Discussion:
OFF TOPIC Sante Fe Super Chief ad, 1951
Add Reply
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2020-08-24 21:05:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
J. Clarke
2020-08-24 22:50:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
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
It is a neat ad. And it reminds me, the Southern Pacific is gone--it
ended in April 2020 with the purchast of SPRINT by T-Mobile. I
suspect most here already know but for those who don't, SPRINT =
Southern Pacific Railroad Internal Network Telecommunications.
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2020-08-25 21:29:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
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
It is a neat ad. And it reminds me, the Southern Pacific is gone--it
ended in April 2020 with the purchast of SPRINT by T-Mobile. I
suspect most here already know but for those who don't, SPRINT =
Southern Pacific Railroad Internal Network Telecommunications.
Here is an SP ad from 1946

https://archive.org/details/the-saturday-evening-post-1946-06-08/page/n140/mode/1up
Quadibloc
2020-08-25 00:29:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
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.

John Savard
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2020-08-25 21:33:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
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.
J. Clarke
2020-08-25 22:29:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
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
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.
Charlie Gibbs
2020-08-26 00:12:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
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
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.
However, the cost of the sleeper is somewhat offset by the price of
the hotel room you don't need during that time...
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <***@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.
J. Clarke
2020-08-26 00:37:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
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
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.
However, the cost of the sleeper is somewhat offset by the price of
the hotel room you don't need during that time...
I'm pretty sure I can get a much more comfortable accomodation than an
Amtrak sleeper for considerably less than $600 a night.
Charlie Gibbs
2020-08-26 04:47:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Post by J. Clarke
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.
However, the cost of the sleeper is somewhat offset by the price of
the hotel room you don't need during that time...
I'm pretty sure I can get a much more comfortable accomodation than
an Amtrak sleeper for considerably less than $600 a night.
Perhaps, but it does include a free trip across the country. :-)
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <***@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.
J. Clarke
2020-08-26 15:37:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Post by J. Clarke
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.
However, the cost of the sleeper is somewhat offset by the price of
the hotel room you don't need during that time...
I'm pretty sure I can get a much more comfortable accomodation than
an Amtrak sleeper for considerably less than $600 a night.
Perhaps, but it does include a free trip across the country. :-)
No, I'm paying 200 on top of that 600 for the trip.
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2020-08-26 21:35:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
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
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.
J. Clarke
2020-08-26 22:20:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
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
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?
Peter Flass
2020-08-27 03:39:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
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
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, and if we upgraded our system to the
equivalent of the rest of the world it would be faster downtown to
downtown.
--
Pete
J. Clarke
2020-08-27 04:13:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 20:39:02 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
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
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, and if we upgraded our system to the
equivalent of the rest of the world it would be faster downtown to
downtown.
It's funny that our inferior rail system moves a higher percentage of
our freight than does the rail system in the EU. It's passengers in
the US who don't like trains.

As for subsidies, the rails are owned and maintained by the freight
lines which are making profits without any subsidies, so why should
passenger rail get subsidies.

As for airports, if airports didn't make money for the government the
government wouldn't build them. There are fees of all sorts
associated with airport use--landing fees, parking fees, rent on
storefronts, etc.

Highways the same--the payments are indirect but if they were pure
cost the government wouldn't be spending to maintain them--there are
taxes on fuel, fines for traffic violations, tolls, taxes on goods
transported, etc.
Peter Flass
2020-08-27 14:50:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 20:39:02 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
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
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, and if we upgraded our system to the
equivalent of the rest of the world it would be faster downtown to
downtown.
It's funny that our inferior rail system moves a higher percentage of
our freight than does the rail system in the EU. It's passengers in
the US who don't like trains.
And I don’t blame them, right now. The service is ridiculous. The equipment
and track is in terrible shape.
Post by J. Clarke
As for subsidies, the rails are owned and maintained by the freight
lines which are making profits without any subsidies, so why should
passenger rail get subsidies.
Freight rail is doing OK, why else would Warren Buffet on the BNSF?
Post by J. Clarke
As for airports, if airports didn't make money for the government the
government wouldn't build them. There are fees of all sorts
associated with airport use--landing fees, parking fees, rent on
storefronts, etc.
Highways the same--the payments are indirect but if they were pure
cost the government wouldn't be spending to maintain them--there are
taxes on fuel, fines for traffic violations, tolls, taxes on goods
transported, etc.
I don’t know the economics of this. There are certainly fees that somewhat
offset the cost, but airports and highways don’t come close to paying their
way. Highways pay no taxes, I don’t think airports do either. Railroads pay
takes on their right-of-way.
--
Pete
J. Clarke
2020-08-27 22:59:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 07:50:48 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 20:39:02 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
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
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, and if we upgraded our system to the
equivalent of the rest of the world it would be faster downtown to
downtown.
It's funny that our inferior rail system moves a higher percentage of
our freight than does the rail system in the EU. It's passengers in
the US who don't like trains.
And I don’t blame them, right now. The service is ridiculous. The equipment
and track is in terrible shape.
Post by J. Clarke
As for subsidies, the rails are owned and maintained by the freight
lines which are making profits without any subsidies, so why should
passenger rail get subsidies.
Freight rail is doing OK, why else would Warren Buffet on the BNSF?
Post by J. Clarke
As for airports, if airports didn't make money for the government the
government wouldn't build them. There are fees of all sorts
associated with airport use--landing fees, parking fees, rent on
storefronts, etc.
Highways the same--the payments are indirect but if they were pure
cost the government wouldn't be spending to maintain them--there are
taxes on fuel, fines for traffic violations, tolls, taxes on goods
transported, etc.
I don’t know the economics of this. There are certainly fees that somewhat
offset the cost, but airports and highways don’t come close to paying their
way. Highways pay no taxes, I don’t think airports do either. Railroads pay
takes on their right-of-way.
Very little that the government owns pays taxes. That doesn't mean
that the government loses money on it. The idea is that it all grows
the economy that increases taxes for everybody.
Scott Lurndal
2020-08-27 16:04:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 20:39:02 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
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, and if we upgraded our system to the
equivalent of the rest of the world it would be faster downtown to
downtown.
It's funny that our inferior rail system moves a higher percentage of
our freight than does the rail system in the EU. It's passengers in
the US who don't like trains.
And why is that?
Post by J. Clarke
As for subsidies, the rails are owned and maintained by the freight
lines which are making profits without any subsidies, so why should
passenger rail get subsidies.
How did the railroads manage to own so much R-O-W? Hint,
the purchases were subsidized by the federal government.
Post by J. Clarke
As for airports, if airports didn't make money for the government the
government wouldn't build them. There are fees of all sorts
associated with airport use--landing fees, parking fees, rent on
storefronts, etc.
They still don't fully pay for operations; the taxpayer picks up
a chunk (usually through public bonds).
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2020-08-27 18:53:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by J. Clarke
It's funny that our inferior rail system moves a higher percentage of
our freight than does the rail system in the EU. It's passengers in
the US who don't like trains.
And why is that?
The statement is false.
J. Clarke
2020-08-27 23:00:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by J. Clarke
It's funny that our inferior rail system moves a higher percentage of
our freight than does the rail system in the EU. It's passengers in
the US who don't like trains.
And why is that?
The statement is false.
What statement is false?
Peter Flass
2020-08-27 23:40:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by J. Clarke
It's funny that our inferior rail system moves a higher percentage of
our freight than does the rail system in the EU. It's passengers in
the US who don't like trains.
And why is that?
The statement is false.
US trains are pathetic. Acela, the pride of AMTRAK could run at 150mph, but
is limited to 66mph because of outdated track. Most passenger trains run a
lot slower. It’s usually faster (and more comfortable) to drive. Too bad,
because the times I have ridden trains I had about 3x the room as on a
plane, and could get up and move around whenever I wanted. The aisles were
wider, too, and the seats much more comfortable.
--
Pete
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2020-08-28 19:54:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
US trains are pathetic. Acela, the pride of AMTRAK could run at 150mph, but
is limited to 66mph because of outdated track. Most passenger trains run a
lot slower. It’s usually faster (and more comfortable) to drive. Too bad,
because the times I have ridden trains I had about 3x the room as on a
plane, and could get up and move around whenever I wanted. The aisles were
wider, too, and the seats much more comfortable.
The speed of Acela varies by location. On the old PRR
segment it goes at 135 mph. On the Metro North segment
it goes about 70. On parts it can go 150.

