >> https://www.amtrak.com/content/amtrak/en-us/stations/pcv.html >> >> ... and key in Placerville (Amtrak bus terminal) to San Jose I get: >> >> Quote "We were unable to process your request: Please correct the >> error(s) shown below and resubmit. >> Problem with Departure/Arrival Station or City Name: Please provide your >> departure or arrival station and resubmit. >> [Error ID: 572S]" >> >> That is _not_ how to run a passenger transport business. >> >> So I drive. Like pretty much everyone else does. > > But it's everyone else's fault that they have no use for your train. I > see. > You don't understand. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-22 08:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <bo3q3d52b5f5qb79utonke61ccuiokqnb8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #489003 |
On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 16:37:45 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> wrote: >On 2017-12-21 16:30, krw@notreal.com wrote: >> On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 10:52:03 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 2017-12-20 19:03, krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:14:00 -0500, bitrex >>>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 12/20/2017 11:09 AM, Joerg wrote: >>>>>> On 2017-12-20 05:08, bitrex wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/19/2017 07:44 PM, Joerg wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>>>> True. That's in part because our nation is glued to the automobile and >>>>>>>> in part because most people don't have any other options. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Remember when Amtrak tried to get into the freight hauling business for >>>>>>> a while? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Trains like these were a common sight in the Northeast in the 1990s, >>>>>>> couple coaches and about 10 intermodal freight and boxcars: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmINmRLAJr0> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It would make sense. I remember the passenger trains from my younger >>>>>> days in Germany. They usually had at least one freight car, sometimes >>>>>> more. Not only did this allow you to "check in" large baggage, it also >>>>>> made for a fast shipment option. Once we had an issue with a custom >>>>>> power supply made near Munich. Problem was, we were about 350mi or so >>>>>> north and time was of the essence. So I looked at the train schedules, >>>>>> drove it to the next station, gave it to the guy that loaded an >>>>>> Intercity train and about 5h later it was in Munich where an engineer >>>>>> from the supplier also drove to the station to pick it up. We had their >>>>>> measurement results and a mod suggestion the same day. That wouldn't >>>>>> even have been possible with Fedex, and this was in the 80's. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Amtrak has one train you can get your car packed up on, you'd think one >>>>> way to increase long-distance profitability would be to run auto racks >>>>> on the major cross-country routes to let you take your vehicle along with. >>>> >>>> I looked into this a number of times. There is a reason it's only >>>> used on one train, from one location to one other. It's no bargain >>>> and quite restrictive. IOW, another Amtrak loser. The bottom line is >>>> that, except for very limited routes, trains are losers. >>>> >>> >>> This is because they aren't customer-oriented enough. Sometimes when I >>> have to visit a client in the Bay Area I look into using a train. Then I >>> discover that there still is no reliable public transport to the next >>> big train station (about 1h away), parking there is tough, not very safe >>> and really expensive, the fare is much higher than my gas costs, the >>> connections at the destination are iffy and the on-schedule record is >>> paltry. >> >> Ah, it's everyone else's fault that you can't ride a train wherever >> you want to go. Sorry, they don't see it that way. >> > >No, that goes for about 1/2 million people around here, many of which >regularly join the big trek on I-80 to Silicon Valley. It's not about >me, I don't have to travel much. If we as a nation want to encourage >more usage of public transport then the method above ain't working. They don't *WANT* rail. You do but blame them because you're not pleased with their decision. > >>> When I go here ... >>> >>> https://www.amtrak.com/content/amtrak/en-us/stations/pcv.html >>> >>> ... and key in Placerville (Amtrak bus terminal) to San Jose I get: >>> >>> Quote "We were unable to process your request: Please correct the >>> error(s) shown below and resubmit. >>> Problem with Departure/Arrival Station or City Name: Please provide your >>> departure or arrival station and resubmit. >>> [Error ID: 572S]" >>> >>> That is _not_ how to run a passenger transport business. >>> >>> So I drive. Like pretty much everyone else does. >> >> But it's everyone else's fault that they have no use for your train. I >> see. >> > >You don't understand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-22 10:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fa50siFo0vpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #489039 |
