Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #213056 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-08-24 14:05 -0700 |
| Last post | 2020-08-29 11:36 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 98 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-24 14:05 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-24 18:50 -0400
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-25 14:29 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-24 17:29 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-25 14:33 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 18:29 -0400
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-26 00:12 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 20:37 -0400
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-26 04:47 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-26 11:37 -0400
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-26 14:35 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-26 18:20 -0400
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-26 20:39 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 00:13 -0400
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-27 07:50 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 18:59 -0400
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-08-27 16:04 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-27 11:53 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 19:00 -0400
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-27 16:40 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-28 12:54 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-27 16:58 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-27 18:51 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-27 19:42 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-27 12:03 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-27 16:40 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-28 08:14 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-28 10:28 +0100
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-28 09:32 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-28 11:10 +0100
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-08-31 17:31 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 19:51 -0400
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-08-28 14:26 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 19:14 -0400
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-08-28 14:21 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-29 00:28 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-31 16:23 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-31 19:40 -0400
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Fred Smith <fred@thejanitor.corp> - 2020-09-01 01:39 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-31 22:13 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-09-01 04:40 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 17:05 -0500
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-01 08:48 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-01 06:34 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-09-01 19:09 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-09-01 16:57 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-02 06:29 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> - 2020-09-02 03:26 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-02 06:35 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 09:42 -0500
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-02 09:53 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> - 2020-09-02 22:42 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-09-03 11:38 -0500
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-03 10:16 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 jtmpreno <none@znet.com> - 2020-09-20 21:14 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-02 06:35 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2020-09-02 11:25 -0400
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 04:24 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-09-01 17:01 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC trains and planes, Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 20:15 -0400
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2020-08-29 00:11 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-29 11:34 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-29 21:52 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2020-08-26 22:43 -0500
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-27 11:52 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-27 16:40 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-27 11:59 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-27 07:50 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 19:01 -0400
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-27 16:45 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 20:00 -0400
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-27 20:12 -0400
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-08-28 14:20 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 11:13 -0400
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-28 07:20 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 13:13 -0400
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 13:38 -0400
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 16:51 -0400
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-28 11:28 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-28 18:38 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-08-28 18:50 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-08-28 18:46 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 16:52 -0400
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-28 15:15 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 18:29 -0400
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-08-28 23:19 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-28 18:08 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-29 00:58 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-28 22:47 -0400
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-08-29 02:51 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-08-29 03:25 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-29 11:28 -0700
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-08-29 14:21 -0500
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-08-28 23:12 +0100
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-28 22:51 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-08-29 08:17 -0500
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-08-28 00:14 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-29 11:36 -0700
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-29 00:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <73f1fb60-a30c-4f5d-9996-00563b57c96en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #213234 |
On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 1:39:08 PM UTC+10, Peter Flass wrote:
> J. Clarke <j.......@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 14:35:53 -0700 (PDT), h......@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Tuesday, August 25, 2020 at 6:29:43 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 14:33:22 -0700 (PDT), h......@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Monday, August 24, 2020 at 8:29:16 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, August 24, 2020 at 3:05:28 PM UTC-6, h......@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Saw this ad and thought it was neat. Bygone days.
> >>>>>> (enlarge for clarity).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> https://archive.org/details/the-saturday-evening-post-1951-02-17/page/n61
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Oh, for the real thing. Not one by Lionel.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is a New York Central ad
> >>>> https://archive.org/details/the-saturday-evening-post-1946-06-08/page/n130/mode/1up
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is a Pullman ad:
> >>>> https://archive.org/details/the-saturday-evening-post-1946-06-08/page/n152/mode/1up
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Those trains offered real luxury. But I am told they
> >>>> were not cheap. Pullman travel was mostly for the
> >>>> well-to-do or once in a lifetime, basically too expensive
> >>>> for working people. Dining cars were too expensive.
> >>>> Some railroads offered 'lunch counter cars' which
> >>>> offered sandwiches and cheaper food and less luxury.
> >>>>
> >>>> These ads are from the Saturday Evening Post. My sense
> >>>> is that was a more upscale magazine, not as much for
> >>>> working people. Of course, Greyhound advertised
> >>>> a lot in it as well, and Greyhound pushed price
> >>>> as its selling point.