There are proposals to build an entirely new straight ROW
for the NEC. But very expensive.

A hybrid approach might be prudent, such as rebuilding
the worst bottlenecks.

Amtrak developed a number of plans to improve service
on congested travel corridors, to get the most bang
for the buck. Good ideas. Too bad Congress had no interest.
John Levine
2020-08-27 16:58:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Peter Flass
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, and if we upgraded our system to the
equivalent of the rest of the world it would be faster downtown to
downtown.
It's funny that our inferior rail system moves a higher percentage of
our freight than does the rail system in the EU. It's passengers in
the US who don't like trains.
We have no way to tell, because for most people in the US, there's no
train for them to like. Despite what you might have heard, at least
until the pandemic most of Amtrak's long distance trains are full, and
if they reversed short-sighted cuts and restored 3x week to daily,
they'd probably recover more costs proportionally since they could
spread the fixed costs across more passengers.
Post by J. Clarke
As for subsidies, the rails are owned and maintained by the freight
lines which are making profits without any subsidies, so why should
passenger rail get subsidies.
Because passenger everything else gets subsidies. Roads and airports
don't pay property taxes, and airports only appear profitable because
they're not charged for the opportunity cost of what else might be
using the land. One of the greatest unappreciated subsidies to cars is
free parking, vast amounts of land given to car users at no cost.

Freight and passenger rail are completely different businesses these
days. A 50 MPH freight train is fast, while a 100 MPH passenger train
is slow, making it hard for them to share the same sets of rails.
Comparisons with Europe are hard to make because distances in the US
are much greater, to the advantage of trains here, while Europe has a
whole lot of rivers and canals where containers on barges are
competitive to rail.
--
Regards,
John Levine, ***@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Charlie Gibbs
2020-08-27 18:51:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Roads and airports don't pay property taxes,
Are you sure about airports? If so, that might only apply to major
airports, and possibly only in the U.S. Our hangar complex pays its
share of the $500K property tax bill at the small airport where I'm based.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <***@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.
John Levine
2020-08-27 19:42:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Roads and airports don't pay property taxes,
Are you sure about airports? If so, that might only apply to major
airports, and possibly only in the U.S. Our hangar complex pays its
share of the $500K property tax bill at the small airport where I'm based.
Public airports don't, same as your town hall or DPW garage don't.

Private airports do, but I would be surprised if there were any
scheduled flights in the US from private airports.
--
Regards,
John Levine, ***@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2020-08-27 19:03:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Levine
We have no way to tell, because for most people in the US, there's no
train for them to like. Despite what you might have heard, at least
until the pandemic most of Amtrak's long distance trains are full, and
if they reversed short-sighted cuts and restored 3x week to daily,
they'd probably recover more costs proportionally since they could
spread the fixed costs across more passengers.
So true.

Before the virus, Amtrak could've easily carried three
times as many passengers as it did if it had the rolling
stock and track to run trains. There is a demand
in developed travel corridors. Highways and airways
are very congested and Amtrak would be great for short
haul travel.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, certain political
elements despise passenger rail and go out of their
way to demonize it, despite its cost-efficiencies.

Those element impose all sorts of inefficiencies
on Amtrak which hurt service quality and waste money,
and then serves as an excuse to criticize it.