On 2017-12-22 05:57, krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 16:37:45 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> > wrote: > >> On 2017-12-21 16:30, krw@notreal.com wrote: >>> On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 10:52:03 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2017-12-20 19:03, krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:14:00 -0500, bitrex >>>>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 12/20/2017 11:09 AM, Joerg wrote: >>>>>>> On 2017-12-20 05:08, bitrex wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/19/2017 07:44 PM, Joerg wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> True. That's in part because our nation is glued to the automobile and >>>>>>>>> in part because most people don't have any other options. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Remember when Amtrak tried to get into the freight hauling business for >>>>>>>> a while? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Trains like these were a common sight in the Northeast in the 1990s, >>>>>>>> couple coaches and about 10 intermodal freight and boxcars: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmINmRLAJr0> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It would make sense. I remember the passenger trains from my younger >>>>>>> days in Germany. They usually had at least one freight car, sometimes >>>>>>> more. Not only did this allow you to "check in" large baggage, it also >>>>>>> made for a fast shipment option. Once we had an issue with a custom >>>>>>> power supply made near Munich. Problem was, we were about 350mi or so >>>>>>> north and time was of the essence. So I looked at the train schedules, >>>>>>> drove it to the next station, gave it to the guy that loaded an >>>>>>> Intercity train and about 5h later it was in Munich where an engineer >>>>>>> from the supplier also drove to the station to pick it up. We had their >>>>>>> measurement results and a mod suggestion the same day. That wouldn't >>>>>>> even have been possible with Fedex, and this was in the 80's. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Amtrak has one train you can get your car packed up on, you'd think one >>>>>> way to increase long-distance profitability would be to run auto racks >>>>>> on the major cross-country routes to let you take your vehicle along with. >>>>> >>>>> I looked into this a number of times. There is a reason it's only >>>>> used on one train, from one location to one other. It's no bargain >>>>> and quite restrictive. IOW, another Amtrak loser. The bottom line is >>>>> that, except for very limited routes, trains are losers. >>>>> >>>> >>>> This is because they aren't customer-oriented enough. Sometimes when I >>>> have to visit a client in the Bay Area I look into using a train. Then I >>>> discover that there still is no reliable public transport to the next >>>> big train station (about 1h away), parking there is tough, not very safe >>>> and really expensive, the fare is much higher than my gas costs, the >>>> connections at the destination are iffy and the on-schedule record is >>>> paltry. >>> >>> Ah, it's everyone else's fault that you can't ride a train wherever >>> you want to go. Sorry, they don't see it that way. >>> >> >> No, that goes for about 1/2 million people around here, many of which >> regularly join the big trek on I-80 to Silicon Valley. It's not about >> me, I don't have to travel much. If we as a nation want to encourage >> more usage of public transport then the method above ain't working. > > They don't *WANT* rail. You do but blame them because you're not > pleased with their decision. Not true. Of course not everyone wants rail but a substantial percentage of "super-commuters" does. Their main gripe aside from expensive parking so far was the paltry on-time record which would get them into trouble with work too often. I believe that is because freight trains often get priority. [...] -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael A Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-22 17:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <FBf%B.106461$Wq7.49086@fx44.iad> |
| In reply to | #489039 |
krw@notreal.com wrote:
>
> Joerg:
>>
>> No, that goes for about 1/2 million people around here, many of
>> which regularly join the big trek on I-80 to Silicon Valley. It's
>> not about me, I don't have to travel much. If we as a nation want to
>> encourage more usage of public transport then the method above ain't
>> working.
>
> They don't *WANT* rail. You do but blame them because you're not
> pleased with their decision.
Railroads in the United States were built to haul cotton and coal.