> >>>
> >>> And not much has changed. United will fly you from NY to LA in 8.5
> >>> hours for 134 bucks ("Economy most restrictive") or 408 for first
> >>> class. Amtrak will charge you 176 bucks for the same trip, take 3
> >>> days, and you sleep in your seat, or for 800 bucks you can have a
> >>> sleeper.
> >>
> >> Amtrak's rates these days aren't indicative of anything.
> >> Certain elements have mandated Amtrak be profitable,
> >> something even the old line railroads were unable to do.
> >> So, Amtrak's fares are ridiculously high. The real goal
> >> is to drive away ridership as an excuse to kill Amtrak off.
> >
> > The old line railroads made plenty of profit until air travel got
> > cheap.
> >
> > What are you proposing, that passenger railroads be run at a loss so
> > that people who don't like to fly can ride trains?
> >
> How much money do interstate highways make? All transportation is heavily
> subsidized, highways, airports, etc. It’s a public service. The US has a
> third-world rail system, for short-haul intercity (east and west coast) it
> is more cost-effective than flying,
The U.S. lost its high-performance systems. There existed high-speed
intercity electric railways in very many cities that were built in the 1920s.
By the 1950s, many were gone.
The electroliners ran from Chicago to Milwaukee, starting in the
1940s.
Speed? 90 mph.
LA had the big red cars, speed 45-50 mph.
Pacific Electric ran an extensive network with 2,500 scheduled trains a day.
The "trains" consisted of 1, 2, 3, or 4 cars. Each car had its own
trolley pole, and motors, and could be operated single, or in multiple
units (EMU's).
The high-speed interurbans were mostly gone by the 1950s and 60s.
> and if we upgraded our system to the
> equivalent of the rest of the world it would be faster downtown to
> downtown.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-29 11:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <1c33b458-f764-4a1a-95e5-88fd4643fedeo@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #213398 |
On Saturday, August 29, 2020 at 3:11:59 AM UTC-4, Robin Vowels wrote: > The U.S. lost its high-performance systems. There existed high-speed > intercity electric railways in very many cities that were built in the 1920s. > By the 1950s, many were gone. Even before the shooting stopped in WW II, government highway departments were planning improved and new roads. Many turnpikes were built (see separate post). After the war, people couldn't get new cars fast enough. They abandoned train travel. Unfortunately, the railroads at the time were forbidden was eliminating unwanted trains or to modernize with efficiencies, greatly adding to their costs. That experience embittered them and they just wanted out. So, even trains with good patronage and profits were in trouble. > The electroliners ran from Chicago to Milwaukee, starting in the > 1940s. > Speed? 90 mph. Yes. They served in Phila afterwards. Rode super smooth and quiet. Even had a bar on board. > LA had the big red cars, speed 45-50 mph. > Pacific Electric ran an extensive network with 2,500 scheduled trains a day. > The "trains" consisted of 1, 2, 3, or 4 cars. Each car had its own > trolley pole, and motors, and could be operated single, or in multiple > units (EMU's). > > The high-speed interurbans were mostly gone by the 1950s and 60s. LA has often realized it was a mistake to focus on new highways and abandon its PE trains. It's spending a fortune building replacement subways and trolleys. Not helping was pressure from the auto industry (NCL) to get rid of rail and replace it with bus/car.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-29 21:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <hr0111Fdcl4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #213424 |
On 2020-08-29, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately, the railroads at the time were forbidden
> was eliminating unwanted trains or to modernize with
> efficiencies, greatly adding to their costs.
Erm... I'm not sure what you were trying to say here, but I think it was
lost in broken sentence structure.
Niklas
--
Nowadays, I assume that the shinier something is, the more it sucks.
It's much quicker overall.
-- Lawns 'R' Us
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-26 22:43 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <ri7a56$ijv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213227 |
On 8/26/2020 5:20 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 14:35:53 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, August 25, 2020 at 6:29:43 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 14:33:22 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, August 24, 2020 at 8:29:16 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, August 24, 2020 at 3:05:28 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>>> Saw this ad and thought it was neat. Bygone days.
>>>>>> (enlarge for clarity).
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://archive.org/details/the-saturday-evening-post-1951-02-17/page/n61
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, for the real thing. Not one by Lionel.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here is a New York Central ad
>>>> https://archive.org/details/the-saturday-evening-post-1946-06-08/page/n130/mode/1up
>>>>
>>>> Here is a Pullman ad:
>>>> https://archive.org/details/the-saturday-evening-post-1946-06-08/page/n152/mode/1up
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Those trains offered real luxury. But I am told they
>>>> were not cheap. Pullman travel was mostly for the
>>>> well-to-do or once in a lifetime, basically too expensive
>>>> for working people. Dining cars were too expensive.