(Like what they're doing now to the post office.)
Post by John Levine
Post by J. Clarke
As for subsidies, the rails are owned and maintained by the freight
lines which are making profits without any subsidies, so why should
passenger rail get subsidies.
Because passenger everything else gets subsidies. Roads and airports
don't pay property taxes, and airports only appear profitable because
they're not charged for the opportunity cost of what else might be
using the land. One of the greatest unappreciated subsidies to cars is
free parking, vast amounts of land given to car users at no cost.
Yes. Look at an aerial shot of a building complex and notice
how much land is devoted to parking. Parking lots are not
cheap. They need to be maintained and that's expensive.
Post by John Levine
Freight and passenger rail are completely different businesses these
days. A 50 MPH freight train is fast, while a 100 MPH passenger train
is slow, making it hard for them to share the same sets of rails.
Comparisons with Europe are hard to make because distances in the US
are much greater, to the advantage of trains here, while Europe has a
whole lot of rivers and canals where containers on barges are
competitive to rail.
While ideally psgr and freight should be separate, with
good planning and some passing tracks they could share
the same tracks.

Unfortunately, railroads are hell bent to reduce their
trackage to the absolutely minimum. I don't get it.

Isn't there a high cost to starting and stopping
a freight train to enter and leave a passing siding
on a single track line? To wait for clearance on
congested track? Don't shippers want faster delivery?



In several places, they took a fluid double track railroad
and put freight on one track, psgr on the other. Runs
far less efficiently due to delays of single track.
Real stupid, but they wanted the segregation.

Computer note: Railroads were pioneers in the use
of data processing to track freight trains, first
punched cards, then computers. see
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Railway_Signaling_and_Communications/mRYTAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=railway%20signaling%20punched%20cards&pg=PA622&printsec=frontcover
Peter Flass
2020-08-27 23:40:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Unfortunately, railroads are hell bent to reduce their
trackage to the absolutely minimum. I don't get it.
They may get taxed by the track.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Isn't there a high cost to starting and stopping
a freight train to enter and leave a passing siding
on a single track line? To wait for clearance on
congested track? Don't shippers want faster delivery?
There are some signs this may be changing. Recently the (whatever railroad
it is now, maybe CPRail?) railroad restored double-tracking between Albany
and Schenectady NY. A short stretch, but supposedly it makes a big
difference.
--
Pete
Niklas Karlsson
2020-08-28 08:14:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
There are some signs this may be changing. Recently the (whatever railroad
it is now, maybe CPRail?) railroad restored double-tracking between Albany
and Schenectady NY. A short stretch, but supposedly it makes a big
difference.
In Stockholm, for a long time there were only two tracks between the
northern and southern parts of the city, known as the "wasp waist".
Recently, they made a big dig, putting the commuter trains (being the
most frequent) on separate tracks running underground through the city
center. This has freed up a lot of capacity for freight and
long-distance passenger rail.

Niklas
--
Technology makes it possible for people to gain control
over everything, except over technology.
-- John Tudor
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2020-08-28 09:28:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 28 Aug 2020 08:14:10 GMT
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by Peter Flass
There are some signs this may be changing. Recently the (whatever
railroad it is now, maybe CPRail?) railroad restored double-tracking
between Albany and Schenectady NY. A short stretch, but supposedly it
makes a big difference.
In Stockholm, for a long time there were only two tracks between the
northern and southern parts of the city, known as the "wasp waist".
The Munich S-Bahn is like that (or was when I was last there), the
map looks like the field lines of a bar magnet. What I found remarkable was
that in the morning when the trains were coming through every couple of
minutes they came through in the same order every day.
--
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/
Niklas Karlsson
2020-08-28 09:32:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On 28 Aug 2020 08:14:10 GMT
Post by Niklas Karlsson
In Stockholm, for a long time there were only two tracks between the
northern and southern parts of the city, known as the "wasp waist".
The Munich S-Bahn is like that (or was when I was last there), the
map looks like the field lines of a bar magnet. What I found remarkable was
that in the morning when the trains were coming through every couple of
minutes they came through in the same order every day.
The Germans (and Swiss) seem to be a lot better at running railways than
we are. Unfortunately, service here is often very unreliable.

Niklas
--
Oh sure, you think you'll be dead and gone in Y10K when it all catches
up to us. But by then they'll be able to raise folks from the dead just
to patch the code. Imagine: endless eternity being rewoken to patch
some old chunk of COBOL. -- Eric Remy
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2020-08-28 10:10:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 28 Aug 2020 09:32:44 GMT
Post by Niklas Karlsson
The Germans (and Swiss) seem to be a lot better at running railways than
we are. Unfortunately, service here is often very unreliable.
Better at it than anyone else as far as I can tell, the Dutch
aren't bad at it but platform changes and small delays are common there (I
got quite good at Tannoy Dutch while I was there).
--
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/
Thomas Koenig
2020-08-31 17:31:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Niklas Karlsson
The Germans (and Swiss) seem to be a lot better at running railways than
we are.
You're right about the Swiss, but train service in Germany has
really bad. More than 50% of the time I used the train in the
last few years, there was a more than one hour delay due to a
missed connection somewhere.

