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 | 18 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 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 18:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <vlc2H.197401$HY4.58981@fx37.iad> |
| In reply to | #213339 |
Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> writes: >On 2020-08-28, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> I think most rail thru cities already uses some combination of the above. >> There are relatively few grade crossings there IME. Outside the cities >> there are grade crossings and curves that are too sharp to allow higher >> speeds. There are ways of fixing these problems, plus adding welded rails, >> that don’t require shutting everything down - expensive, but do-able. > >Wow, welded rails aren't used already? Around here, I think it's >exclusively welded, with smoothing the rails off to make for a smooth >ride. Well, the US does have 94,372 miles of track (as of 2014), down from 250,000 miles of track (as of 1918). That's a lot of track to replace to get welded rail, and most of it is only used for freight. https://www.railserve.com/stats_records/railroad_route_miles.html Welded rail is used in many passenger transportation cooridors and most light-rail applications.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 18:46 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <sic2H.197400$HY4.22879@fx37.iad> |
| In reply to | #213338 |
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: >J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. Indeed. High-speed rail on the SF peninsula will use the existing ROW from Gilroy to SF, and a new tunnel from the south side of SF (4th & townsend) to the ferry building terminal. Along some of the ROW they may need to reacquire property that was part of the ROW twenty years ago when a couple of peninsula communities grade separated the caltrain ROW (by elevating the tracks on new earth) because they only elevated two tracks worth of ROW, and the upper peninsula really needs four tracks for proper handling of locals and high-speed trains.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 16:52 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <6irikfpuo3ous6cj3al70h4jl54j2fach1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #213338 |
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 11:28:16 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >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. Are there ways of making the freight train get out of the way? Are there ways of keeping old ladies from stalling in crossings?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 15:15 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <1162588992.620344144.965379.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #213358 |
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 11:28:16 -0700, Peter Flass > <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > Are there ways of making the freight train get out of the way? Are > there ways of keeping old ladies from stalling in crossings? > Forbthe first, yes. They have these new things called computers which can track the trains and switch them to the appropriate tracks. Unfortunately the freight railroads own the tracks, and freight has priority over passenger, so a fast passenger train might have to sit at a siding to,let a slow freight go by. I would think Congress could fix this by passing a law saying that passengers have priority. For the second, no. People even ignore warnings and try to drive around closed crossing gates. I just saw a news story where a guy in a wheelchair(!) got stuck on the tracks and was rescued by a passer-by. The only solution is to eliminate grade crossings. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 18:29 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <641jkf1qv8d74ufh3q9bcerof9aicf5fkn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #213363 |
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 15:15:13 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 11:28:16 -0700, Peter Flass >> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> Are there ways of making the freight train get out of the way? Are >> there ways of keeping old ladies from stalling in crossings? >> > >Forbthe first, yes. They have these new things called computers which can >track the trains and switch them to the appropriate tracks. You've got two tracks. There's only so much shifting you can do when one train is going 20 mph and is 5 miles long and the other is going 200 mph. >Unfortunately >the freight railroads own the tracks, and freight has priority over >passenger, so a fast passenger train might have to sit at a siding to,let a >slow freight go by. I would think Congress could fix this by passing a law >saying that passengers have priority. They could, and then the freight lines would invoke the clauses in their contracts that let them tell the goverment to go screw itself. >For the second, no. People even ignore warnings and try to drive around >closed crossing gates. I just saw a news story where a guy in a >wheelchair(!) got stuck on the tracks and was rescued by a passer-by. The >only solution is to eliminate grade crossings. So how do you do that without massive rebuilding of the tracks?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 23:19 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <uig2H.140116$NB.62985@fx20.iad> |
| In reply to | #213372 |
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: >On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 15:15:13 -0700, 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. >>> >>> Are there ways of making the freight train get out of the way? Are >>> there ways of keeping old ladies from stalling in crossings? >>> >> >>Forbthe first, yes. They have these new things called computers which can >>track the trains and switch them to the appropriate tracks. > >You've got two tracks. There's only so much shifting you can do when >one train is going 20 mph and is 5 miles long and the other is going >200 mph. What a nattering nabob of negativity you are today. So put sidings in strategic locations. It's not rocket science. >So how do you do that without massive rebuilding of the tracks? The same way it has been done for the last century. One crossing at a time. It's not impossible to do, even while the tracks are in use. I've seen it done many times over the last 30 years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 18:08 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <1554830758.620355485.551045.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #213372 |
