If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Talk about mpg's....
Gunner Asch wrote: > > Europe has tried this for years with varying degrees of sucess. > > Amtrak actually does have an AutoTrain > > http://www.amtrak.com/auto-train > > Between DC and Orlando > > I didnt bother looking up the cost. Probably cheaper than the gas...or > maybe not. They used to run a high speed passenger service between Cincinnati && Cleveland back in the '70s. It passed my area twice a day, and was the weirdest train that I ever saw. One long car, with controls on each end so they didn't need a roundhouse to turn it around for the return trip. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Talk about mpg's....
In article > ,
Richard > wrote: > On 6/19/2013 10:35 AM, Harry K wrote: > > > I live an hour away from Spokane, WA. There has been an on going > > proposal there for years to build a rail > > public transportation system. Just one single line, no side > > extensions. I just can't see what you gain that way > > over buses. More expense up front for the land/track/construction > > plus when done it is fixed forever, no > > changing destinations without rebuild, etc. > > > > At least with buses, routes can be redone in an instant as > > demographics change. > > > > Harry K > > > For most of my life I've wondered why the railroads done carry autos. > Load the cars on a flatbed and the people in the club car. Or dining car? They do -- on the East Coast. There is a car/train from Sandfod (Orlando) to just outside Washington, DC. The problem is -- it is expensice! |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Talk about mpg's....
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:47:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> wrote: > >Gunner Asch wrote: >> >> Europe has tried this for years with varying degrees of sucess. >> >> Amtrak actually does have an AutoTrain >> >> http://www.amtrak.com/auto-train >> >> Between DC and Orlando >> >> I didnt bother looking up the cost. Probably cheaper than the gas...or >> maybe not. > > > They used to run a high speed passenger service between Cincinnati && >Cleveland back in the '70s. It passed my area twice a day, and was the >weirdest train that I ever saw. One long car, with controls on each end >so they didn't need a roundhouse to turn it around for the return trip. Most of the commuter trains in So Cal are that way..engine on each end..or on one end only. Often times the engine is on the back of the train going one direction..and on the front going the other way. "Metrolink" It usually works fine. However...occasionally...... http://www.millennium-ark.net/NEWS/0...ter.train.html Though its not as bad as some places.... http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/8...iantrain21.jpg -- ""Almost all liberal behavioral tropes track the impotent rage of small children. Thus, for example, there is also the popular tactic of repeating some stupid, meaningless phrase a billion times" Arms for hostages, arms for hostages, arms for hostages, it's just about sex, just about sex, just about sex, dumb,dumb, money in politics,money in politics, Enron, Enron, Enron. Nothing repeated with mind-numbing frequency in all major news outlets will not be believed by some members of the populace. It is the permanence of evil; you can't stop it." (Ann Coulter) |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Talk about mpg's....
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:35:39 -0700 (PDT), Harry K >
wrote: >On Jun 18, 9:38*am, Ashton Crusher > wrote: >> On 17 Jun 2013 22:44:24 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Geoff Welsh > wrote: >> >>Ignoramus20642 wrote: >> >>> aOn 2013-06-17, Existential > *wrote: >> >>>> Ahm watchin some sci channel ditty in the background, on cruise ships..... >> >> >>>> 60 FEET per gallon..... * LOL >> >> >>>> Almost reminds me Kidding's bloatVolt, *ito ROI.... * as in.... *NEVER.... >> >>>> lol >> >> >>> And it is carrying how many people? 2,000? >> >> >>> That's 120,000 feet per gallon per person. Or 22 miles per gallon. >> >> >>> i >> >> >>you have solved the fuel crisis! >> >> >Public transit, indeed, is a big part of the solution. >> >--scott >> >> How do you figure? *there are literally dozens of cars you can buy >> that get way more than 22 mpg. *Generally speaking, public transit if >> more expensive per mile then personal transportation. *And that's with >> the GOAL of public transit to be as inexpensive as possible. *Most >> people don't buy their car with the GOAL being to get the absolute >> lowest cost per mile. *If they did, personal transport would >> completely eclipse public in terms of efficiency - of course it >> already is better even without the singular focus on operating cost. >> The only reason anyone "votes" for public transit is because they get >> most of the cost paid by "other people". *When they have to pay the >> full freight themselves they won't pay for it. > >I live an hour away from Spokane, WA. There has been an on going >proposal there for years to build a rail >public transportation system. Just one single line, no side >extensions. I just can't see what you gain that way > over buses. More expense up front for the land/track/construction >plus when done it is fixed forever, no > changing destinations without rebuild, etc. > > At least with buses, routes can be redone in an instant as >demographics change. > >Harry K Same crap going on here in Kitchener Waterloo Cambridge Ontario. They are going to call it the ION. It will run from the shopping plaza on the North end of Waterloo to the shopping plaza on the east end of Kitchenr, connecting from there toCambridge via Express Bus. Close to half a billion dollars. We had a perfectly serviceable electric trolley system here until the mid sixties that did virtually the same thing and they tore it all out to go with deisel busses. Now they are going back to light rail (basically trolleys) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Talk about mpg's....