Passenger service was always a secondary service. I grew up with a major
rail line behind my home that ran from Detroit to Florida. There were
two daily passenger runs, in a single railcar/engine. It had controls on
both ends, and the passengers rode n the middle. It was an express that
ran between two cities, early morning and in the evening.
Freight cars were designed to fit bales of cotton, with no wasted
space. Coal cars and ore carriers are filled from the top, and emptied
from the bottom, over a low bridge. The steel mill had trucks lined up
to receive the coal, and to transport it to their mile+ diameter coal
pile. It was a 24 hour a day operation to keep a couple week supply of
coal to convert into coke, for the carbon needed to make steel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-22 14:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fa5gnrFrkg5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #489074 |
On 2017-12-22 14:23, Michael A Terrell wrote: > krw@notreal.com wrote: > > >> Joerg: >>> >>> No, that goes for about 1/2 million people around here, many of >>> which regularly join the big trek on I-80 to Silicon Valley. It's >>> not about me, I don't have to travel much. If we as a nation want to >>> encourage more usage of public transport then the method above ain't > >> working. >> >> They don't *WANT* rail. You do but blame them because you're not >> pleased with their decision. > > > Railroads in the United States were built to haul cotton and coal. > Passenger service was always a secondary service. Not always: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_railway_history#/media/File:DeWitt_Clinton_(locomotive).jpg http://passengertrainjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/lv-passenger-01.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Amtrak_California_Zephyr_banner.jpg > ... I grew up with a major > rail line behind my home that ran from Detroit to Florida. There were > two daily passenger runs, in a single railcar/engine. It had controls on > both ends, and the passengers rode n the middle. It was an express that > ran between two cities, early morning and in the evening. > > Freight cars were designed to fit bales of cotton, with no wasted > space. Coal cars and ore carriers are filled from the top, and emptied > from the bottom, over a low bridge. The steel mill had trucks lined up > to receive the coal, and to transport it to their mile+ diameter coal > pile. It was a 24 hour a day operation to keep a couple week supply of > coal to convert into coke, for the carbon needed to make steel. > We have some lines here as well that were mostly for freight. The ones into the Sierra are now largely abandoned and one has become my mountain bike route to the east and west. Rail freight has gone to trucks in our area. Last time I saw freight cars being hauled to Schnitzer Steel in Rancho Cordova, CA, a recycling company, was in the late 90's. That track has now become a lightrail line, passengers-only. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-22 18:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p1k655$goe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #489077 |
Joerg wrote on 12/22/2017 5:53 PM: > On 2017-12-22 14:23, Michael A Terrell wrote: >> krw@notreal.com wrote: >> > >>> Joerg: >>>> >>>> No, that goes for about 1/2 million people around here, many of >>>> which regularly join the big trek on I-80 to Silicon Valley. It's >>>> not about me, I don't have to travel much. If we as a nation want to >>>> encourage more usage of public transport then the method above ain't >> >> working. >>> >>> They don't *WANT* rail. You do but blame them because you're not >>> pleased with their decision. >> >> >> Railroads in the United States were built to haul cotton and coal. >> Passenger service was always a secondary service. > > > Not always: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_railway_history#/media/File:DeWitt_Clinton_(locomotive).jpg > > > http://passengertrainjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/lv-passenger-01.jpg > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Amtrak_California_Zephyr_banner.jpg > > > >> ... I grew up with a major >> rail line behind my home that ran from Detroit to Florida. There were >> two daily passenger runs, in a single railcar/engine. It had controls on >> both ends, and the passengers rode n the middle. It was an express that >> ran between two cities, early morning and in the evening. >> >> Freight cars were designed to fit bales of cotton, with no wasted >> space. Coal cars and ore carriers are filled from the top, and emptied >> from the bottom, over a low bridge. The steel mill had trucks lined up >> to receive the coal, and to transport it to their mile+ diameter coal >> pile. It was a 24 hour a day operation to keep a couple week supply of >> coal