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 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-26 15:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bc6f5ac9-d48c-4c09-a59e-7a81077d5d92@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #489319 |
On Tuesday, December 26, 2017 at 4:33:17 PM UTC+11, Michael Terrell wrote: > whit3rd wrote: > > On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 5:39:04 PM UTC-8, Joseph Gwinn wrote: > >> On Dec 25, 2017, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote > > > >>> In any sensible city, the airport has some kind of rail link to the centre of > >>> town, but I can't remember any, anywhere in the US. > >> > >> Boston. Chicago. NYC. Washington DC. These are ones that I have personally > >> visited and ridden that rail. There are many more. > > > > In DC, the larger airport, Dulles, only has bus service; it's the small > > Ronald Reagan airport that has a subway Metro link; . The subway links > > to the Amtrak train station, too. > > > > Seattle is now light-rail linked, from the airport to Amtrak station, through city center > > (and someday, to three blocks from where I'm sitting). > > > Subways would be interesting around here. They would have to figure > out how to build them in the Florida Aquifer. It would cause lots of > sinkholes, and the subway tube would have to be watertight. Building a sub-way wouldn't cause a lot of sink-holes. It might expose a few, and the sub-way tube would have to bridge them. The tubes wouldn't have to be water-tight (which is pretty much impossible to achieve) but the construction would have to be good enough to keep the leakage into the tunnel low enough that it could be pumped out - bilges and bilge-pumps come to mind. > They lost a brand new earth mover while building the Hwy19 & Hwy441 > interchange in Eustis, decades ago. A large hole opened under it, and it > was gone before they could try to rescue it. They have to drive pilings > down to bedrock to build large buildings, in Central Florida. If they > don't, they break apart and sink into the ground. Can you imagine the > added costs, to build a high speed rail system? The Netherlands is the delta of the Rhine. Most of it was swamp before they started draining it, and there's typically 50 metres of silt before you get to anything that looks like rock. They've been slow to add high speed rail links - I think that the only one that works at present runs from Amsterdam down to Antwerp and hooks onto the French high rail system - but I think that was more noise problems than geology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_the_Netherlands -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-25 22:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2bf34dpq3fstse48o0e9ea564i9663lu9g@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #489307 |
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 20:38:51 -0500, Joseph Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote: >On Dec 25, 2017, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote >(in article<1dcbb7c1-1cd4-493f-8ae5-026113a41a56@googlegroups.com>): > >> On Tuesday, December 26, 2017 at 1:58:03 AM UTC+11, rickman wrote: >> > bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote on 12/25/2017 8:48 AM: >> > > On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 3:33:30 PM UTC+11, rickman wrote: >> > > > Joerg wrote on 12/24/2017 6:15 PM: >> > > > > On 2017-12-24 14:51, rickman wrote: >> > > > > > Joerg wrote on 12/24/2017 5:37 PM: >> > > > > > > On 2017-12-24 13:56, krw@notreal.com wrote: >> > > > > > > > On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 07:50:45 -0800, Joerg<news@analogconsultants.com> >> > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On 2017-12-23 17:49, krw@notreal.com wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:27:20 -0500, rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > rickman wrote on 12/23/2017 3:17 PM: >> > > > > > > > > > > > Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 3:09 PM: >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2017-12-23 12:03, rickman wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 10:39 AM: >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > No one is saying there aren't a few passenger routes that make >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > money. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is possible. But you can't run a railroad on passenger >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > service. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Not true. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2015/09/01/bullet-trains-and- >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the-economics-of-high-speed-railways >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote "Within one decade, the line generated enough income to >> > > > > > > > > > > > > cover its >> > > > > > > > > > > > > development and running costs". They are clocking in profits year >> > > > > > > > > > > > > after year. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, this conversation has been about US trains. Should have >> > > > > > > > > > > > said, "in >> > > > > > > > > > > > the US". Of course it is possible with something like bullet >> > > > > > > > > > > > trains, but >> > > > > > > > > > > > again we are discussing existing rail service. The railroads in >> > > > > > > > > > > > the US >> > > > > > > > > > > > aren't going to build "bullet" trains on their dime. So for all >> > > > > > > > > > > > practical >> > > > > > > > > > > > purposes in the US, there will not be profitable passenger >> > > > > > > > > > > > railroads. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > If there is enough usage to gain other benefits, I would support >> > > > > > > > > > > > subsidies >> > > > > > > > > > > > of specific rail routes. But they don't seem to work well with a >> > > > > > > > > > > > delicate >> > > > > > > > > > > > balance between how much subsidy and how much usage. Some lines >> > > > > > > > > > > > are >> > > > > > > > > > > > worth >> > > > > > > > > > > > the expense, others aren't. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Remember, a rail line is not a railroad! >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Actually, you should have read more of that article. "It comes >> > > > > > > > > > > down to >> > > > > > > > > > > geographics and population density. It’s going to work very well >> > > > > > > > > > > in some >> > > > > > > > > > > countries and not so well in other countries.” Elsewhere they >> > > > > > > > > > > discuss >> > > > > > > > > > > failures and non-starters in Taiwan, Spain, Australia and the US. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > And that, in a nutshell, has been the *entire* argument, here. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > At best rail passenger service is hit or miss. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Mass transit only works where there is a mass of people (all >> > > > > > > > > > traveling >> > > > > > > > > > from one place to another). >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > We've got plenty of that in the US. One example of many is Silicon >> > > > > > > > > Valley. Rents and home prices are unaffordable for many so they must >> > > > > > > > > live in the bedroom communties around. Farther away than lightrail >> > > > > > > > > goes. >> > > > > > > > > Job mobility is extremely high. Population density is very high. All >> > > > > > > > > that is the perfect breeding ground for passenger rail. Or in this >> > > > > > > > > case, >> > > > > > > > > would be. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > No, we really don't have a lot of that in the US. A *few* large >> > > > > > > > cities, perhaps, but that's it. There is a vast territory between >> > > > > > > > those few waste islands that has no use for passenger rail of any >> > > > > > > > kind. Few cities are prime candidates, for that matter. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > When have you been in the Bay Area last time? When one city ends the >> > > > > > > next >> > > > > > > one begins, immediately. There is no free turf in between. There can't >> > > > > > > be >> > > > > > > because it would be a colossal waste of financial opportunity to let >> > > > > > > any >> > > > > > > land sit idle (unless mandated by some enviro-whatever agency). >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Yes, that's what he said, "few cities"... Do you understand the meaning >> > > > > > of "few"? >> > > > > >> > > > > It is most certainly more than a few. Go there and look. Drive through >> > > > > there. Then you'll see. It is one city after the other starting with San >> > > > > Francisco, all the way down to Morgan Hill and then all the way back up >> > > > > the >> > > > > other side of the bay to Richmond. Also, there are many other areas in >> > > > > the >> > > > > US that are like that. >> > > > >> > > > OMG! Do people have to spell out everything for you? Ok, replace city with >> > > > "Metropolitan Area". >> > > > >> > > > > Essentially almost any large metropolis with the surrounding industrial >> > > > > areas would have been a prime candidate for passenger rail. People can't >> > > > > afford to live in the city or don't want to but they must get to work >> > > > > there. >> > > > >> > > > Not "any" or anything like it. I supposed you can count the subway as >> > > > passenger rail, them I won't argue against that. But when we have been >> > > > discussing passenger train service, local metropolitan subway service >> > > > hasn't >> > > > been included. The longer distance rail service is usually subsidized or >> > > > it >> > > > wouldn't exist. No one is willing to pay for it at full price. >> > > > >> > > > > However, the infrastructure is often so messed up that rail is no longer >> > > > > a >> > > > > viable option. >> > > > >> > > > Don't know what you mean by that, don't care. It is what it is. The >> > > > problem isn't infrastructure, the problem is the location and density of >> > > > people in the US isn't like Europe. >> > > >> > > Bits of it are very like Europe, and they are the areas that could use >> > > European style passenger rail services. The norther-eastern corridor is >> > > the obvious example, but California has a least two areas that could use >> > > it. >> > > >> > > Australia - as whole - has a tenth of the population density of the US >> > > (and a hundredth of that of Europe), but it's still one of the most >> > > urbanised countries in the world, and both Sydney and Melbourne have >> > > extensive passenger rail services - heavy rail - to get commuters in and >> > > out of the city centres. Melbourne also had trams from early on, as did >> > > Sydney, until it dumped them, but Sydney is now spending a lot on >> > > installing light rail to service some of the inner suburbs. >> > > >> > > > Here metropolitan areas are usually like molds on a culture. Mostly they >> > > > started at a point and grew out into a large disc some distance to the >> > > > next. > In Europe there were many small towns that started an hour or >> > > > two walk from >> > > > each other along roads and they coalesced into a large metropolitan area.. >> > > > Perfect for interconnection by rail. Here we have much longer distances >> > > > between metro areas and rail often takes too long to be useful. So we fly. >> > > >> > > Twaddle. Urban development in the US largely preceded the development of >> > > any kind of mass transport. In both the US and Europe, old cities got a >> > > lot more population after mass transport made it practical. >> > > >> > > America made different choices in the late 1930's largely because the >> > > monopolistic antics of the National City Lines company >> > > >> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines >> > > >> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy >> > > >> > > It was an epic pratfall, and ever since then Americans have been denying >> > > how thoroughly their public transport got trashed by these antics. >> > > >> > > In this case, the American exception was an exceptional vulnerability to >> > > commercial crookedness. Population density doesn't actually come into it, >> > > though bone-headedness of the people who sat on their hands while their >> > > public transport got trashed deserves some attention. >> > >> > Yes, I can see why you have so much trouble with this. You don't seem to >> > get the difference between the railroads we have been discussing and street >> > cars. >> >> I can see why you are having such a problem with this - you don't understand >> the problem well enough to realise that there is a continuum of travel >> requirements, ranging from inner-city commuters who are well served by street >> cars (which much of the world calls trams) through outer suburbs commuters >> who are better served by heavy rail, to long distance commuters and business >> travelers, who benefit from fast and direct access to central business >> district of their destination. >> >> The bus maniacs who gutted US public transport also gutted the central >> railway stations that distributed the outer-suburbs and longer distance >> commuters. >> >> In any sensible city, the airport has some kind of rail link to the centre of >> town, but I can't remember any, anywhere in the US. > >Boston. Chicago. NYC. Washington DC. These are ones that I have personally >visited and ridden that rail. There are many more. No, there aren't "many" more. ..and that's not heavy rail, rather commuter rail or "subway" (whether it be on top of, or below, ground).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-25 07:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <facj5uFevd9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #489282 |