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:47:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> wrote: > >Gunner Asch wrote: >> >> Europe has tried this for years with varying degrees of sucess. >> >> Amtrak actually does have an AutoTrain >> >> http://www.amtrak.com/auto-train >> >> Between DC and Orlando >> >> I didnt bother looking up the cost. Probably cheaper than the gas...or >> maybe not. > > > They used to run a high speed passenger service between Cincinnati && >Cleveland back in the '70s. It passed my area twice a day, and was the >weirdest train that I ever saw. One long car, with controls on each end >so they didn't need a roundhouse to turn it around for the return trip. SAounds like the Budd Dieselcar system. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Talk about mpg's....
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:05:02 -0700, Gunner Asch >
wrote: >On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:47:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" > wrote: > >> >>Gunner Asch wrote: >>> >>> Europe has tried this for years with varying degrees of sucess. >>> >>> Amtrak actually does have an AutoTrain >>> >>> http://www.amtrak.com/auto-train >>> >>> Between DC and Orlando >>> >>> I didnt bother looking up the cost. Probably cheaper than the gas...or >>> maybe not. >> >> >> They used to run a high speed passenger service between Cincinnati && >>Cleveland back in the '70s. It passed my area twice a day, and was the >>weirdest train that I ever saw. One long car, with controls on each end >>so they didn't need a roundhouse to turn it around for the return trip. > >Most of the commuter trains in So Cal are that way..engine on each >end..or on one end only. Often times the engine is on the back of the >train going one direction..and on the front going the other way. > >"Metrolink" > >It usually works fine. However...occasionally...... > >http://www.millennium-ark.net/NEWS/0...ter.train.html > >Though its not as bad as some places.... > >http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/8...iantrain21.jpg If the city planners had their way that's how we'd all be living. Density Density Density combined with public transit, not those nasty personal cars. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Talk about mpg's....
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:33:12 -0700, Gunner Asch >
wrote: >On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:35:39 -0700 (PDT), Harry K > >wrote: > >>On Jun 18, 9:38*am, Ashton Crusher > wrote: >>> On 17 Jun 2013 22:44:24 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >Geoff Welsh > wrote: >>> >>Ignoramus20642 wrote: >>> >>> aOn 2013-06-17, Existential > *wrote: >>> >>>> Ahm watchin some sci channel ditty in the background, on cruise ships..... >>> >>> >>>> 60 FEET per gallon..... * LOL >>> >>> >>>> Almost reminds me Kidding's bloatVolt, *ito ROI.... * as in.... *NEVER.... >>> >>>> lol >>> >>> >>> And it is carrying how many people? 2,000? >>> >>> >>> That's 120,000 feet per gallon per person. Or 22 miles per gallon. >>> >>> >>> i >>> >>> >>you have solved the fuel crisis! >>> >>> >Public transit, indeed, is a big part of the solution. >>> >--scott >>> >>> How do you figure? *there are literally dozens of cars you can buy >>> that get way more than 22 mpg. *Generally speaking, public transit if >>> more expensive per mile then personal transportation. *And that's with >>> the GOAL of public transit to be as inexpensive as possible. *Most >>> people don't buy their car with the GOAL being to get the absolute >>> lowest cost per mile. *If they did, personal transport would >>> completely eclipse public in terms of efficiency - of course it >>> already is better even without the singular focus on operating cost. >>> The only reason anyone "votes" for public transit is because they get >>> most of the cost paid by "other people". *When they have to pay the >>> full freight themselves they won't pay for it. >> >>I live an hour away from Spokane, WA. There has been an on going >>proposal there for years to build a rail >>public transportation system. Just one single line, no side >>extensions. I just can't see what you gain that way >> over buses. More expense up front for the land/track/construction >>plus when done it is fixed forever, no >> changing destinations without rebuild, etc. >> >> At least with buses, routes can be redone in an instant as >>demographics change. >> >>Harry K > >You guys think you have problems? > >Google California High Speed rail...... > >Sounds great on ...paper.... > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail > >But then...reality pokes up its fang filled head.... > >http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-...est-firm-start > >http://la.curbed.com/archives/2013/0... pporters.php > >http://againstcaliforniahsr.com/ > >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1332763.html > >http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?se...ate&id=9123838 > > >Lots and lots more out there. > >Good luck!! > >Gunner There has never been a public transit system in modern times that covers it's own cost. Typically less then 50% of the construction costs are paid by the actual users and once operating it's rare that more then 20% of the ongoing costs are paid by the users. People in thousands of small towns all over the US pay for the transit subsidies of perhaps a dozen large cities. And those subsidized systems mainly benefit the construction and real estate industries of those few cities. It's just like Football stadiums - socialism for the rich. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Talk about mpg's....