You learn to plan your trips that you stay in the same train,
so that you may be late, but at least you keep your seat.
J. Clarke
2020-08-27 23:51:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by John Levine
We have no way to tell, because for most people in the US, there's no
train for them to like. Despite what you might have heard, at least
until the pandemic most of Amtrak's long distance trains are full, and
if they reversed short-sighted cuts and restored 3x week to daily,
they'd probably recover more costs proportionally since they could
spread the fixed costs across more passengers.
So true.
Before the virus, Amtrak could've easily carried three
times as many passengers as it did if it had the rolling
stock and track to run trains. There is a demand
in developed travel corridors. Highways and airways
are very congested and Amtrak would be great for short
haul travel.
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, certain political
elements despise passenger rail and go out of their
way to demonize it, despite its cost-efficiencies.
What cost-efficiencies are those?
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Those element impose all sorts of inefficiencies
on Amtrak which hurt service quality and waste money,
and then serves as an excuse to criticize it.
(Like what they're doing now to the post office.)
Post by John Levine
Post by J. Clarke
As for subsidies, the rails are owned and maintained by the freight
lines which are making profits without any subsidies, so why should
passenger rail get subsidies.
Because passenger everything else gets subsidies. Roads and airports
don't pay property taxes, and airports only appear profitable because
they're not charged for the opportunity cost of what else might be
using the land. One of the greatest unappreciated subsidies to cars is
free parking, vast amounts of land given to car users at no cost.
Yes. Look at an aerial shot of a building complex and notice
how much land is devoted to parking. Parking lots are not
cheap. They need to be maintained and that's expensive.
And tax is paid on all of it unless it's a government-owned lot.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by John Levine
Freight and passenger rail are completely different businesses these
days. A 50 MPH freight train is fast, while a 100 MPH passenger train
is slow, making it hard for them to share the same sets of rails.
Comparisons with Europe are hard to make because distances in the US
are much greater, to the advantage of trains here, while Europe has a
whole lot of rivers and canals where containers on barges are
competitive to rail.
While ideally psgr and freight should be separate, with
good planning and some passing tracks they could share
the same tracks.
Unfortunately, railroads are hell bent to reduce their
trackage to the absolutely minimum. I don't get it.
Track is expensive.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Isn't there a high cost to starting and stopping
a freight train to enter and leave a passing siding
on a single track line? To wait for clearance on
congested track? Don't shippers want faster delivery?
A little bit of diesel. And if shipers wanted faster delivery they'd
have paid for air freight.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
In several places, they took a fluid double track railroad
and put freight on one track, psgr on the other. Runs
far less efficiently due to delays of single track.
Real stupid, but they wanted the segregation.
Computer note: Railroads were pioneers in the use
of data processing to track freight trains, first
punched cards, then computers. see
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Railway_Signaling_and_Communications/mRYTAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=railway%20signaling%20punched%20cards&pg=PA622&printsec=frontcover
Scott Lurndal
2020-08-28 14:26:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Isn't there a high cost to starting and stopping
a freight train to enter and leave a passing siding
on a single track line? To wait for clearance on
congested track? Don't shippers want faster delivery?
A little bit of diesel. And if shipers wanted faster delivery they'd
have paid for air freight.
Silly fellow - most freight shipped by rail (coal, lumber, various liquids,
grain, grain products (starch, alcohol), standard shipping containers)
cannot be shipped by air economically or otherwise.
J. Clarke
2020-08-27 23:14:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:58:39 -0000 (UTC), John Levine
Post by John Levine
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Peter Flass
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, and if we upgraded our system to the
equivalent of the rest of the world it would be faster downtown to
downtown.
It's funny that our inferior rail system moves a higher percentage of
our freight than does the rail system in the EU. It's passengers in
the US who don't like trains.
We have no way to tell, because for most people in the US, there's no
train for them to like. Despite what you might have heard, at least
until the pandemic most of Amtrak's long distance trains are full,
Source?
Post by John Levine
and
if they reversed short-sighted cuts and restored 3x week to daily,
they'd probably recover more costs proportionally since they could
spread the fixed costs across more passengers.
Post by J. Clarke
As for subsidies, the rails are owned and maintained by the freight
lines which are making profits without any subsidies, so why should
passenger rail get subsidies.
Because passenger everything else gets subsidies. Roads and airports
don't pay property taxes,
Why would the government pay itself taxes?
Post by John Levine
and airports only appear profitable because
they're not charged for the opportunity cost of what else might be
using the land.
Like what, a farm?
Post by John Levine
One of the greatest unappreciated subsidies to cars is
free parking, vast amounts of land given to car users at no cost.
Where is this government-provided free parking?
Post by John Levine
Freight and passenger rail are completely different businesses these
days. A 50 MPH freight train is fast, while a 100 MPH passenger train
is slow, making it hard for them to share the same sets of rails.
Comparisons with Europe are hard to make because distances in the US
are much greater, to the advantage of trains here, while Europe has a
whole lot of rivers and canals where containers on barges are
competitive to rail.
While that's a nice notion, the fact is that 75.3 percent of the
freight in the EU moves by truck, 18.7 percent by rail, and 6 percent
by waterways.

<https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Freight_transport_statistics_-_modal_split#Modal_split_in_the_EU>
Scott Lurndal
2020-08-28 14:21:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:58:39 -0000 (UTC), John Levine
Post by John Levine
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Peter Flass
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, and if we upgraded our system to the
equivalent of the rest of the world it would be faster downtown to
downtown.
It's funny that our inferior rail system moves a higher percentage of
our freight than does the rail system in the EU. It's passengers in
the US who don't like trains.
We have no way to tell, because for most people in the US, there's no
train for them to like. Despite what you might have heard, at least
until the pandemic most of Amtrak's long distance trains are full,
Source?
You didn't provide a source for your claim above, turnabout is fair play.
Robin Vowels
2020-08-29 07:28:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Levine
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Peter Flass
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, and if we upgraded our system to the
equivalent of the rest of the world it would be faster downtown to
downtown.
It's funny that our inferior rail system moves a higher percentage of
our freight than does the rail system in the EU. It's passengers in
the US who don't like trains.
We have no way to tell, because for most people in the US, there's no
train for them to like. Despite what you might have heard, at least
until the pandemic most of Amtrak's long distance trains are full, and
if they reversed short-sighted cuts and restored 3x week to daily,
they'd probably recover more costs proportionally since they could
spread the fixed costs across more passengers.
Post by J. Clarke
As for subsidies, the rails are owned and maintained by the freight
lines which are making profits without any subsidies, so why should
passenger rail get subsidies.
Because passenger everything else gets subsidies. Roads and airports
don't pay property taxes, and airports only appear profitable because
they're not charged for the opportunity cost of what else might be
using the land. One of the greatest unappreciated subsidies to cars is
free parking, vast amounts of land given to car users at no cost.
Freight and passenger rail are completely different businesses these
days. A 50 MPH freight train is fast, while a 100 MPH passenger train
is slow, making it hard for them to share the same sets of rails.
Depends on the frequency of passenger trains.
Usually for high speed, a separate new line is required,
that is straighter and more level than that used for freight traffic.
High-speed rail attracts passengers, and so we find that, for example,
Madrid to Barcelona offers 18 return trips a day.
Post by John Levine
Comparisons with Europe are hard to make because distances in the US
are much greater,
Not really. Try travelling from Lisboa (Lisbon) to Budapest. It's 3,000 km.
Or Lisboa to St Petersburg (4,500 km).