>>>> Some railroads offered 'lunch counter cars' which
>>>> offered sandwiches and cheaper food and less luxury.
>>>>
>>>> These ads are from the Saturday Evening Post. My sense
>>>> is that was a more upscale magazine, not as much for
>>>> working people. Of course, Greyhound advertised
>>>> a lot in it as well, and Greyhound pushed price
>>>> as its selling point.
>>>
>>> And not much has changed. United will fly you from NY to LA in 8.5
>>> hours for 134 bucks ("Economy most restrictive") or 408 for first
>>> class. Amtrak will charge you 176 bucks for the same trip, take 3
>>> days, and you sleep in your seat, or for 800 bucks you can have a
>>> sleeper.
>>
>> Amtrak's rates these days aren't indicative of anything.
>> Certain elements have mandated Amtrak be profitable,
>> something even the old line railroads were unable to do.
>> So, Amtrak's fares are ridiculously high. The real goal
>> is to drive away ridership as an excuse to kill Amtrak off.
>
> The old line railroads made plenty of profit until air travel got
> cheap.
One of the reasons air travel is cheap is the subsidies they get. You
surely don't think that airlines pay the cost for airports and the Air
Traffic Control system, And pollutant emissions (if we include CO2)
per passenger km of air are higher than car, which is in turn far
higher than rail.
>
> What are you proposing, that passenger railroads be run at a loss so
> that people who don't like to fly can ride trains?
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 11:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <7ba2ed18-dbab-4e1c-9b4e-cf43a16b13e9o@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #213235 |
On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 11:43:36 PM UTC-4, Dave Garland wrote:
> On 8/26/2020 5:20 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 14:35:53 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Tuesday, August 25, 2020 at 6:29:43 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 14:33:22 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Monday, August 24, 2020 at 8:29:16 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, August 24, 2020 at 3:05:28 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Saw this ad and thought it was neat. Bygone days.
> >>>>>> (enlarge for clarity).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> https://archive.org/details/the-saturday-evening-post-1951-02-17/page/n61
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Oh, for the real thing. Not one by Lionel.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is a New York Central ad
> >>>> https://archive.org/details/the-saturday-evening-post-1946-06-08/page/n130/mode/1up
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is a Pullman ad:
> >>>> https://archive.org/details/the-saturday-evening-post-1946-06-08/page/n152/mode/1up
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Those trains offered real luxury. But I am told they
> >>>> were not cheap. Pullman travel was mostly for the
> >>>> well-to-do or once in a lifetime, basically too expensive
> >>>> for working people. Dining cars were too expensive.
> >>>> Some railroads offered 'lunch counter cars' which
> >>>> offered sandwiches and cheaper food and less luxury.
> >>>>
> >>>> These ads are from the Saturday Evening Post. My sense
> >>>> is that was a more upscale magazine, not as much for
> >>>> working people. Of course, Greyhound advertised
> >>>> a lot in it as well, and Greyhound pushed price
> >>>> as its selling point.
> >>>
> >>> And not much has changed. United will fly you from NY to LA in 8.5
> >>> hours for 134 bucks ("Economy most restrictive") or 408 for first
> >>> class. Amtrak will charge you 176 bucks for the same trip, take 3
> >>> days, and you sleep in your seat, or for 800 bucks you can have a
> >>> sleeper.
> >>
> >> Amtrak's rates these days aren't indicative of anything.
> >> Certain elements have mandated Amtrak be profitable,
> >> something even the old line railroads were unable to do.
> >> So, Amtrak's fares are ridiculously high. The real goal
> >> is to drive away ridership as an excuse to kill Amtrak off.
> >
> > The old line railroads made plenty of profit until air travel got
> > cheap.
>
> One of the reasons air travel is cheap is the subsidies they get. You
> surely don't think that airlines pay the cost for airports and the Air
> Traffic Control system, And pollutant emissions (if we include CO2)
> per passenger km of air are higher than car, which is in turn far
> higher than rail.