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 15:15:13 -0700, Peter Flass > <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 11:28:16 -0700, Peter Flass >>> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Are there ways of making the freight train get out of the way? Are >>> there ways of keeping old ladies from stalling in crossings? >>> >> >> Forbthe first, yes. They have these new things called computers which can >> track the trains and switch them to the appropriate tracks. > > You've got two tracks. There's only so much shifting you can do when > one train is going 20 mph and is 5 miles long and the other is going > 200 mph. > >> Unfortunately >> the freight railroads own the tracks, and freight has priority over >> passenger, so a fast passenger train might have to sit at a siding to,let a >> slow freight go by. I would think Congress could fix this by passing a law >> saying that passengers have priority. > > They could, and then the freight lines would invoke the clauses in > their contracts that let them tell the goverment to go screw itself. > >> For the second, no. People even ignore warnings and try to drive around >> closed crossing gates. I just saw a news story where a guy in a >> wheelchair(!) got stuck on the tracks and was rescued by a passer-by. The >> only solution is to eliminate grade crossings. > > So how do you do that without massive rebuilding of the tracks? > One or two at a time -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-29 00:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <ric980$25fk$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #213363 |
In article <1162588992.620344144.965379.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >For the first, yes. They have these new things called computers which can >track the trains and switch them to the appropriate tracks. Unfortunately >the freight railroads own the tracks, and freight has priority over >passenger, so a fast passenger train might have to sit at a siding to,let a >slow freight go by. I would think Congress could fix this by passing a law >saying that passengers have priority. They have, but the freight railroads aren't very good at obeying it. >For the second, no. People even ignore warnings and try to drive around >closed crossing gates. I just saw a news story where a guy in a >wheelchair(!) got stuck on the tracks and was rescued by a passer-by. The >only solution is to eliminate grade crossings. On the Northeast Corridor they've removed all grade crossings except for a few in eastern Connecticut. Those have quad gates that are hard to drive around and a system that is supposed to alert the train if someone's on the tracks, although I doubt in time to do anything about it. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 22:47 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <bhfjkfp51jluogff59dc9ebl6dhemvggve@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #213381 |
On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 00:58:40 -0000 (UTC), John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote: >In article <1162588992.620344144.965379.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>, >Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>For the first, yes. They have these new things called computers which can >>track the trains and switch them to the appropriate tracks. Unfortunately >>the freight railroads own the tracks, and freight has priority over >>passenger, so a fast passenger train might have to sit at a siding to,let a >>slow freight go by. I would think Congress could fix this by passing a law >>saying that passengers have priority. > >They have, but the freight railroads aren't very good at obeying it. I thought that law was struck down by the courts. >>For the second, no. People even ignore warnings and try to drive around >>closed crossing gates. I just saw a news story where a guy in a >>wheelchair(!) got stuck on the tracks and was rescued by a passer-by. The >>only solution is to eliminate grade crossings. > >On the Northeast Corridor they've removed all grade crossings except >for a few in eastern Connecticut. Those have quad gates that are hard >to drive around and a system that is supposed to alert the train if >someone's on the tracks, although I doubt in time to do anything about >it. The French make considerable effort to make sure that nobody is on the tracks. Multiple fences, no grade crossings at all, etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-29 02:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <hqtu54FtnbgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #213392 |
On 2020-08-29, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 00:58:40 -0000 (UTC), John Levine
><johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>>
>>On the Northeast Corridor they've removed all grade crossings except
>>for a few in eastern Connecticut. Those have quad gates that are hard
>>to drive around and a system that is supposed to alert the train if
>>someone's on the tracks, although I doubt in time to do anything about
>>it.
>
> The French make considerable effort to make sure that nobody is on the
> tracks. Multiple fences, no grade crossings at all, etc.
That's pretty much mandatory if you're running trains as fast as theirs.
By the time you see (let alone hear) the train, it's too late to get out
of the way.
Even our mere 200 kph (~125 mph) trains have that issue.
Niklas
--
"You don't change the way people think by changing what they say. You change
the way people think with HEADLESS CHARRED BODIES FLYING THROUGH THE AIR.
BLOOD! FLAMES! HELLFIRE AND DAMNATION!"