to convert into coke, for the carbon needed to make steel. >> > > We have some lines here as well that were mostly for freight. The ones into > the Sierra are now largely abandoned and one has become my mountain bike > route to the east and west. Rail freight has gone to trucks in our area. > Last time I saw freight cars being hauled to Schnitzer Steel in Rancho > Cordova, CA, a recycling company, was in the late 90's. That track has now > become a lightrail line, passengers-only. It's often no point trying to get you to understand things when you have made up your mind. You are cherry picking a few isolated facts to support a wrong conclusion. Railroads have always been about freight and passenger service was only provided because it was needed and often was the justification for giving the railroad eminent domain to obtain right of way. Freight is what pays for the railroad and every railroad in the country would happily see passenger service go away so they can more efficiently move freight. Passenger service really does waste rail time and space relative to the economic benefit. -- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-22 20:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <g4br3dh8m1s96bj6uiflj9h36oketa05v9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #489086 |
On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 18:57:26 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >Joerg wrote on 12/22/2017 5:53 PM: >> On 2017-12-22 14:23, Michael A Terrell wrote: >>> krw@notreal.com wrote: >>> > >>>> Joerg: >>>>> >>>>> No, that goes for about 1/2 million people around here, many of >>>>> which regularly join the big trek on I-80 to Silicon Valley. It's >>>>> not about me, I don't have to travel much. If we as a nation want to >>>>> encourage more usage of public transport then the method above ain't >>> >> working. >>>> >>>> They don't *WANT* rail. You do but blame them because you're not >>>> pleased with their decision. >>> >>> >>> Railroads in the United States were built to haul cotton and coal. >>> Passenger service was always a secondary service. >> >> >> Not always: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_railway_history#/media/File:DeWitt_Clinton_(locomotive).jpg >> >> >> http://passengertrainjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/lv-passenger-01.jpg >> >> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Amtrak_California_Zephyr_banner.jpg >> >> >> >>> ... I grew up with a major >>> rail line behind my home that ran from Detroit to Florida. There were >>> two daily passenger runs, in a single railcar/engine. It had controls on >>> both ends, and the passengers rode n the middle. It was an express that >>> ran between two cities, early morning and in the evening. >>> >>> Freight cars were designed to fit bales of cotton, with no wasted >>> space. Coal cars and ore carriers are filled from the top, and emptied >>> from the bottom, over a low bridge. The steel mill had trucks lined up >>> to receive the coal, and to transport it to their mile+ diameter coal >>> pile. It was a 24 hour a day operation to keep a couple week supply of >>> coal to convert into coke, for the carbon needed to make steel. >>> >> >> We have some lines here as well that were mostly for freight. The ones into >> the Sierra are now largely abandoned and one has become my mountain bike >> route to the east and west. Rail freight has gone to trucks in our area. >> Last time I saw freight cars being hauled to Schnitzer Steel in Rancho >> Cordova, CA, a recycling company, was in the late 90's. That track has now >> become a lightrail line, passengers-only. > >It's often no point trying to get you to understand things when you have >made up your mind. You are cherry picking a few isolated facts to support a >wrong conclusion. Railroads have always been about freight and passenger >service was only provided because it was needed and often was the >justification for giving the railroad eminent domain to obtain right of way. > Freight is what pays for the railroad and every railroad in the country >would happily see passenger service go away so they can more efficiently >move freight. Passenger service really does waste rail time and space >relative to the economic benefit. With a few exceptions (that can be counted on one hand) you're absolutely right. Passenger rail in the US is just silly. It makes no sense and (so) people don't want it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael A Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-22 20:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <eKi%B.13888$Y21.3874@fx08.iad> |
| In reply to | #489094 |
krw@notreal.com wrote:
>
> With a few exceptions (that can be counted on one hand) you're
> absolutely right. Passenger rail in the US is just silly. It makes
> no sense and (so) people don't want it.