In the U.S., the airlines went bankrupt and the Feds indirectly
covered their pension obligations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 16:40 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <1360303144.620258914.199783.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #213284 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > > In the U.S., the airlines went bankrupt and the Feds indirectly > covered their pension obligations. > Sort of. They took,over the obligations, but only paid the retirees a fraction of what they were due. A pilot who was supposed to get (just making up numbers here) $100,000/yr might only get $20,000. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 11:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hqplhoF3a5cU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #213227 |
On 2020-08-26, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > What are you proposing, that passenger railroads be run at a loss so > that people who don't like to fly can ride trains? I don't know about Amtrak in particular, but it is my understanding that essentially every passenger railroad in the world runs at a loss and the difference is made up by taxpayers' money. An exception may be Japan Rail, but some claim this is mostly due to creative accounting. It's seen as a worthy goal to encourage riding trains rather than flying or driving. I can understand if this is not a palatable message in the US political climate. Niklas -- "The best way to get something to compile on Linux is to find something that was not developed by Linux developers." -- Graham Reed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 07:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <692437478.620231947.004548.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #213246 |
Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote: > On 2020-08-26, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> What are you proposing, that passenger railroads be run at a loss so >> that people who don't like to fly can ride trains? > > I don't know about Amtrak in particular, but it is my understanding that > essentially every passenger railroad in the world runs at a loss and the > difference is made up by taxpayers' money. An exception may be Japan > Rail, but some claim this is mostly due to creative accounting. > > It's seen as a worthy goal to encourage riding trains rather than flying > or driving. I can understand if this is not a palatable message in the > US political climate. Soon. Biden is a big fan of railroads and regularly commutes by rail between DC and Delaware. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 19:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <epegkf9ctb83qbqnod9lkj31t148nlar02@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #213246 |
On 27 Aug 2020 11:59:52 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote: >On 2020-08-26, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> What are you proposing, that passenger railroads be run at a loss so >> that people who don't like to fly can ride trains? > >I don't know about Amtrak in particular, but it is my understanding that >essentially every passenger railroad in the world runs at a loss and the >difference is made up by taxpayers' money. An exception may be Japan >Rail, but some claim this is mostly due to creative accounting. > >It's seen as a worthy goal to encourage riding trains rather than flying >or driving. I can understand if this is not a palatable message in the >US political climate. Fine, build a train that can get me to Los Angeles in 8 hours. > >Niklas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 16:45 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <1218575620.620264470.614788.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #213297 |
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27 Aug 2020 11:59:52 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote: > >> On 2020-08-26, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> What are you proposing, that passenger railroads be run at a loss so >>> that people who don't like to fly can ride trains? >> >> I don't know about Amtrak in particular, but it is my understanding that >> essentially every passenger railroad in the world runs at a loss and the >> difference is made up by taxpayers' money. An exception may be Japan >> Rail, but some claim this is mostly due to creative accounting. >> >> It's seen as a worthy goal to encourage riding trains rather than flying >> or driving. I can understand if this is not a palatable message in the >> US political climate. > > Fine, build a train that can get me to Los Angeles in 8 hours. From where? Riverside? There’s a sweet spot for trains. Obviously cross-country (US and Canada) is not it. The Northeast corridor, and maybe as far south as Miami, LA to San Francisco, although I see the California high speed rail is bogged down in politics. Maybe Dallas to Houston, etc. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 20:00 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <35igkf9uhb2i8q3t5lodua26cplur613n7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #213307 |
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:45:20 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 27 Aug 2020 11:59:52 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote: >> >>> On 2020-08-26, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> What are you proposing, that passenger railroads be run at a loss so >>>> that people who don't like to fly can ride trains? >>> >>> I don't know about Amtrak in particular, but it is my understanding that >>> essentially every passenger railroad in the world runs at a loss and the >>> difference is made up by taxpayers' money. An exception may be Japan >>> Rail, but some claim this is mostly due to creative accounting. >>> >>> It's seen as a worthy goal to encourage riding trains rather than flying >>> or driving. I can understand if this is not a palatable message in the >>> US political climate. >> >> Fine, build a train that can get me to Los Angeles in 8 hours. > >From where? Riverside? > >There’s a sweet spot for trains. Obviously cross-country (US and Canada) is >not it. The Northeast corridor, and maybe as far south as Miami, LA to San >Francisco, although I see the California high speed rail is bogged down in >politics. Maybe Dallas to Houston, etc. Where are you going to put the track in the Northeast Corridor? It's some of the most expensive land in the country. This is something poeple forget about trains--that track has to go all the way along the route, it's not like an airport that you can stick in the local swamp.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-27 20:12 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <ri9i4g$8qi$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213310 |