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 21:53:36 -0700, Ashton Crusher >
wrote: >On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:05:02 -0700, Gunner Asch > >wrote: > >>On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:47:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" > wrote: >> >>> >>>Gunner Asch wrote: >>>> >>>> Europe has tried this for years with varying degrees of sucess. >>>> >>>> Amtrak actually does have an AutoTrain >>>> >>>> http://www.amtrak.com/auto-train >>>> >>>> Between DC and Orlando >>>> >>>> I didnt bother looking up the cost. Probably cheaper than the gas...or >>>> maybe not. >>> >>> >>> They used to run a high speed passenger service between Cincinnati && >>>Cleveland back in the '70s. It passed my area twice a day, and was the >>>weirdest train that I ever saw. One long car, with controls on each end >>>so they didn't need a roundhouse to turn it around for the return trip. >> >>Most of the commuter trains in So Cal are that way..engine on each >>end..or on one end only. Often times the engine is on the back of the >>train going one direction..and on the front going the other way. >> >>"Metrolink" >> >>It usually works fine. However...occasionally...... >> >>http://www.millennium-ark.net/NEWS/0...ter.train.html >> >>Though its not as bad as some places.... >> >>http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/8...iantrain21.jpg > > >If the city planners had their way that's how we'd all be living. >Density Density Density combined with public transit, not those nasty >personal cars. In my little town..they tore out the train tracks 20 or so years ago. No taxis in 18 yrs and we have a community bus that spends most of its time sitting in a shady spot waiting for someone to call for a ride. I wonder how much thats costing the California taxpayers? http://www.cityoftaft.org/pview.aspx?id=5385&catid=563 A buck a ride. But even the wetbacks avoid it..cause it costs them like $6 for them and their anchor babies. And they can walk from one end of town to the other in 15 minutes -- ""Almost all liberal behavioral tropes track the impotent rage of small children. Thus, for example, there is also the popular tactic of repeating some stupid, meaningless phrase a billion times" Arms for hostages, arms for hostages, arms for hostages, it's just about sex, just about sex, just about sex, dumb,dumb, money in politics,money in politics, Enron, Enron, Enron. Nothing repeated with mind-numbing frequency in all major news outlets will not be believed by some members of the populace. It is the permanence of evil; you can't stop it." (Ann Coulter) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Talk about mpg's....