On 2017-12-25 05:48, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 3:33:30 PM UTC+11, rickman wrote: [...] >> Here metropolitan areas are usually like molds on a culture. >> Mostly they started at a point and grew out into a large disc some >> distance to the next. > In Europe there were many small towns that >> started an hour or two walk from each other along roads and they >> coalesced into a large metropolitan area. Perfect for >> interconnection by rail. Here we have much longer distances >> between metro areas and rail often takes too long to be useful. So >> we fly. > > Twaddle. Urban development in the US largely preceded the development > of any kind of mass transport. In both the US and Europe, old cities > got a lot more population after mass transport made it practical. > > America made different choices in the late 1930's largely because the > monopolistic antics of the National City Lines company > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy > > It was an epic pratfall, and ever since then Americans have been > denying how thoroughly their public transport got trashed by these > antics. > I would have never imagined to ever agree on anything political with you. Though it wasn't so much street cars but real rail lines. They were largely abandoned, fell into disrepair and worst case the right-of-way was lost. The latter was usually the end of it, no realistic chance to ever get a passenger rail going again after the city and suburbia grew. In Sacramento they (barely) lucked out because the old rail line to Rancho Cordova was still very occasionally used for freight trains hauling scrawp metal to a plant there. Now that is converted to light rail on the same tracks. > In this case, the American exception was an exceptional vulnerability > to commercial crookedness. Population density doesn't actually come > into it, though bone-headedness of the people who sat on their hands > while their public transport got trashed deserves some attention. > Well, in other countries you have political crookedness. They claim public transport systems to be a glowing success while not saying anything about the massive subsidies it will need pretty much forever. Same in California where they want to build a bullet train from nowhere to nowhere for north of $100 billion. Meshugginah. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-25 18:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d6110292-17f1-425f-8e13-bd357a463de3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #489286 |
On Tuesday, December 26, 2017 at 2:18:31 AM UTC+11, Joerg wrote: > On 2017-12-25 05:48, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > > On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 3:33:30 PM UTC+11, rickman wrote: > > [...] > > >> Here metropolitan areas are usually like molds on a culture. > >> Mostly they started at a point and grew out into a large disc some > >> distance to the next. > In Europe there were many small towns that > >> started an hour or two walk from each other along roads and they > >> coalesced into a large metropolitan area. Perfect for > >> interconnection by rail. Here we have much longer distances > >> between metro areas and rail often takes too long to be useful. So > >> we fly. > > > > Twaddle. Urban development in the US largely preceded the development > > of any kind of mass transport. In both the US and Europe, old cities > > got a lot more population after mass transport made it practical. > > > > America made different choices in the late 1930's largely because the > > monopolistic antics of the National City Lines company > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy > > > > It was an epic pratfall, and ever since then Americans have been > > denying how thoroughly their public transport got trashed by these > > antics. > > > > I would have never imagined to ever agree on anything political with > you. Though it wasn't so much street cars but real rail lines. They were > largely abandoned, fell into disrepair and worst case the right-of-way > was lost. The latter was usually the end of it, no realistic chance to > ever get a passenger rail going again after the city and suburbia grew. > In Sacramento they (barely) lucked out because the old rail line to > Rancho Cordova was still very occasionally used for freight trains > hauling scrawp metal to a plant there. Now that is converted to light > rail on the same tracks. > > > > In this case, the American exception was an exceptional vulnerability > > to commercial crookedness. Population density doesn't actually come > > into it, though bone-headedness of the people who sat on their hands > > while their public transport got trashed deserves some attention. > > > > Well, in other countries you have political crookedness. They claim > public transport systems to be a glowing success while not saying > anything about the massive subsidies it will need pretty much forever. They are bribing people to stay off the roads. The kind of road network that can replace good public transport ranges from the colossally expensive to the impossible. 14% of Los Angles is devoted to parking, and improving the road network would involve demolishing the buildings that the commuters are to travel in to work in > Same in California where they want to build a bullet train from nowhere > to nowhere for north of $100 billion. Meshugginah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail Los Angles and San Francisco aren't nowhere. Building the whole line in one hit would be a bit expensive, and it's certainly going to take time. The Dutch took ages to built their high-speed section to connect Amsterdam to Antwerp - in part because it had a more or less continuous set of sound walls to protect the neighbours from the din. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-29 02:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p247ln$ttq$1@gonzo.alcatraz> |
| In reply to | #489286 |
On 2017-12-25, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> wrote: > On 2017-12-25 05:48, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >> On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 3:33:30 PM UTC+11, rickman wrote: > > Well, in other countries you have political crookedness. They claim > public transport systems to be a glowing success while not saying > anything about the massive subsidies it will need pretty much forever. > Same in California where they want to build a bullet train from nowhere > to nowhere for north of $100 billion. Meshugginah. do the public roads pay their own way? would they if more people traveled by car? -- This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-28 21:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <gsab4dpbs9e5euigce0ps90a5ootjqks7r@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #489520 |
On 29 Dec 2017 02:01:27 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote: >On 2017-12-25, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> wrote: >> On 2017-12-25 05:48, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >>> On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 3:33:30 PM UTC+11, rickman wrote: >> > >> Well, in other countries you have political crookedness. They claim >> public transport systems to be a glowing success while not saying >> anything about the massive subsidies it will need pretty much forever. >> Same in California where they want to build a bullet train from nowhere >> to nowhere for north of $100 billion. Meshugginah. > >do the public roads pay their own way? would they if more people >traveled by car? Yes. Gas taxes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-28 19:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <178ae7fb-0076-4fc5-8fa6-83bf8f56a653@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #489524 |