San Francisco to New York is 4,130 kms.
Post by John Levine
to the advantage of trains here, while Europe has a
whole lot of rivers and canals where containers on barges are
competitive to rail.
Europe also has some high speed passenger trains. France 300 kph,
Spain 300 kph, Russia 250 kph, Italy 200-250 kph, Ukraine 160 kph,
Germany 250 kph.
Quadibloc
2020-08-31 23:23:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robin Vowels
Post by John Levine
Comparisons with Europe are hard to make because distances in the US
are much greater,
Not really. Try travelling from Lisboa (Lisbon) to Budapest. It's 3,000 km.
Or Lisboa to St Petersburg (4,500 km).
San Francisco to New York is 4,130 kms.
San Francisco to New York could be compaired, fairly, to, say, Aix-la-Chappelle
to Ghent.

Lisbon to Budapest, on the other hand, would have to be compared to, oh, say,
Montreal to Buenos Aires.

Of course, you could compare San Francisco to New York with St. Petersburg to
Vladivostok, but that is partly in Asia, not just Europe.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-08-31 23:40:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 31 Aug 2020 16:23:32 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robin Vowels
Post by John Levine
Comparisons with Europe are hard to make because distances in the US
are much greater,
Not really. Try travelling from Lisboa (Lisbon) to Budapest. It's 3,000 km.
Or Lisboa to St Petersburg (4,500 km).
San Francisco to New York is 4,130 kms.
San Francisco to New York could be compaired, fairly, to, say, Aix-la-Chappelle
to Ghent.
Lisbon to Budapest, on the other hand, would have to be compared to, oh, say,
Montreal to Buenos Aires.
Of course, you could compare San Francisco to New York with St. Petersburg to
Vladivostok, but that is partly in Asia, not just Europe.
Europeans are fond of telling Americans how big Europe is. Then they
decide while in New York to nip down to Miami for lunch and are
surprised when dinner time rolls around and they're still in the
Carolinas.
Fred Smith
2020-09-01 01:39:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 31 Aug 2020 16:23:32 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robin Vowels
Post by John Levine
Comparisons with Europe are hard to make because distances in the US
are much greater,
Not really. Try travelling from Lisboa (Lisbon) to Budapest. It's 3,000 km.
Or Lisboa to St Petersburg (4,500 km).
San Francisco to New York is 4,130 kms.
San Francisco to New York could be compaired, fairly, to, say, Aix-la-Chappelle
to Ghent.
Lisbon to Budapest, on the other hand, would have to be compared to, oh, say,
Montreal to Buenos Aires.
Of course, you could compare San Francisco to New York with St. Petersburg to
Vladivostok, but that is partly in Asia, not just Europe.
Europeans are fond of telling Americans how big Europe is. Then they
decide while in New York to nip down to Miami for lunch and are
surprised when dinner time rolls around and they're still in the
Carolinas.
Yeah, they just want to pop over to Perth from Sydney, too.
Quadibloc
2020-09-01 05:13:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fred Smith
Yeah, they just want to pop over to Perth from Sydney, too.
Of course, Perth is closer to Sydney than you might expect, given the number of time zones that separate them...

if you had thought the Earth was flat.