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:45:20 -0700, Peter Flass > <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 27 Aug 2020 11:59:52 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2020-08-26, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> What are you proposing, that passenger railroads be run at a loss so >>>>> that people who don't like to fly can ride trains? >>>> >>>> I don't know about Amtrak in particular, but it is my understanding that >>>> essentially every passenger railroad in the world runs at a loss and the >>>> difference is made up by taxpayers' money. An exception may be Japan >>>> Rail, but some claim this is mostly due to creative accounting. >>>> >>>> It's seen as a worthy goal to encourage riding trains rather than flying >>>> or driving. I can understand if this is not a palatable message in the >>>> US political climate. >>> >>> Fine, build a train that can get me to Los Angeles in 8 hours. >> >>From where? Riverside? >> >>There’s a sweet spot for trains. Obviously cross-country (US and Canada) is >>not it. The Northeast corridor, and maybe as far south as Miami, LA to San >>Francisco, although I see the California high speed rail is bogged down in >>politics. Maybe Dallas to Houston, etc. > > Where are you going to put the track in the Northeast Corridor? It's > some of the most expensive land in the country. This is something > poeple forget about trains--that track has to go all the way along the > route, it's not like an airport that you can stick in the local swamp. There is already track there. I imagine it could be improved for higher speed at rational costs. I was extremely impressed the last time I rode a train from Linden NJ to NYC. I didn't know they had perfected speed control to the point that you could no longer feel the train accelerate. It's a pretty pleasant way to travel. You can't just stick an airport in a swamp (thankfully). There's the matter of roads (or even trains) to get to and from the airport. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 14:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <ap82H.139421$mK4.15002@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #213311 |
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > >You can't just stick an airport in a swamp (thankfully). There's the >matter of roads (or even trains) to get to and from the airport. Although there is always DIA as a counterexample....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 11:13 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <rib6vn$3og$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213329 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes: >>J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: >> >>You can't just stick an airport in a swamp (thankfully). There's the >>matter of roads (or even trains) to get to and from the airport. > > Although there is always DIA as a counterexample.... Defense Intelligence Agency? Dow Jones Industrial Average? Nope, I'm sure you mean DEN Denver International Airport. People also ask Is Den and DIA the same airport? Type in the name of our airport — you know, D-I-A. ... Southwest, United and Delta have no idea where DIA is. That's because the official abbreviation of Denver International Airport is DEN. But locals call it DIA. So, I remember there was something different about access to that thing...Oh, yeah, right from downtown by rail. Really nice. They needed a right of way but Denver is surrounded by a wasteland. I forget how much of the tracks were underground. Beautiful city with the Rockies in the distance. I remember thinking they look like an impenetrable wall. So I had to drive over there to see. You can drive right thru those mountains and there were all kinds of beautiful houses in there. Never saw it in winter. I'm only slightly tempted to leave scenic NJ for that place. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 07:20 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <902601509.620316686.589942.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #213310 |
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:45:20 -0700, Peter Flass > <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 27 Aug 2020 11:59:52 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2020-08-26, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> What are you proposing, that passenger railroads be run at a loss so >>>>> that people who don't like to fly can ride trains? >>>> >>>> I don't know about Amtrak in particular, but it is my understanding that >>>> essentially every passenger railroad in the world runs at a loss and the >>>> difference is made up by taxpayers' money. An exception may be Japan >>>> Rail, but some claim this is mostly due to creative accounting. >>>> >>>> It's seen as a worthy goal to encourage riding trains rather than flying >>>> or driving. I can understand if this is not a palatable message in the >>>> US political climate. >>> >>> Fine, build a train that can get me to Los Angeles in 8 hours. >> >> From where? Riverside? >> >> There’s a sweet spot for trains. Obviously cross-country (US and Canada) is >> not it. The Northeast corridor, and maybe as far south as Miami, LA to San >> Francisco, although I see the California high speed rail is bogged down in >> politics. Maybe Dallas to Houston, etc. > > Where are you going to put the track in the Northeast Corridor? It's > some of the most expensive land in the country. This is something > poeple forget about trains--that track has to go all the way along the > route, it's not like an airport that you can stick in the local swamp. > The right of way is there. It just needs some significant upgrades. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 13:13 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <eneikf53nilgsmahgupekasvco6in7c3g3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #213327 |