On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 1:42:42 PM UTC+11, k...@notreal.com wrote: > On 29 Dec 2017 02:01:27 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote: > > >On 2017-12-25, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> wrote: > >> On 2017-12-25 05:48, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > >>> On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 3:33:30 PM UTC+11, rickman wrote: > >> > > > >> Well, in other countries you have political crookedness. They claim > >> public transport systems to be a glowing success while not saying > >> anything about the massive subsidies it will need pretty much forever. > >> Same in California where they want to build a bullet train from nowhere > >> to nowhere for north of $100 billion. Meshugginah. > > > >do the public roads pay their own way? would they if more people > >traveled by car? > > Yes. Gas taxes. Gas taxes don't have much to do with paying for the highway system, and the damage to the highway system goes up a lot faster with vehicle weight than does fuel consumption (which is largely devoted to coping with air-resistance). The biggest single cost of the highway system is the interest on the capital devoted to building it in the first place, and if you allow it to get clogged up by too many cars you are wasting that investment. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-29 01:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p24ltn$4cn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #489520 |
Jasen Betts wrote on 12/28/2017 9:01 PM: > On 2017-12-25, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> wrote: >> On 2017-12-25 05:48, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >>> On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 3:33:30 PM UTC+11, rickman wrote: >> > >> Well, in other countries you have political crookedness. They claim >> public transport systems to be a glowing success while not saying >> anything about the massive subsidies it will need pretty much forever. >> Same in California where they want to build a bullet train from nowhere >> to nowhere for north of $100 billion. Meshugginah. > > do the public roads pay their own way? would they if more people > traveled by car? There are no small number of toll roads around here and not only do they pay their way, they make a huge profit. So much so that tolls that were supposed to only last for the 20 years it would take to pay off a bond for its construction were paid off in 8 years and the tolls remained because no one in government wanted to lose that income. Then there are the private toll roads that are paid for by a private business while sharing the income with the government. Clearly toll roads can be very profitable even if not popular. -- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-28 23:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d0137d70-aec6-44a4-9a03-c4cd5c1b4583@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #489549 |
On Friday, December 29, 2017 at 5:04:43 PM UTC+11, rickman wrote: > Jasen Betts wrote on 12/28/2017 9:01 PM: > > On 2017-12-25, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> wrote: > >> On 2017-12-25 05:48, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > >>> On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 3:33:30 PM UTC+11, rickman wrote: > >> > > > >> Well, in other countries you have political crookedness. They claim > >> public transport systems to be a glowing success while not saying > >> anything about the massive subsidies it will need pretty much forever. > >> Same in California where they want to build a bullet train from nowhere > >> to nowhere for north of $100 billion. Meshugginah. > > > > do the public roads pay their own way? would they if more people > > traveled by car? > > There are no small number of toll roads around here and not only do they pay > their way, they make a huge profit. So much so that tolls that were > supposed to only last for the 20 years it would take to pay off a bond for > its construction were paid off in 8 years and the tolls remained because no > one in government wanted to lose that income. > > Then there are the private toll roads that are paid for by a private > business while sharing the income with the government. Clearly toll roads > can be very profitable even if not popular. Toll roads cherry-pick the traffic. If there wasn't a huge publicly funded highway system to feed cars into the toll road, and take them away again after they'd used the toll road, the toll roads would be a whole lot less profitable. Pick your choke point and put a toll road through it. Neal Stephenson talked about the way the French imported the wood for their naval vessels from the Baltic countries, when the woods of France were full of just the right sort of trees. The problem was that the local barons owned the rivers down to the ports where the woods was turned into boats, and every last one of them charged a fee on every last bit of wood that crossed his property. It was cheaper to ship the wood through the Baltic and around the North Sea coast than it was to pay an endless succession of road and river tolls. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-25 10:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2l724d9m09845vicac52qn9gks0kd67h0q@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #489278 |
On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 23:33:23 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >Joerg wrote on 12/24/2017 6:15 PM: >> On 2017-12-24 14:51, rickman wrote: >>> Joerg wrote on 12/24/2017 5:37 PM: >>>> On 2017-12-24 13:56, krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 07:50:45 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2017-12-23 17:49, krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:27:20 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> rickman wrote on 12/23/2017 3:17 PM: >>>>>>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 3:09 PM: >>>>>>>>>> On 2017-12-23 12:03, rickman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 10:39 AM: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No one is saying there aren't a few passenger routes that make >>>>>>>>>>> money. >>>>>>>>>>> It is possible. But you can't run a railroad on passenger >>>>>>>>>>> service. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Not true. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2015/09/01/bullet-trains-and-the-economics-of-high-speed-railways >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Quote "Within one decade, the line generated enough income to >>>>>>>>>> cover its >>>>>>>>>> development and running costs". They are clocking in profits year >>>>>>>>>> after year. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sorry, this conversation has been about US trains. Should have >>>>>>>>> said, "in >>>>>>>>> the US". Of course it is possible with something like bullet >>>>>>>>> trains, but >>>>>>>>> again we are discussing existing rail service. The railroads in >>>>>>>>> the US >>>>>>>>> aren't going to build "bullet" trains on their dime. So for all >>>>>>>>> practical >>>>>>>>> purposes in the US, there will not be profitable passenger >>>>>>>>> railroads. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If there is enough usage to gain other benefits, I would support >>>>>>>>> subsidies >>>>>>>>> of specific rail routes. But they don't seem to work well with a >>>>>>>>> delicate >>>>>>>>> balance between how much subsidy and how much usage. Some lines are >>>>>>>>> worth >>>>>>>>> the expense, others aren't. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Remember, a rail line is not a railroad! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Actually, you should have read more of that article. "It comes >>>>>>>> down to >>>>>>>> geographics and population density. It’s going to work very well >>>>>>>> in some >>>>>>>> countries and not so well in other countries.” Elsewhere they >>>>>>>> discuss >>>>>>>> failures and non-starters in Taiwan, Spain, Australia and the US. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And that, in a nutshell, has been the *entire* argument, here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At best rail passenger service is hit or miss. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mass transit only works where there is a mass of people (all traveling >>>>>>> from one place to another). >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We've got plenty of that in the US. One example of many is Silicon >>>>>> Valley. Rents and home prices are unaffordable for many so they must >>>>>> live in the bedroom communties around. Farther away than lightrail >>>>>> goes. >>>>>> Job mobility is extremely high. Population density is very high. All >>>>>> that is the perfect breeding ground for passenger rail. Or in this >>>>>> case, >>>>>> would be. >>>>> >>>>> No, we really don't have a lot of that in the US. A *few* large >>>>> cities, perhaps, but that's it. There is a vast territory between >>>>> those few waste islands that has no use for passenger rail of any >>>>> kind. Few cities are prime candidates, for that matter. >>>>> >>>> >>>> When have you been in the Bay Area last time? When one city ends the next >>>> one begins, immediately. There is no free turf in between. There can't be >>>> because it would be a colossal waste of financial opportunity to let any >>>> land sit idle (unless mandated by some enviro-whatever agency). >>> >>> Yes, that's what he said, "few cities"... Do you understand the meaning >>> of "few"? >>> >> >> It is most certainly more than a few. Go there and look. Drive through >> there. Then you'll see. It is one city after the other starting with San >> Francisco, all the way down to Morgan Hill and then all the way back up the >> other side of the bay to Richmond. Also, there are many other areas in the >> US that are like that. > >OMG! Do people have to spell out everything for you? Ok, replace city with >"Metropolitan Area". > > >> Essentially almost any large metropolis with the surrounding industrial >> areas would have been a prime candidate for passenger rail. People can't >> afford to live in the city or don't want to but they must get to work there. > >Not "any" or anything like it. I supposed you can count the subway as >passenger rail, them I won't argue against that. But when we have been >discussing passenger train service, local metropolitan subway service hasn't >been included. The longer distance rail service is usually subsidized or it >wouldn't exist. No one is willing to pay for it at full price. > > >> However, the infrastructure is often so messed up that rail is no longer a >> viable option. > >Don't know what you mean by that, don't care. It is what it is. The >problem isn't infrastructure, the problem is the location and density of >people in the US isn't like Europe. Here metropolitan areas are usually >like molds on a culture. Mostly they started at a point and grew out into a >large disc some distance to the next. In Europe there were many small towns >that started an hour or two walk from each other along roads and they >coalesced into a large metropolitan area. Perfect for interconnection by >rail. Here we have much longer distances between metro areas and rail often >takes too long to be useful. So we fly. ...or drive. AKA inter-urban rail (100% useless in the US), rather than intra-urban transit (works in limited cit^h^h^hmetropolitan areas).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-28 21:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p23oeo$rfa$1@gonzo.alcatraz> |
| In reply to | #489278 |
On 2017-12-25, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > Joerg wrote on 12/24/2017 6:15 PM: >> On 2017-12-24 14:51, rickman wrote: >> >> It is most certainly more than a few. Go there and look. Drive through >> there. Then you'll see. It is one city after the other starting with San >> Francisco, all the way down to Morgan Hill and then all the way back up the >> other side of the bay to Richmond. Also, there are many other areas in the >> US that are like that. > > OMG! Do people have to spell out everything for you? Ok, replace city with > "Metropolitan Area". > > >> Essentially almost any large metropolis with the surrounding industrial >> areas would have been a prime candidate for passenger rail. People can't >> afford to live in the city or don't want to but they must get to work there. > > Not "any" or anything like it. I supposed you can count the subway as > passenger rail, them I won't argue against that. But when we have been > discussing passenger train service, local metropolitan subway service hasn't > been included. The longer distance rail service is usually subsidized or it > wouldn't exist. No one is willing to pay for it at full price. It was about that someone brought up a failing commuter rail service last week, so now it's even more confused. -- This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-24 18:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <3ke04ddua1op5j9ce70h62t8e9j9bksi01@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #489265 |