-- Alistair J. R. Young
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-29 03:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <richqp$2v3f$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #213392 |
In article <bhfjkfp51jluogff59dc9ebl6dhemvggve@4ax.com>, J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>slow freight go by. I would think Congress could fix this by passing a law >>>saying that passengers have priority. >> >>They have, but the freight railroads aren't very good at obeying it. > >I thought that law was struck down by the courts. Nope, it's in effect but poorly enforced. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-29 11:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <26108a18-3213-43dc-bb70-a43544e8840bo@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #213363 |
On Friday, August 28, 2020 at 6:15:16 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > > there ways of keeping old ladies from stalling in crossings? > > > > Forbthe first, yes. They have these new things called computers which can > track the trains and switch them to the appropriate tracks. Unfortunately > the freight railroads own the tracks, and freight has priority over > passenger, so a fast passenger train might have to sit at a siding to,let a > slow freight go by. I would think Congress could fix this by passing a law > saying that passengers have priority. I don't understand why adding passing tracks is so damn expensive these days. I'd guess the new technology would allow making good steel and laying track would be cheaper than in the past. Usually they already have the land since other tracks were ripped up before. Anyway, simply adding more passing tracks in bottlenecks would go a long way toward improving traffic flow. It shouldn't be all that expensive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-29 14:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <4kalkftjotqph6b10k32ocdr3rnaql6ge0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #213422 |
On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 11:28:56 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >On Friday, August 28, 2020 at 6:15:16 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > >> > there ways of keeping old ladies from stalling in crossings? >> > >> >> Forbthe first, yes. They have these new things called computers which can >> track the trains and switch them to the appropriate tracks. Unfortunately >> the freight railroads own the tracks, and freight has priority over >> passenger, so a fast passenger train might have to sit at a siding to,let a >> slow freight go by. I would think Congress could fix this by passing a law >> saying that passengers have priority. > >I don't understand why adding passing tracks is so damn >expensive these days. I'd guess the new technology >would allow making good steel and laying track would >be cheaper than in the past. Usually they already >have the land since other tracks were ripped up before. > >Anyway, simply adding more passing tracks in bottlenecks >would go a long way toward improving traffic flow. It >shouldn't be all that expensive. I have seen railroad tracks that are gone, the right of way being converted to bicycle and hiking paths. -- Jim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 23:12 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <20200828231209.5ee1b977214e394007ddaa9a@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #213358 |
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 16:52:08 -0400 J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > Are there ways of making the freight train get out of the way? Medium crazy idea - freight train is built with rails on top, and ramps front and back that slot over the rails at the bottom, passenger train approaches from behind and goes over. OK totally crazy - but it would be fun to watch. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 22:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <ric1q403077@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #213373 |
On 2020-08-28, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 16:52:08 -0400 > J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Are there ways of making the freight train get out of the way? > > Medium crazy idea - freight train is built with rails on top, and > ramps front and back that slot over the rails at the bottom, passenger train > approaches from behind and goes over. > > OK totally crazy - but it would be fun to watch. Plus you get to see Bruce Willis, Harrison Ford, and Ahnold fight over who gets to do it first. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship. \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult. X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy. / \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-29 08:17 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <3alkkfpkh1n951jmucg8v5mahrkdg7bd98@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #213373 |
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 23:12:09 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 16:52:08 -0400 >J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Are there ways of making the freight train get out of the way? > > Medium crazy idea - freight train is built with rails on top, and >ramps front and back that slot over the rails at the bottom, passenger train >approaches from behind and goes over. > > OK totally crazy - but it would be fun to watch. Especially for the passenger reaction the first few times it happens. -- Jim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-28 00:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951 |
| Message-ID | <ri9i9f011dm@news1.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #213307 |
On 2020-08-27, 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. They've started talking about a high-speed link between Vancouver and Seattle. That'll take some work - currently the line between Vancouver and the border is quite convoluted and slow, and then there's customs to deal with. Last time we took the train to Vancouver, it took two hours from Bellingham until we were finally let off the train to clear customs. (Luck of the draw, they process one car at a time and we were the last one.) Unless you live right in downtown Vancouver, it's faster to drive to Bellingham, clear customs yourself, and catch the train there. Cheaper, too, since the Bellingham station has a cheap long-term parking lot across the street from the station. The current train runs at 80 mph on the American side of the border. The train has its drawbacks, but it's a lot more relaxing than fighting the traffic on I-5. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship. \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult. X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy. / \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-29 11:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <12535e06-1523-4444-aafb-ad3eda63c35eo@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #213056 |
On Monday, August 24, 2020 at 5:05:28 PM UTC-4, 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 more ads Union Pacific https://archive.org/details/the-saturday-evening-post-1953-02-14/page/n97/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/the-saturday-evening-post-1953-03-07/page/n131/mode/2up Pullman > https://archive.org/details/the-saturday-evening-post-1953-02-21/page/n83/mode/2up
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web