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 21:56:54 -0700, Ashton Crusher >
wrote: >On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:33:12 -0700, Gunner Asch > >wrote: > >>On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:35:39 -0700 (PDT), Harry K > >>wrote: >> >>>On Jun 18, 9:38*am, Ashton Crusher > wrote: >>>> On 17 Jun 2013 22:44:24 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >Geoff Welsh > wrote: >>>> >>Ignoramus20642 wrote: >>>> >>> aOn 2013-06-17, Existential > *wrote: >>>> >>>> Ahm watchin some sci channel ditty in the background, on cruise ships..... >>>> >>>> >>>> 60 FEET per gallon..... * LOL >>>> >>>> >>>> Almost reminds me Kidding's bloatVolt, *ito ROI.... * as in.... *NEVER.... >>>> >>>> lol >>>> >>>> >>> And it is carrying how many people? 2,000? >>>> >>>> >>> That's 120,000 feet per gallon per person. Or 22 miles per gallon. >>>> >>>> >>> i >>>> >>>> >>you have solved the fuel crisis! >>>> >>>> >Public transit, indeed, is a big part of the solution. >>>> >--scott >>>> >>>> How do you figure? *there are literally dozens of cars you can buy >>>> that get way more than 22 mpg. *Generally speaking, public transit if >>>> more expensive per mile then personal transportation. *And that's with >>>> the GOAL of public transit to be as inexpensive as possible. *Most >>>> people don't buy their car with the GOAL being to get the absolute >>>> lowest cost per mile. *If they did, personal transport would >>>> completely eclipse public in terms of efficiency - of course it >>>> already is better even without the singular focus on operating cost. >>>> The only reason anyone "votes" for public transit is because they get >>>> most of the cost paid by "other people". *When they have to pay the >>>> full freight themselves they won't pay for it. >>> >>>I live an hour away from Spokane, WA. There has been an on going >>>proposal there for years to build a rail >>>public transportation system. Just one single line, no side >>>extensions. I just can't see what you gain that way >>> over buses. More expense up front for the land/track/construction >>>plus when done it is fixed forever, no >>> changing destinations without rebuild, etc. >>> >>> At least with buses, routes can be redone in an instant as >>>demographics change. >>> >>>Harry K >> >>You guys think you have problems? >> >>Google California High Speed rail...... >> >>Sounds great on ...paper.... >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail >> >>But then...reality pokes up its fang filled head.... >> >>http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-...est-firm-start >> >>http://la.curbed.com/archives/2013/0... pporters.php >> >>http://againstcaliforniahsr.com/ >> >>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1332763.html >> >>http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?se...ate&id=9123838 >> >> >>Lots and lots more out there. >> >>Good luck!! >> >>Gunner > >There has never been a public transit system in modern times that >covers it's own cost. Typically less then 50% of the construction >costs are paid by the actual users and once operating it's rare that >more then 20% of the ongoing costs are paid by the users. People in >thousands of small towns all over the US pay for the transit subsidies >of perhaps a dozen large cities. And those subsidized systems mainly >benefit the construction and real estate industries of those few >cities. It's just like Football stadiums - socialism for the rich. Very well stated! Gunner -- ""Almost all liberal behavioral tropes track the impotent rage of small children. Thus, for example, there is also the popular tactic of repeating some stupid, meaningless phrase a billion times" Arms for hostages, arms for hostages, arms for hostages, it's just about sex, just about sex, just about sex, dumb,dumb, money in politics,money in politics, Enron, Enron, Enron. Nothing repeated with mind-numbing frequency in all major news outlets will not be believed by some members of the populace. It is the permanence of evil; you can't stop it." (Ann Coulter) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Talk about mpg's....
On Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:42:22 AM UTC-5, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 21:56:54 -0700, Ashton Crusher > > > wrote: > > > > >On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:33:12 -0700, Gunner Asch > > > >wrote: > > > > > >>On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:35:39 -0700 (PDT), Harry K > > > >>wrote: > > >> > > >>>On Jun 18, 9:38*am, Ashton Crusher > wrote: > > >>>> On 17 Jun 2013 22:44:24 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> >Geoff Welsh > wrote: > > >>>> >>Ignoramus20642 wrote: > > >>>> >>> aOn 2013-06-17, Existential > *wrote: > > >>>> >>>> Ahm watchin some sci channel ditty in the background, on cruise ships..... > > >>>> > > >>>> >>>> 60 FEET per gallon..... * LOL > > >>>> > > >>>> >>>> Almost reminds me Kidding's bloatVolt, *ito ROI.... * as in..... *NEVER.... > > >>>> >>>> lol > > >>>> > > >>>> >>> And it is carrying how many people? 2,000? > > >>>> > > >>>> >>> That's 120,000 feet per gallon per person. Or 22 miles per gallon. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Talk about mpg's.... | Existential Angst[_2_] | Driving | 22 | June 20th 13 08:42 AM |
Someone talk me out of it...... | SteveH | Alfa Romeo | 28 | May 2nd 06 06:11 PM |
GTR pit to car talk... | DaveH-UK | Simulators | 4 | March 19th 05 03:05 AM |
Please talk me down | Tom Howlin | Mazda | 33 | February 23rd 05 03:02 AM |
Talk about Used Cars | jushil | Ford Mustang | 0 | December 9th 04 10:57 PM |