John Savard
Charlie Gibbs
2020-09-01 04:40:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 31 Aug 2020 16:23:32 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robin Vowels
Post by John Levine
Comparisons with Europe are hard to make because distances in the US
are much greater,
Not really. Try travelling from Lisboa (Lisbon) to Budapest. It's 3,000 km.
Or Lisboa to St Petersburg (4,500 km).
San Francisco to New York is 4,130 kms.
San Francisco to New York could be compaired, fairly, to, say, Aix-la-Chappelle
to Ghent.
Lisbon to Budapest, on the other hand, would have to be compared to, oh, say,
Montreal to Buenos Aires.
Of course, you could compare San Francisco to New York with St. Petersburg to
Vladivostok, but that is partly in Asia, not just Europe.
Europeans are fond of telling Americans how big Europe is. Then they
decide while in New York to nip down to Miami for lunch and are
surprised when dinner time rolls around and they're still in the
Carolinas.
In Europe, 100 miles is a long way.
In North America, 100 years is a long time.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <***@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.
JimP
2020-09-01 22:05:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Charlie Gibbs
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 31 Aug 2020 16:23:32 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robin Vowels
Post by John Levine
Comparisons with Europe are hard to make because distances in the US
are much greater,
Not really. Try travelling from Lisboa (Lisbon) to Budapest. It's 3,000 km.
Or Lisboa to St Petersburg (4,500 km).
San Francisco to New York is 4,130 kms.
San Francisco to New York could be compaired, fairly, to, say, Aix-la-Chappelle
to Ghent.
Lisbon to Budapest, on the other hand, would have to be compared to, oh, say,
Montreal to Buenos Aires.
Of course, you could compare San Francisco to New York with St. Petersburg to
Vladivostok, but that is partly in Asia, not just Europe.
Europeans are fond of telling Americans how big Europe is. Then they
decide while in New York to nip down to Miami for lunch and are
surprised when dinner time rolls around and they're still in the
Carolinas.
In Europe, 100 miles is a long way.
In North America, 100 years is a long time.
Depends on whose ancestors we are talking about. People with European
ancestors in the U.S. are new people. Native Americans have been here
for thousands of years.
--
Jim
Thomas Koenig
2020-09-01 08:48:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robin Vowels
Post by John Levine
Comparisons with Europe are hard to make because distances in the US
are much greater,
Not really. Try travelling from Lisboa (Lisbon) to Budapest. It's 3,000 km.
Or Lisboa to St Petersburg (4,500 km).
San Francisco to New York is 4,130 kms.
San Francisco to New York could be compaired, fairly, to, say, Aix-la-Chappelle
to Ghent.
Aachen to Ghent is 200 km. Who shrunk America, and where have the
intermediate states gone?
Peter Flass
2020-09-01 13:34:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robin Vowels
Post by John Levine
Comparisons with Europe are hard to make because distances in the US
are much greater,
Not really. Try travelling from Lisboa (Lisbon) to Budapest. It's 3,000 km.
Or Lisboa to St Petersburg (4,500 km).
San Francisco to New York is 4,130 kms.
San Francisco to New York could be compaired, fairly, to, say, Aix-la-Chappelle
to Ghent.
Aachen to Ghent is 200 km. Who shrunk America, and where have the
intermediate states gone?
But, who’s going to bring good news from Ghent to Aix?
--
Pete
Charlie Gibbs
2020-09-01 19:09:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robin Vowels
Post by John Levine
Comparisons with Europe are hard to make because distances in the US
are much greater,
Not really. Try travelling from Lisboa (Lisbon) to Budapest.
It's 3,000 km. Or Lisboa to St Petersburg (4,500 km).
San Francisco to New York is 4,130 kms.
San Francisco to New York could be compaired, fairly, to, say,
Aix-la-Chappelle to Ghent.
Aachen to Ghent is 200 km. Who shrunk America, and where have the
intermediate states gone?
They're the flyover states. They don't count.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <***@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.
Quadibloc
2020-09-01 23:57:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robin Vowels
Post by John Levine
Comparisons with Europe are hard to make because distances in the US
are much greater,
Not really. Try travelling from Lisboa (Lisbon) to Budapest. It's 3,000 km.
Or Lisboa to St Petersburg (4,500 km).
San Francisco to New York is 4,130 kms.
San Francisco to New York could be compaired, fairly, to, say, Aix-la-Chappelle
to Ghent.
Aachen to Ghent is 200 km. Who shrunk America, and where have the
intermediate states gone?
No, my point was that distances in Europe that could be fairly compared were
shorter. France is a lot smaller than the United States, which was my point.

Going from Lisbon to Budapest is like going from Montreal to Buenos Aires, *not*
like going from New York to San Francisco.

They're in different countries.

John Savard
Thomas Koenig
2020-09-02 06:29:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Quadibloc
San Francisco to New York could be compaired, fairly, to, say, Aix-la-Chappelle
to Ghent.
Aachen to Ghent is 200 km. Who shrunk America, and where have the
intermediate states gone?
No, my point was that distances in Europe that could be fairly compared were
shorter. France is a lot smaller than the United States, which was my point.
Aix-la-Chapelle is the French name for Aachen, which is in Germany,
right on the border to Belgium (and to the Netherlands). Ghent is
a city in Belgium.

Going from Aachen to Ghent via France would be a significant detour.
Do you drive from Ottawa to Toronto via New York City?
Gerard Schildberger
2020-09-02 10:26:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Quadibloc
San Francisco to New York could be compaired, fairly, to, say, Aix-la-Chappelle
to Ghent.
Aachen to Ghent is 200 km. Who shrunk America, and where have the
intermediate states gone?
No, my point was that distances in Europe that could be fairly compared were
shorter.
))) France is a lot smaller than the United States, which was my point.


France is about the size of the state of Texas.
_________________________________________________ Gerard Schildberger
Post by Thomas Koenig
Aix-la-Chapelle is the French name for Aachen, which is in Germany,
right on the border to Belgium (and to the Netherlands). Ghent is
a city in Belgium.
Going from Aachen to Ghent via France would be a significant detour.
Do you drive from Ottawa to Toronto via New York City?
Peter Flass
2020-09-02 13:35:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gerard Schildberger
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Quadibloc
San Francisco to New York could be compaired, fairly, to, say, Aix-la-Chappelle
to Ghent.
Aachen to Ghent is 200 km. Who shrunk America, and where have the
intermediate states gone?
No, my point was that distances in Europe that could be fairly compared were
shorter.
))) France is a lot smaller than the United States, which was my point.
France is about the size of the state of Texas.
Which, if you’ve ever driven across it, is quite big enough.
--
Pete
JimP
2020-09-02 14:42:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gerard Schildberger
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Quadibloc
San Francisco to New York could be compaired, fairly, to, say, Aix-la-Chappelle
to Ghent.
Aachen to Ghent is 200 km. Who shrunk America, and where have the
intermediate states gone?
No, my point was that distances in Europe that could be fairly compared were
shorter.
))) France is a lot smaller than the United States, which was my point.
France is about the size of the state of Texas.
Which, if you’ve ever driven across it, is quite big enough.
I saw a postcard, in a Texas gas station, that showed a bleary eyed
family in a car. The caption said 'The sun has rize and the sun has
set, and here we are in Texas yet'.

