Opinions on trains and planes.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:51:00 GMT, Stefan Patric
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:31:14 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

The Chunnel surely has surpassed all expectations, hasn't it?

It damn near went broke and had to be financially bailed out...

You dont see that much scenery when zipping along a TGV track at 185
mph.

Perhaps. The closest thing comparable I've experienced was a 140 mile
per hour jaunt in a Porsche Turbo on a lonely stretch of 2 lane blacktop
in southwest Utah years ago. Scenery didn't seem to pass all that
fast. ;-)

Southwest Utah has scenery; northern France doesn't.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 03:53:08 -0600, DevilsPGD wrote:

In message Stefan Patric
wrote:

FWIW, I found this link on maglevs interesting, particularly the fact
based on actual tests that maglev trains are 78% noisier than
conventional track trains, and, of course, the Vactrain, a maglev with a
projected top speed of 5000 mph (8000Kph). Will never happen.

If we could get to one fifth of that in nationwide reliable longhaul
system we'd have something interesting.

I don't think it will ever happen. Too costly to be profitable.

Maybe, the ideal solution would be inventing a maglev system that could
use the existing rail system as is or with such modifications that would
not prevent conventional wheeled trains from using the same rails. Win-
win.

Stef

Hatunen wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:21:18 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:24:32 GMT, Stefan Patric
wrote:

Actually life was lived more slowly, then, mainly because it
couldn't be forced to move any faster, but also because money was
worth more and things cost less relative to today, only one
person
needed to work to support a family well, and taxes didn't eat up
40%
to 50% of your gross income. Ah! Yes. Nostalgia.

If modern families were willing to live the same life as a family
in the 1940s or even 1950s, it wouldn't cost that much more in
inflation adjusted money.

Do you have numbers to support that?

You first.

You made the claim.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Hatunen wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:20:21 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:23:15 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Now how many people died on airliners that year?

I answered the question at hand" How many people have died
because of a broken train wheel.

The number of people who died in airliners is irrelevant.

If the question of whether trains are safer than airliners then it
is
very relevant.

Not unless you state it as "x deaths per million passenger miles"
or somesuch.

To get that figure you need two numbers, the number of deaths and the
number of passenger miles, so the number of deaths remains relevant.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:31:35 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:20:21 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:23:15 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Now how many people died on airliners that year?

I answered the question at hand" How many people have died
because of a broken train wheel.

The number of people who died in airliners is irrelevant.

If the question of whether trains are safer than airliners then it
is
very relevant.

Not unless you state it as "x deaths per million passenger miles"
or somesuch.

To get that figure you need two numbers, the number of deaths and the
number of passenger miles, so the number of deaths remains relevant.

So don't keep us in suspense. Which is safer?

Remember, this all goes back to a poster who is afraid to take a
train because it's too dangerous. Sort of the reverse of the
usual phobia.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:30:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:21:18 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:24:32 GMT, Stefan Patric
wrote:

Actually life was lived more slowly, then, mainly because it
couldn't be forced to move any faster, but also because money was
worth more and things cost less relative to today, only one
person
needed to work to support a family well, and taxes didn't eat up
40%
to 50% of your gross income. Ah! Yes. Nostalgia.

If modern families were willing to live the same life as a family
in the 1940s or even 1950s, it wouldn't cost that much more in
inflation adjusted money.

Do you have numbers to support that?

You first.

You made the claim.

You made the first one: "Actually life was lived more slowly,
then, mainly because it couldn't be forced to move any faster,
but also because money was worth more and things cost less
relative to today, only one person needed to work to support a
family well, and taxes didn't eat up 40% to 50% of your gross
income."



--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:31:35 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:20:21 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:23:15 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Now how many people died on airliners that year?

I answered the question at hand" How many people have died
because of a broken train wheel.

The number of people who died in airliners is irrelevant.

If the question of whether trains are safer than airliners then
it
is
very relevant.

Not unless you state it as "x deaths per million passenger miles"
or somesuch.

To get that figure you need two numbers, the number of deaths and
the
number of passenger miles, so the number of deaths remains
relevant.

So don't keep us in suspense. Which is safer?

How the Hell should _I_ know?

Remember, this all goes back to a poster who is afraid to take a
train because it's too dangerous. Sort of the reverse of the
usual phobia.

And based no doubt on some sensationalist newspaper articles which
based on a flawed view of statistics suggest that the high speed
trains are more dangerous than airliners.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Hatunen wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:30:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:21:18 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:24:32 GMT, Stefan Patric
wrote:

Actually life was lived more slowly, then, mainly because it
couldn't be forced to move any faster, but also because money
was
worth more and things cost less relative to today, only one
person
needed to work to support a family well, and taxes didn't eat
up
40%
to 50% of your gross income. Ah! Yes. Nostalgia.

If modern families were willing to live the same life as a
family
in the 1940s or even 1950s, it wouldn't cost that much more in
inflation adjusted money.

Do you have numbers to support that?

You first.

You made the claim.

You made the first one: "Actually life was lived more slowly,
then, mainly because it couldn't be forced to move any faster,
but also because money was worth more and things cost less
relative to today, only one person needed to work to support a
family well, and taxes didn't eat up 40% to 50% of your gross
income."

I'm sorry, but I am not Stefan Patrick.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:49:47 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:30:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:21:18 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:24:32 GMT, Stefan Patric
wrote:

Actually life was lived more slowly, then, mainly because it
couldn't be forced to move any faster, but also because money
was
worth more and things cost less relative to today, only one
person
needed to work to support a family well, and taxes didn't eat
up
40%
to 50% of your gross income. Ah! Yes. Nostalgia.

If modern families were willing to live the same life as a
family
in the 1940s or even 1950s, it wouldn't cost that much more in
inflation adjusted money.

Do you have numbers to support that?

You first.

You made the claim.

You made the first one: "Actually life was lived more slowly,
then, mainly because it couldn't be forced to move any faster,
but also because money was worth more and things cost less
relative to today, only one person needed to work to support a
family well, and taxes didn't eat up 40% to 50% of your gross
income."

I'm sorry, but I am not Stefan Patrick.

Quite right. Sorry about that.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

someone organized electrons to read:
What makes you think that check-in and security would be any less
stupid on trains vs planes?

I travel by Amtrak frequently between Seattle and Portland. In June
of this year I traveled DC-NYC and NYC-Philadelphia via Amtrak. There
was virtually no security check. We had to show ID with our tickets,
but no one searched our bags, there were no metal detectors, we
carried on food and liquids, etc., etc. A far cry from the airport
security we experienced flying to DC and back from Phil. And we were
able to keep our shoes on!

FWIW, on 9/12/01, we rode a train from Athens to Patras, with NO
security checks and a few weeks later from Zagreb to Venice, again NO
security. Ditto the superferry from Greece to Italy. Nothing beyond
normal passport checks. In 2004 I traveleld in Italy for a month on
trains, and never ran into any security requests.