I'm beginning to worry about Joerg. He's acting more and more like
my dad did, not long before he was declared unable to take care of himself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-22 19:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <55067457-e5e6-4fe6-bcb6-3631f0101b2e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #489100 |
On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 12:57:39 PM UTC+11, Michael Terrell wrote: > krw@notreal.com wrote: > > > > With a few exceptions (that can be counted on one hand) you're > > absolutely right. Passenger rail in the US is just silly. It makes > > no sense and (so) people don't want it. > > > I'm beginning to worry about Joerg. He's acting more and more like > my dad did, not long before he was declared unable to take care of himself. As in "not right wing enough to be let out in public"? Don't worry about Jeorg. He grew up in Germany where all sorts of socialist devices - like effective public transport - visibly worked, and he hasn't been in America quite long enough for the badly implemented pseudo-counter-examples to have persuaded him that they they can't. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-22 19:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <110e5af2-3f5a-42d7-a9e5-2b263ca5a3bc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #489094 |
On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 12:11:02 PM UTC+11, k...@notreal.com wrote: > On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 18:57:26 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > > >Joerg wrote on 12/22/2017 5:53 PM: > >> On 2017-12-22 14:23, Michael A Terrell wrote: > >>> krw@notreal.com wrote: > >>> > > >>>> Joerg: > >>>>> > >>>>> No, that goes for about 1/2 million people around here, many of > >>>>> which regularly join the big trek on I-80 to Silicon Valley. It's > >>>>> not about me, I don't have to travel much. If we as a nation want to > >>>>> encourage more usage of public transport then the method above ain't > >>> >> working. > >>>> > >>>> They don't *WANT* rail. You do but blame them because you're not > >>>> pleased with their decision. > >>> > >>> > >>> Railroads in the United States were built to haul cotton and coal. > >>> Passenger service was always a secondary service. > >> > >> > >> Not always: > >> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_railway_history#/media/File:DeWitt_Clinton_(locomotive).jpg > >> > >> > >> http://passengertrainjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/lv-passenger-01.jpg > >> > >> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Amtrak_California_Zephyr_banner.jpg > >> > >> > >> > >>> ... I grew up with a major > >>> rail line behind my home that ran from Detroit to Florida. There were > >>> two daily passenger runs, in a single railcar/engine. It had controls on > >>> both ends, and the passengers rode n the middle. It was an express that > >>> ran between two cities, early morning and in the evening. > >>> > >>> Freight cars were designed to fit bales of cotton, with no wasted > >>> space. Coal cars and ore carriers are filled from the top, and emptied > >>> from the bottom, over a low bridge. The steel mill had trucks lined up > >>> to receive the coal, and to transport it to their mile+ diameter coal > >>> pile. It was a 24 hour a day operation to keep a couple week supply of > >>> coal to convert into coke, for the carbon needed to make steel. > >>> > >> > >> We have some lines here as well that were mostly for freight. The ones into > >> the Sierra are now largely abandoned and one has become my mountain bike > >> route to the east and west. Rail freight has gone to trucks in our area. > >> Last time I saw freight cars being hauled to Schnitzer Steel in Rancho > >> Cordova, CA, a recycling company, was in the late 90's. That track has now > >> become a lightrail line, passengers-only. > > > >It's often no point trying to get you to understand things when you have > >made up your mind. You are cherry picking a few isolated facts to support a > >wrong conclusion. Railroads have always been about freight and passenger > >service was only provided because it was needed and often was the > >justification for giving the railroad eminent domain to obtain right of way. > > Freight is what pays for the railroad and every railroad in the country > >would happily see passenger service go away so they can more efficiently > >move freight. Passenger service really does waste rail time and space > >relative to the economic benefit. > > With a few exceptions (that can be counted on one hand) you're > absolutely right. Passenger rail in the US is just silly. It makes > no sense and (so) people don't want it. Passenger rail in the US is implemented very badly. This is probably a more or less deliberate ploy to sell more cars, and to make air-travel more attractive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy The US political system does work to favour capitalist with lots of money to spend on lobbyists over less well-off regular travelers. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-23 07:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fa7bl6F9kdsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #489106 |