It was before the Interstate highways were completed, but it is still
true today.
--
Jim
Peter Flass
2020-09-02 16:53:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JimP
Post by Gerard Schildberger
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Quadibloc
San Francisco to New York could be compaired, fairly, to, say, Aix-la-Chappelle
to Ghent.
Aachen to Ghent is 200 km. Who shrunk America, and where have the
intermediate states gone?
No, my point was that distances in Europe that could be fairly compared were
shorter.
))) France is a lot smaller than the United States, which was my point.
France is about the size of the state of Texas.
Which, if you’ve ever driven across it, is quite big enough.
I saw a postcard, in a Texas gas station, that showed a bleary eyed
family in a car. The caption said 'The sun has rize and the sun has
set, and here we are in Texas yet'.
It was before the Interstate highways were completed, but it is still
true today.
I can’t remember where we started the day - maybe Joplin, MO, and we
finished in Van Horne Texas, the farthest west you can get in the state. It
looked like the middle of nowhere, but SpaceX is apparently building rocket
engines there. Interesting little town with a great Mexican restaurant.
--
Pete
Gerard Schildberger
2020-09-03 05:42:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JimP
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Gerard Schildberger
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Quadibloc
San Francisco to New York could be compaired, fairly, to, say, Aix-la-Chappelle
to Ghent.
Aachen to Ghent is 200 km. Who shrunk America, and where have the
intermediate states gone?
No, my point was that distances in Europe that could be fairly compared were
shorter.
))) France is a lot smaller than the United States, which was my point.
France is about the size of the state of Texas.
Which, if you’ve ever driven across it, is quite big enough.
I saw a postcard, in a Texas gas station, that showed a bleary eyed
family in a car. The caption said 'The sun has rize and the sun has
set, and here we are in Texas yet'.
It was before the Interstate highways were completed, but it is still
true today.
--
Jim
If you start driving west from Galveston, TX (on the Gulf of Mexico coast,
Atlantic Ocean), and drive to Los Angeles, California, on the coast of
the Pacific Ocean, when you get over half way there, you're still in
Texas. _______________________________________________ Gerard Schildberger
JimP
2020-09-03 16:38:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 22:42:33 -0700 (PDT), Gerard Schildberger
Post by Gerard Schildberger
Post by JimP
Post by Gerard Schildberger
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Quadibloc
San Francisco to New York could be compaired, fairly, to, say, Aix-la-Chappelle
to Ghent.
Aachen to Ghent is 200 km. Who shrunk America, and where have the
intermediate states gone?
No, my point was that distances in Europe that could be fairly compared were
shorter.
))) France is a lot smaller than the United States, which was my point.
France is about the size of the state of Texas.
Which, if you’ve ever driven across it, is quite big enough.
I saw a postcard, in a Texas gas station, that showed a bleary eyed
family in a car. The caption said 'The sun has rize and the sun has
set, and here we are in Texas yet'.
It was before the Interstate highways were completed, but it is still
true today.
--
Jim
If you start driving west from Galveston, TX (on the Gulf of Mexico coast,
Atlantic Ocean), and drive to Los Angeles, California, on the coast of
the Pacific Ocean, when you get over half way there, you're still in
Texas. _______________________________________________ Gerard Schildberger
Yup, although Galveston is more of an island... Starting from just
east of Orange, Texas, oil is what you smell there, out to El Paso,
Texas, is over a thousand miles.

We went out west via Clovis, New Mexico. The southern route down by
the Rio Grande was not a good idea, we were told, in the summer.
--
Jim
Peter Flass
2020-09-03 17:16:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JimP
On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 22:42:33 -0700 (PDT), Gerard Schildberger
Post by Gerard Schildberger
Post by JimP
Post by Gerard Schildberger
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Quadibloc
San Francisco to New York could be compaired, fairly, to, say, Aix-la-Chappelle
to Ghent.
Aachen to Ghent is 200 km. Who shrunk America, and where have the
intermediate states gone?
No, my point was that distances in Europe that could be fairly compared were
shorter.
))) France is a lot smaller than the United States, which was my point.
France is about the size of the state of Texas.
Which, if you’ve ever driven across it, is quite big enough.
I saw a postcard, in a Texas gas station, that showed a bleary eyed
family in a car. The caption said 'The sun has rize and the sun has
set, and here we are in Texas yet'.
It was before the Interstate highways were completed, but it is still
true today.
--
Jim
If you start driving west from Galveston, TX (on the Gulf of Mexico coast,
Atlantic Ocean), and drive to Los Angeles, California, on the coast of
the Pacific Ocean, when you get over half way there, you're still in
Texas. _______________________________________________ Gerard Schildberger
Yup, although Galveston is more of an island... Starting from just
east of Orange, Texas, oil is what you smell there, out to El Paso,
Texas, is over a thousand miles.
We went out west via Clovis, New Mexico. The southern route down by
the Rio Grande was not a good idea, we were told, in the summer.
We went in January one year, and from New York to Arizona we were just a
day ahead of bad weather all the way. Even as far as south Texas we needed
warm coats.
--
Pete
Peter Flass
2020-09-02 13:35:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Quadibloc
San Francisco to New York could be compaired, fairly, to, say, Aix-la-Chappelle
to Ghent.
Aachen to Ghent is 200 km. Who shrunk America, and where have the
intermediate states gone?
No, my point was that distances in Europe that could be fairly compared were
shorter. France is a lot smaller than the United States, which was my point.
Aix-la-Chapelle is the French name for Aachen, which is in Germany,
right on the border to Belgium (and to the Netherlands). Ghent is
a city in Belgium.
Going from Aachen to Ghent via France would be a significant detour.
Do you drive from Ottawa to Toronto via New York City?
Probably not by train. Don’t all french rail lines run thru Paris?
--
Pete
Andreas Kohlbach
2020-09-02 15:25:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by Thomas Koenig
Going from Aachen to Ghent via France would be a significant detour.
Do you drive from Ottawa to Toronto via New York City?
Probably not by train. Don’t all french rail lines run thru Paris?
I think all TGVs and AGVs do. But there are many smaller local rail
lines (TER - Transport Express Régional) which don't necessarily.

<https://www.sncf.com/en/passenger-offer/travel-by-train/ter>

In Paris you might have to get to another railway station. I wanted to go
from Amiens to Lyon. The first leg to Paris was an ordinary (slower)
train and stopped in Gare Du Nord. I had to go to Gare De Lyon (still in
Paris). From there a TGV took me to Lyon.