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 07:20:16 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:45:20 -0700, Peter Flass >> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 27 Aug 2020 11:59:52 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2020-08-26, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> What are you proposing, that passenger railroads be run at a loss so >>>>>> that people who don't like to fly can ride trains? >>>>> >>>>> I don't know about Amtrak in particular, but it is my understanding that >>>>> essentially every passenger railroad in the world runs at a loss and the >>>>> difference is made up by taxpayers' money. An exception may be Japan >>>>> Rail, but some claim this is mostly due to creative accounting. >>>>> >>>>> It's seen as a worthy goal to encourage riding trains rather than flying >>>>> or driving. I can understand if this is not a palatable message in the >>>>> US political climate. >>>> >>>> Fine, build a train that can get me to Los Angeles in 8 hours. >>> >>> From where? Riverside? >>> >>> There’s a sweet spot for trains. Obviously cross-country (US and Canada) is >>> not it. The Northeast corridor, and maybe as far south as Miami, LA to San >>> Francisco, although I see the California high speed rail is bogged down in >>> politics. Maybe Dallas to Houston, etc. >> >> Where are you going to put the track in the Northeast Corridor? It's >> some of the most expensive land in the country. This is something >> poeple forget about trains--that track has to go all the way along the >> route, it's not like an airport that you can stick in the local swamp. >> > >The right of way is there. It just needs some significant upgrades. So what are you proposing, elevated track everywhere to give additional lines? Tunnel underneath? Or just shut everything down and starve Boston while you do the upgrades?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 13:38 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <ribffc$rt7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213334 |
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 07:20:16 -0700, Peter Flass > <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:45:20 -0700, Peter Flass >>> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 27 Aug 2020 11:59:52 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2020-08-26, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What are you proposing, that passenger railroads be run at a loss so >>>>>>> that people who don't like to fly can ride trains? >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't know about Amtrak in particular, but it is my understanding that >>>>>> essentially every passenger railroad in the world runs at a loss and the >>>>>> difference is made up by taxpayers' money. An exception may be Japan >>>>>> Rail, but some claim this is mostly due to creative accounting. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's seen as a worthy goal to encourage riding trains rather than flying >>>>>> or driving. I can understand if this is not a palatable message in the >>>>>> US political climate. >>>>> >>>>> Fine, build a train that can get me to Los Angeles in 8 hours. >>>> >>>> From where? Riverside? >>>> >>>> There’s a sweet spot for trains. Obviously cross-country (US and Canada) is >>>> not it. The Northeast corridor, and maybe as far south as Miami, LA to San >>>> Francisco, although I see the California high speed rail is bogged down in >>>> politics. Maybe Dallas to Houston, etc. >>> >>> Where are you going to put the track in the Northeast Corridor? It's >>> some of the most expensive land in the country. This is something >>> poeple forget about trains--that track has to go all the way along the >>> route, it's not like an airport that you can stick in the local swamp. >>> >> >>The right of way is there. It just needs some significant upgrades. > > So what are you proposing, elevated track everywhere to give > additional lines? Tunnel underneath? Or just shut everything down > and starve Boston while you do the upgrades? There are 2 or more sets of tracks everywhere I've seen. You work it out. Back when I lived in the Bronx, I lived right next to the tracks for the New Haven. 4 sets of tracks. Although only two sets over the nearby bridge. One day we heard this horrible noise and the ground shook. A freight train had come off the tracks. We walked out and took a look. I was amazed at how far that train plowed through everything, tracks, ties, switches. It came off the tracks and just kept going. Not rolling on it's wheels they were gone. It didn't make it to the bridge but it was at least a few blocks. The train was back up in a couple of days. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 16:51 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <rfrikf9hblhtdbrrbltsfdckt06m8p5nek@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #213336 |