On 2017-12-22 19:04, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 12:11:02 PM UTC+11, > k...@notreal.com wrote: >> On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 18:57:26 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Joerg wrote on 12/22/2017 5:53 PM: >>>> On 2017-12-22 14:23, Michael A Terrell wrote: >>>>> krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Joerg: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, that goes for about 1/2 million people around here, >>>>>>> many of which regularly join the big trek on I-80 to >>>>>>> Silicon Valley. It's not about me, I don't have to travel >>>>>>> much. If we as a nation want to encourage more usage of >>>>>>> public transport then the method above ain't working. >>>>>> >>>>>> They don't *WANT* rail. You do but blame them because >>>>>> you're not pleased with their decision. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Railroads in the United States were built to haul cotton and >>>>> coal. Passenger service was always a secondary service. >>>> >>>> >>>> Not always: >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_railway_history#/media/File:DeWitt_Clinton_(locomotive).jpg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://passengertrainjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/lv-passenger-01.jpg >>>> >>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Amtrak_California_Zephyr_banner.jpg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> ... I grew up with a major >>>>> rail line behind my home that ran from Detroit to Florida. >>>>> There were two daily passenger runs, in a single >>>>> railcar/engine. It had controls on both ends, and the >>>>> passengers rode n the middle. It was an express that ran >>>>> between two cities, early morning and in the evening. >>>>> >>>>> Freight cars were designed to fit bales of cotton, with no >>>>> wasted space. Coal cars and ore carriers are filled from the >>>>> top, and emptied from the bottom, over a low bridge. The >>>>> steel mill had trucks lined up to receive the coal, and to >>>>> transport it to their mile+ diameter coal pile. It was a 24 >>>>> hour a day operation to keep a couple week supply of coal to >>>>> convert into coke, for the carbon needed to make steel. >>>>> >>>> >>>> We have some lines here as well that were mostly for freight. >>>> The ones into the Sierra are now largely abandoned and one has >>>> become my mountain bike route to the east and west. Rail >>>> freight has gone to trucks in our area. Last time I saw freight >>>> cars being hauled to Schnitzer Steel in Rancho Cordova, CA, a >>>> recycling company, was in the late 90's. That track has now >>>> become a lightrail line, passengers-only. >>> >>> It's often no point trying to get you to understand things when >>> you have made up your mind. You are cherry picking a few >>> isolated facts to support a wrong conclusion. Railroads have >>> always been about freight and passenger service was only provided >>> because it was needed and often was the justification for giving >>> the railroad eminent domain to obtain right of way. Freight is >>> what pays for the railroad and every railroad in the country >>> would happily see passenger service go away so they can more >>> efficiently move freight. Passenger service really does waste >>> rail time and space relative to the economic benefit. >> >> With a few exceptions (that can be counted on one hand) you're >> absolutely right. Passenger rail in the US is just silly. It >> makes no sense and (so) people don't want it. > > Passenger rail in the US is implemented very badly. This is probably > a more or less deliberate ploy to sell more cars, and to make > air-travel more attractive. > In the US there are efficient commuter trains and on short distance passenger traffic is the larger revenue generator no matter what people say. Not freight. Shorthaul freight by rail is all but dead and the evidence is right next to my regular mountain bike route. On long stretches it flips and there freight wins. The problem is that the longhaul freight trains also use the tracks that are use by shorthaul commuter trains and that does not work well. That is one of the reasons why many people in Northern California don't consider Amtrak. For longer distances on trains you need bullet trains and with very few exceptions those systems aren't and never will be anywhere close to making a profit, or just breaking even. They are on the taxpayer dime forever which isn't good. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy > > The US political system does work to favour capitalist with lots of > money to spend on lobbyists over less well-off regular travelers. > Now that's nonsense. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web