Paris is kind of huge, and one out of six French citizens (18.2% of the
population of France) live in or around Paris ("Île-de-France" -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%25C3%258Ele-de-France>).
--
Andreas
Robin Vowels
2020-09-01 11:24:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by John Levine
Comparisons with Europe are hard to make because distances in the US
are much greater,
Not really. Try travelling from Lisboa (Lisbon) to Budapest. It's 3,000 km.
Or Lisboa to St Petersburg (4,500 km).
San Francisco to New York is 4,130 kms.
San Francisco to New York could be compaired, fairly, to, say, Aix-la-Chappelle
to Ghent.
Lisbon to Budapest, on the other hand, would have to be compared to, oh, say,
Montreal to Buenos Aires.
.
Fair enough, but the comparison was with the U.S.
.
Post by Quadibloc
Of course, you could compare San Francisco to New York with St. Petersburg to
Vladivostok, but that is partly in Asia, not just Europe.
I was comparing S.F. to N.Y. with Lisboa to St Petersburg, which are in Europe.
Quadibloc
2020-09-02 00:01:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robin Vowels
I was comparing S.F. to N.Y. with Lisboa to St Petersburg, which are in Europe.
But San Francisco and New York are both in the United States. So they're not
comparable to Lisbon to St. Petersburg. They're comparable to Marseille to Le
Havre, which are both in France.

I mean, it's not as if Russia, in which St. Petersburg is located, is even part
of this newfangled European Union thing...

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-09-02 00:15:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robin Vowels
I was comparing S.F. to N.Y. with Lisboa to St Petersburg, which are in Europe.
But San Francisco and New York are both in the United States. So they're not
comparable to Lisbon to St. Petersburg. They're comparable to Marseille to Le
Havre, which are both in France.
I mean, it's not as if Russia, in which St. Petersburg is located, is even part
of this newfangled European Union thing...
And then there's the little matter that New York is hardly the extreme
border. You go farther northeast than the distance from London to
Geneva before you actually hit Canada.
Post by Quadibloc
John Savard
Robin Vowels
2020-08-29 07:11:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Quadibloc
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
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.
Post by Peter Flass
and if we upgraded our system to the
equivalent of the rest of the world it would be faster downtown to
downtown.
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2020-08-29 18:34:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robin Vowels
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.
Post by Robin Vowels
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.
Post by Robin Vowels
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.
Niklas Karlsson
2020-08-29 21:52:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
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
Dave Garland
2020-08-27 03:43:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
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
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.
Post by J. Clarke
What are you proposing, that passenger railroads be run at a loss so
that people who don't like to fly can ride trains?
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2020-08-27 18:52:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Garland
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
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
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.
Peter Flass
2020-08-27 23:40:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
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
Niklas Karlsson
2020-08-27 11:59:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
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
Peter Flass
2020-08-27 14:50:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by J. Clarke
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
J. Clarke
2020-08-27 23:01:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by J. Clarke
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.
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Niklas
Peter Flass
2020-08-27 23:45:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by J. Clarke
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
J. Clarke
2020-08-28 00:00:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:45:20 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by J. Clarke
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.
Dan Espen
2020-08-28 00:12:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:45:20 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by J. Clarke
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
Scott Lurndal
2020-08-28 14:20:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
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....
Dan Espen
2020-08-28 15:13:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Dan Espen
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
Peter Flass
2020-08-28 14:20:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:45:20 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by J. Clarke
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
J. Clarke
2020-08-28 17:13:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 07:20:16 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:45:20 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by J. Clarke
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?
Dan Espen
2020-08-28 17:38:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 07:20:16 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:45:20 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by J. Clarke
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
J. Clarke
2020-08-28 20:51:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan Espen
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 07:20:16 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:45:20 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by J. Clarke
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.
Post by Dan Espen
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.
Peter Flass
2020-08-28 18:28:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 07:20:16 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:45:20 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by J. Clarke
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
Niklas Karlsson
2020-08-28 18:38:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
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
Scott Lurndal
2020-08-28 18:50:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by Peter Flass
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.
Scott Lurndal
2020-08-28 18:46:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
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.
J. Clarke
2020-08-28 20:52:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 11:28:16 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 07:20:16 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:45:20 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by J. Clarke
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?
Peter Flass
2020-08-28 22:15:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 11:28:16 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 07:20:16 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:45:20 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by J. Clarke
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
J. Clarke
2020-08-28 22:29:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 15:15:13 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 11:28:16 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 07:20:16 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:45:20 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by J. Clarke
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.
Post by Peter Flass
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.
Post by Peter Flass
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?
Scott Lurndal
2020-08-28 23:19:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 15:15:13 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Peter Flass
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.
Post by J. Clarke
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.
Peter Flass
2020-08-29 01:08:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 15:15:13 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 11:28:16 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 07:20:16 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:45:20 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by J. Clarke
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.
Post by Peter Flass
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.
Post by Peter Flass
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
John Levine
2020-08-29 00:58:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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, ***@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
J. Clarke
2020-08-29 02:47:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 00:58:40 -0000 (UTC), John Levine
Post by John Levine
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.
Post by John Levine
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.
Niklas Karlsson
2020-08-29 02:51:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 00:58:40 -0000 (UTC), John Levine
Post by John Levine
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
John Levine
2020-08-29 03:25:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by John Levine
Post by Peter Flass
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, ***@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2020-08-29 18:28:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
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.
JimP
2020-08-29 19:21:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
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
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2020-08-28 22:12:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 16:52:08 -0400
Post by J. Clarke
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/
Charlie Gibbs
2020-08-28 22:51:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 16:52:08 -0400
Post by J. Clarke
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.
\ / <***@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.
JimP
2020-08-29 13:17:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 23:12:09 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 16:52:08 -0400
Post by J. Clarke
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
Charlie Gibbs
2020-08-28 00:14:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Niklas Karlsson
Post by J. Clarke
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.
\ / <***@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.
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2020-08-29 18:36:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
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
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
https://archive.org/details/the-saturday-evening-post-1953-02-21/page/n83/mode/2up
Loading...