On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 14:37:54 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> wrote: >On 2017-12-24 13:56, krw@notreal.com wrote: >> On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 07:50:45 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 2017-12-23 17:49, krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:27:20 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> rickman wrote on 12/23/2017 3:17 PM: >>>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 3:09 PM: >>>>>>> On 2017-12-23 12:03, rickman wrote: >>>>>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 10:39 AM: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No one is saying there aren't a few passenger routes that make money. >>>>>>>> It is possible. But you can't run a railroad on passenger service. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not true. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2015/09/01/bullet-trains-and-the-economics-of-high-speed-railways >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Quote "Within one decade, the line generated enough income to cover its >>>>>>> development and running costs". They are clocking in profits year after year. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, this conversation has been about US trains. Should have said, "in >>>>>> the US". Of course it is possible with something like bullet trains, but >>>>>> again we are discussing existing rail service. The railroads in the US >>>>>> aren't going to build "bullet" trains on their dime. So for all practical >>>>>> purposes in the US, there will not be profitable passenger railroads. >>>>>> >>>>>> If there is enough usage to gain other benefits, I would support subsidies >>>>>> of specific rail routes. But they don't seem to work well with a delicate >>>>>> balance between how much subsidy and how much usage. Some lines are worth >>>>>> the expense, others aren't. >>>>>> >>>>>> Remember, a rail line is not a railroad! >>>>> >>>>> Actually, you should have read more of that article. "It comes down to >>>>> geographics and population density. It’s going to work very well in some >>>>> countries and not so well in other countries.” Elsewhere they discuss >>>>> failures and non-starters in Taiwan, Spain, Australia and the US. >>>> >>>> And that, in a nutshell, has been the *entire* argument, here. >>>> >>>>> At best rail passenger service is hit or miss. >>>> >>>> Mass transit only works where there is a mass of people (all traveling >>>> from one place to another). >>>> >>> >>> We've got plenty of that in the US. One example of many is Silicon >>> Valley. Rents and home prices are unaffordable for many so they must >>> live in the bedroom communties around. Farther away than lightrail goes. >>> Job mobility is extremely high. Population density is very high. All >>> that is the perfect breeding ground for passenger rail. Or in this case, >>> would be. >> >> No, we really don't have a lot of that in the US. A *few* large >> cities, perhaps, but that's it. There is a vast territory between >> those few waste islands that has no use for passenger rail of any >> kind. Few cities are prime candidates, for that matter. >> > >When have you been in the Bay Area last time? When one city ends the >next one begins, immediately. There is no free turf in between. There >can't be because it would be a colossal waste of financial opportunity >to let any land sit idle (unless mandated by some enviro-whatever agency). Uh, Joerg, the world doesn't revolve around San Fransicko.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-24 07:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <faa0faFrugtU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #489182 |
On 2017-12-23 12:27, rickman wrote: > rickman wrote on 12/23/2017 3:17 PM: >> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 3:09 PM: >>> On 2017-12-23 12:03, rickman wrote: >>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 10:39 AM: >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> No one is saying there aren't a few passenger routes that make money. >>>> It is possible. But you can't run a railroad on passenger service. >>>> >>> >>> Not true. >>> >>> https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2015/09/01/bullet-trains-and-the-economics-of-high-speed-railways >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Quote "Within one decade, the line generated enough income to cover its >>> development and running costs". They are clocking in profits year >>> after year. >> >> Sorry, this conversation has been about US trains. Should have said, "in >> the US". Of course it is possible with something like bullet trains, but >> again we are discussing existing rail service. The railroads in the US >> aren't going to build "bullet" trains on their dime. So for all >> practical >> purposes in the US, there will not be profitable passenger railroads. >> They can be. Proof was the Erie-Lackawanna rail line from NJ into NYC which I rode. It was very profitable. IIRC that ended in the early 90's. But yeah, largely we have screwed up when it comes to passenger rail, or public ground transportation in general. >> If there is enough usage to gain other benefits, I would support >> subsidies >> of specific rail routes. But they don't seem to work well with a >> delicate >> balance between how much subsidy and how much usage. Some lines are >> worth >> the expense, others aren't. >> >> Remember, a rail line is not a railroad! > You have to make it one. > Actually, you should have read more of that article. "It comes down to > geographics and population density. It’s going to work very well in some > countries and not so well in other countries.” Elsewhere they discuss > failures and non-starters in Taiwan, Spain, Australia and the US. > > At best rail passenger service is hit or miss. > It is unless people can plan and refrain from political shenanigans or pet projects such as the bullet train in California (which will never make money and I hope that project just goes away). -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-24 12:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p1onqn$itg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #489237 |
Joerg wrote on 12/24/2017 10:46 AM: > On 2017-12-23 12:27, rickman wrote: >> rickman wrote on 12/23/2017 3:17 PM: >>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 3:09 PM: >>>> On 2017-12-23 12:03, rickman wrote: >>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 10:39 AM: >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> No one is saying there aren't a few passenger routes that make money. >>>>> It is possible. But you can't run a railroad on passenger service. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Not true. >>>> >>>> https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2015/09/01/bullet-trains-and-the-economics-of-high-speed-railways >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Quote "Within one decade, the line generated enough income to cover its >>>> development and running costs". They are clocking in profits year >>>> after year. >>> >>> Sorry, this conversation has been about US trains. Should have said, "in >>> the US". Of course it is possible with something like bullet trains, but >>> again we are discussing existing rail service. The railroads in the US >>> aren't going to build "bullet" trains on their dime. So for all >>> practical >>> purposes in the US, there will not be profitable passenger railroads. >>> > > They can be. Proof was the Erie-Lackawanna rail line from NJ into NYC which > I rode. It was very profitable. IIRC that ended in the early 90's. Yes, sounds highly profitable. Then why did it end? How do you know it was profitable? I'm getting tired of saying... any one line does not a railroad make. > But yeah, largely we have screwed up when it comes to passenger rail, or > public ground transportation in general. > > >>> If there is enough usage to gain other benefits, I would support >>> subsidies >>> of specific rail routes. But they don't seem to work well with a >>> delicate >>> balance