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:38:52 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 07:20:16 -0700, Peter Flass >> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:45:20 -0700, Peter Flass >>>> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 27 Aug 2020 11:59:52 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2020-08-26, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What are you proposing, that passenger railroads be run at a loss so >>>>>>>> that people who don't like to fly can ride trains? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't know about Amtrak in particular, but it is my understanding that >>>>>>> essentially every passenger railroad in the world runs at a loss and the >>>>>>> difference is made up by taxpayers' money. An exception may be Japan >>>>>>> Rail, but some claim this is mostly due to creative accounting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's seen as a worthy goal to encourage riding trains rather than flying >>>>>>> or driving. I can understand if this is not a palatable message in the >>>>>>> US political climate. >>>>>> >>>>>> Fine, build a train that can get me to Los Angeles in 8 hours. >>>>> >>>>> From where? Riverside? >>>>> >>>>> There’s a sweet spot for trains. Obviously cross-country (US and Canada) is >>>>> not it. The Northeast corridor, and maybe as far south as Miami, LA to San >>>>> Francisco, although I see the California high speed rail is bogged down in >>>>> politics. Maybe Dallas to Houston, etc. >>>> >>>> Where are you going to put the track in the Northeast Corridor? It's >>>> some of the most expensive land in the country. This is something >>>> poeple forget about trains--that track has to go all the way along the >>>> route, it's not like an airport that you can stick in the local swamp. >>>> >>> >>>The right of way is there. It just needs some significant upgrades. >> >> So what are you proposing, elevated track everywhere to give >> additional lines? Tunnel underneath? Or just shut everything down >> and starve Boston while you do the upgrades? > >There are 2 or more sets of tracks everywhere I've seen. >You work it out. There have to be more than 2 sets for high speed passenger rail. And they have to be arranged so that it's hard for anybody to get hit by the train. >Back when I lived in the Bronx, I lived right next to the tracks for >the New Haven. 4 sets of tracks. Although only two sets over the >nearby bridge. > >One day we heard this horrible noise and the ground shook. >A freight train had come off the tracks. We walked out and took a look. >I was amazed at how far that train plowed through everything, tracks, >ties, switches. It came off the tracks and just kept going. >Not rolling on it's wheels they were gone. > >It didn't make it to the bridge but it was at least a few blocks. > >The train was back up in a couple of days.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 11:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <432927378.620327779.786129.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #213334 |
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 07:20:16 -0700, Peter Flass > <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:45:20 -0700, Peter Flass >>> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 27 Aug 2020 11:59:52 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2020-08-26, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What are you proposing, that passenger railroads be run at a loss so >>>>>>> that people who don't like to fly can ride trains? >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't know about Amtrak in particular, but it is my understanding that >>>>>> essentially every passenger railroad in the world runs at a loss and the >>>>>> difference is made up by taxpayers' money. An exception may be Japan >>>>>> Rail, but some claim this is mostly due to creative accounting. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's seen as a worthy goal to encourage riding trains rather than flying >>>>>> or driving. I can understand if this is not a palatable message in the >>>>>> US political climate. >>>>> >>>>> Fine, build a train that can get me to Los Angeles in 8 hours. >>>> >>>> From where? Riverside? >>>> >>>> There’s a sweet spot for trains. Obviously cross-country (US and Canada) is >>>> not it. The Northeast corridor, and maybe as far south as Miami, LA to San >>>> Francisco, although I see the California high speed rail is bogged down in >>>> politics. Maybe Dallas to Houston, etc. >>> >>> Where are you going to put the track in the Northeast Corridor? It's >>> some of the most expensive land in the country. This is something >>> poeple forget about trains--that track has to go all the way along the >>> route, it's not like an airport that you can stick in the local swamp. >>> >> >> The right of way is there. It just needs some significant upgrades. > > So what are you proposing, elevated track everywhere to give > additional lines? Tunnel underneath? Or just shut everything down > and starve Boston while you do the upgrades? > I think most rail thru cities already uses some combination of the above. There are relatively few grade crossings there IME. Outside the cities there are grade crossings and curves that are too sharp to allow higher speeds. There are ways of fixing these problems, plus adding welded rails, that don’t require shutting everything down - expensive, but do-able. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 18:38 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <hqt18rFk0d1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #213338 |
On 2020-08-28, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I think most rail thru cities already uses some combination of the above.
> There are relatively few grade crossings there IME. Outside the cities
> there are grade crossings and curves that are too sharp to allow higher
> speeds. There are ways of fixing these problems, plus adding welded rails,
> that don’t require shutting everything down - expensive, but do-able.
Wow, welded rails aren't used already? Around here, I think it's
exclusively welded, with smoothing the rails off to make for a smooth
ride.
But then, the US and Europe are worlds apart when it comes to
railway/-road culture, I gather.
Niklas
--
I think it's a beautiful day to go to the zoo and feed the ducks.
To the lions.
-- Brian Kantor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web