between how much subsidy and how much usage. Some lines are >>> worth >>> the expense, others aren't. >>> >>> Remember, a rail line is not a railroad! >> > > You have to make it one. Lol! >> Actually, you should have read more of that article. "It comes down to >> geographics and population density. It’s going to work very well in some >> countries and not so well in other countries.” Elsewhere they discuss >> failures and non-starters in Taiwan, Spain, Australia and the US. >> >> At best rail passenger service is hit or miss. >> > > It is unless people can plan and refrain from political shenanigans or pet > projects such as the bullet train in California (which will never make money > and I hope that project just goes away). Why don't you stick to things you actually know? Railroads clearly isn't one of them. If it were easy to make money on passenger rail in the US we would see a lot more of it. Even in ideal markets like commuter routes in big cities, they don't do well. Even the DC metro has to be subsidized! -- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-25 21:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <EUi0C.64062$EO4.55548@fx28.iad> |
| In reply to | #489237 |
On 12/24/2017 10:46 AM, Joerg wrote: > On 2017-12-23 12:27, rickman wrote: >> rickman wrote on 12/23/2017 3:17 PM: >>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 3:09 PM: >>>> On 2017-12-23 12:03, rickman wrote: >>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 10:39 AM: >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> No one is saying there aren't a few passenger routes that make money. >>>>> It is possible. But you can't run a railroad on passenger service. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Not true. >>>> >>>> https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2015/09/01/bullet-trains-and-the-economics-of-high-speed-railways >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Quote "Within one decade, the line generated enough income to cover its >>>> development and running costs". They are clocking in profits year >>>> after year. >>> >>> Sorry, this conversation has been about US trains. Should have said, >>> "in >>> the US". Of course it is possible with something like bullet trains, >>> but >>> again we are discussing existing rail service. The railroads in the US >>> aren't going to build "bullet" trains on their dime. So for all >>> practical >>> purposes in the US, there will not be profitable passenger railroads. >>> > > They can be. Proof was the Erie-Lackawanna rail line from NJ into NYC > which I rode. It was very profitable. IIRC that ended in the early 90's. > > But yeah, largely we have screwed up when it comes to passenger rail, or > public ground transportation in general. > > >>> If there is enough usage to gain other benefits, I would support >>> subsidies >>> of specific rail routes. But they don't seem to work well with a >>> delicate >>> balance between how much subsidy and how much usage. Some lines are >>> worth >>> the expense, others aren't. >>> >>> Remember, a rail line is not a railroad! >> > > You have to make it one. > > >> Actually, you should have read more of that article. "It comes down to >> geographics and population density. It’s going to work very well in some >> countries and not so well in other countries.” Elsewhere they discuss >> failures and non-starters in Taiwan, Spain, Australia and the US. >> >> At best rail passenger service is hit or miss. >> > > It is unless people can plan and refrain from political shenanigans or > pet projects such as the bullet train in California (which will never > make money and I hope that project just goes away). > One of the stumbling blocks was the FRA, which historically has had extremely strict standards on what types of railway vehicle could be operated on the lines under its jurisdiction. <https://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/04/12/how-federal-rules-make-it-harder-to-build-trains-in-america/> In other news, there's a company in New England seeking to build the first major private passenger rail service to open in the US in probably 70 years, between Providence RI, Worcester, and Concord NH. They claim their research shows that western Massachusetts and Rhode Island (whose current rail service is dismal) could provide enough commuters to be profitable, and I believe it. I wish it were there now cuz I'd love to be able to live in western MA and commute to Providence by train. <http://www.bsrc.com/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-23 20:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lf1u3d51itfpnhg5ogvum1cbdg7fjl9drb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #489176 |
On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 15:03:40 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >Joerg wrote on 12/23/2017 10:39 AM: >> 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. > >No one is saying there aren't a few passenger routes that make money. It is >possible. But you can't run a railroad on passenger service. > > >> 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. > >No one is talking about "shorthaul" freight other than you. Why did you >bring it up? Intermodal changed the short/long-haul equation a *lot*. >Yes, rail works best with long trains hauling lots of heavy freight that >isn't practical to haul other ways. Again, intermodal changed freight rail considerably. I see a *lot* (as in miles of them) of auto haulers on the rails, these days, too. It's not just raw materials. >Here it is coal and ore and cars >to/from the port of Baltimore. When I worked for the railroad and dug under >the tracks, the ballast was cemented together by the ashes of steam engines >long gone. Now the ballast is covered by pieces of taconite fallen from the >hopper cars. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-20 13:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p1ea9d$nrj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #488848 |
bitrex wrote on 12/20/2017 8:08 AM: > On 12/19/2017 07:44 PM, Joerg wrote: >> On 2017-12-19 16:25, rickman wrote: >>> Joerg wrote on 12/19/2017 6:56 PM: >>>> On 2017-12-19 15:46, rickman wrote: >>>>> Joerg wrote on 12/19/2017 6:01 PM: >>>>>> On 2017-12-19 04:00, bitrex wrote: >>>>>>> <https://jalopnik.com/what-causes-amtrak-trains-to-derail-1821404755> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> $800 million spent on the project you'd think they could spend a few >>>>>>> bucks on a crew that knew how to slow down going around a curve. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The really sad news is that the technology to avoid this has been >>>>>> around and >>>>>> successfully used in Germany since before World War II. They call it >>>>>> Inductive Train Safeguarding or Indusi. That slows down and even brings >>>>>> trains to a full stop, overriding an offending operator. It is not >>>>>> rocket >>>>>> science. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yet we have all those so-called "licensed engineers" who are >>>>>> supposed to >>>>>> "safeguard the public" and blah-blah, then fail on the simplest and >>>>>> most >>>>>> obvious points. They should never have signed and stamped such "system" >>>>>> designs. Yet they did and that has killed people over and over again. >>>>> >>>>> The DC metro was fully automated until the accident that killed nine >>>>> people by a train hitting a stopped train that wasn't seen by the >>>>> system. >>>> >>>> >>>> Did they ever find out why the system did not register the stopped train? >>> >>> I posted that in another comment. >> >> >> Must have been in another thread. >> >> >>> ... The device in that block had a weird >>> rapid intermittent that the system didn't recognize as a failure, but it >>> didn't report the train. Maybe the system should provide some feedback >>> to the train operator so if the system looses track of a train, at least >>> the operator knows and can alert someone to manually flag it's position. >>> >> >> There are better ways than that, see further below. >> >> >>> That is what is different between train dispatch and air traffic >>> control, at least with an automated system. The train dropped off the >>> map and the system didn't flag an error. I think it operates at a more >>> fundamental level based on always knowing when a train is in a block and >>> not letting traffic into that block or any adjacent block. No thought >>> to tracking anything. >>> >> >> That is a serious system design error. >> >>> >>>> One of the nine was the operator who didn't put on the brakes >>>>> until the train was less than 500 feet from the back of the other >>>>> train. I didn't follow the series of Post articles to find out how much >>>>> sooner she could have seen the stopped train. One train should never >>>>> see another, stopped or not. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That is one of the accidents that the German Indusi system prevents. It >>>> disects pretty much their whole rail system into blocks. A train will >>>> not be >>>> allowed to enter a block in which another train is present, moving or >>>> not. >>>> If the operator won't apply the brakes in time the Indusi system >>>> overrides. >>>> I believe nowadays that event is being recorded and the operator would be >>>> required to do some explaining. >>> >>> How is this different from the US system? Sounds just like what was >>> described in the paper. >>> >> >> As I said it divides a track into blocks of sections. There are WW-II >> movies where the resistance and sabotage groups mess with the Nazi train >> system (which they had partly equipped with this Indusi system). You can >> see the big screens that show where the trains were. Big white boards with >> lights in them. That's pretty much how my grandpa who was a train engineer >> described it to me. >> >>> >>>> It is not 100% fail-safe and there are some lonely single-line sections >>>> without this automation but it would have prevented most of the serious >>>> train wrecks we had in the US. >>> >>> How does a German system prevent US wrecks? >>> >> >> If a detector into sector 16 misses a train then this train is assumed not >> to have left sector 15 even if it did. That means that a train traveling >> through sector 14 will be stopped via a sign which cannot be set to "GO" >> until sector 15 is signaled as clear. If the train operator fails to >> engage the brakes the train will be stopped automatically. Sort of a >> double-safety. This can result in a huge traffic clog but that is better >> than people dying. >> >> >>> >>>>> I recall riding the subway and looking up the tunnel I could just see >>>>> the tail of a train that left the station and was preventing the next >>>>> train from coming to pick us up. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Subways often have good automation in the US. It's the railroads that >>>> are on >>>> Flintstonian technology. >>> >>> They still have a great safety record. It's only being discussed here >>> because it is sensational. >> >> >> Many train wrecks were avoidable with rather simpe, technology. Like this >> one: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chatsworth_train_collision >> >> >>> ... The real disaster is autos. But everyone >>> accepts that. >> >> >> 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> Notice how slow the train is going. It's actually the passenger service the railroads would like to ditch. Rails are never going to be high speed except at great expense and in very limited, dense markets. The US has vast stretches of open space and high mountains. Trains are a slow way to navigate that. Passenger service seems to work ok in much of the north east US which is densely populated. Even there it is hard to turn a profit which is what it's all about. -- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-20 18:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <65y_B.72171$fm1.46645@fx17.am4> |
| In reply to | #488877 |
On 20/12/17 18:31, rickman wrote: > Passenger service seems to work ok in much of the north east US which is > densely populated. Even there it is hard to turn a profit which is what it's > all about. Arguably it is also about enabling/facilitating all the other city-based activities that need to turn a profit. None of the other activities could individually justify the costs, and the tragedy of the commons applies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-20 14:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <PAy_B.23817$oY6.4214@fx26.iad> |
| In reply to | #488879 |
On 12/20/2017 01:36 PM, Tom Gardner wrote: > On 20/12/17 18:31, rickman wrote: >> Passenger service seems to work ok in much of the north east US which is >> densely populated. Even there it is hard to turn a profit which is >> what it's >> all about. > > Arguably it is also about enabling/facilitating all the > other city-based activities that need to turn a profit. > None of the other activities could individually justify > the costs, and the tragedy of the commons applies. "You can't turn a profit on long-distance train service!" except that Chicago -> San Francisco and New York -> Orlando are two of Amtrak's most sold-out routes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-12-20 12:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <o2hl3d5p35746eqiv9n74obg4k69s0015n@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #488884 |
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:10:39 -0500, bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >On 12/20/2017 01:36 PM, Tom Gardner wrote: >> On 20/12/17 18:31, rickman wrote: >>> Passenger service seems to work ok in much of the north east US which is >>> densely populated. Even there it is hard to turn a profit which is >>> what it's >>> all about. >> >> Arguably it is also about enabling/facilitating all the >> other city-based activities that need to turn a profit. >> None of the other activities could individually justify >> the costs, and the tragedy of the commons applies. > >"You can't turn a profit on long-distance train service!" except that >Chicago -> San Francisco and New York -> Orlando are two of Amtrak's >most sold-out routes. Are they profitable? -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 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