Opinions on trains and planes.

On Aug 19, 9:57*am, Tom P wrote:
JamesStep wrote:
One factor that's often not considered is that around 25% of people
consider themselves nervous flyers, according to some surveys. Many of
these people would probably prefer train travel if it was comparable
to airlines in cost and time.

James

I commute regularly 250 miles inside Germany, sometimes by plane,
sometimes by rail. It is comparable in terms of cost and time - but as
time goes by I am getting more nervous travelling by high speed train
than by air. Trains are intrinsically less safe than airplanes for many
reasons-
* - an airplane has two engines. If one stops, it carries on flying.
A train has dozens of wheels and axles. *If just one of these breaks at
high speed, you're dead.


You are comparing engines with wheels. A better comparision would be
wings and wheels. A plane has two wings, if one breaks you are dead.


* - a plane has two pilots and a whole bunch of ATC guys making sure you
never get anywhere near anything that might hit you. A train has one
driver and thousands of trees, animals and stupid car drivers flashing
past you just yards away from where you are sitting. It just takes one
tree, one cow or a stupid truck driver to be just a few yards in the
wrong place, and you're dead again.

Yes I always worry about that one tree that fails to stop at a rail
crossing.

* - a plane can stop on the runway in less than a mile. *A high speed
train needs over 3 miles to stop from full speed. Even if the driver can
see an obstacle, he can't do a thing about it


But a plane dosen't fly on a runway. It flies in the sky. How many
miles does it take for a plane to stop at 40,000 ft up in the air and
flying 300 mph?


* Even if you're not dead, it just takes one single stalled train
anywhere and the entire system collapses. We have had trains stalled all
night in the middle of nowhere, with no help for the passengers, with
the power lines down after a storm.


Don't even talk to me about planes stuck in airports for bad weather.
Talk about no help for the passengers. Have you not heard of
passengers not allowed to de-plane for up to 8 hours?


T.

"PeterL" wrote in message
...
On Aug 18, 9:15 pm, Hatunen wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:00:06 -0600, DevilsPGD

wrote:
What makes you think that check-in and security would be any less stupid
on trains vs planes?

I don't think anyone is afraid that hijackers will fly a train
into a skyscraper.

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


Bombs on trains are no less dangerous.

--------------------------------------------------

Bombs under the tracks usually more so

tim

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:09:04 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:

That 30km maglev is a showpiece with as much relevance to practical
transportation as the monorail at Disneyland. Many things get
"considered". When there's a maglev running a major intercity route
let us know.

I'm a little dubious about maglev myself, but I'm only addressing
your comment "The technology just isn't there". It's there, but
it's too soon to know for sure that it's economically
impractical. I'm guessing it is, but the fact that some German
company can't get funding for a brand-new relatively untried
technology from LA to LV doesn't mean it is.

Every single attempt, outside of China, to get funding for a line by said
company has failed to find finance.

Even when the German Government were offering, what was it 1 billion Euro?,
they still could come up with the rest

tim

"tim....." schrieb

Every single attempt, outside of China, to get funding for a line by
said company has failed to find finance.

When the horse is dead: Get off!
Maglev is an interesting technology, but it doesn't make much sense
to develop a train system incompatible to existing lines.
High speed trains can use the existing infrastructure (at lower speeds)
and conventional trains can run on the hig speed routes.
Maglev? New stations, new platforms, new tracks, nothing of which
can be used for anything but maglev trains. Not feasable.
A single route, from some city to some airport? Sounds convincing, but:
And a whole service depot with staff and spare parts, for just two or
threee trains? Who's gonna pay for that nonsense?

Jochen

"James Silverton" wrote in message
news:_vlqk.199$UX.148@trnddc03...
Keith wrote on Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:54:37 +0100:


"tim....." wrote in message
...

"James Silverton" wrote in
message news:j5gqk.169$482.96@trnddc06...
Hello All!

Given the current cattle-car, skinflint conditions, two hour
check-ins and waits including security, etc. I wonder how
long a journey people would undertake by train if fast
European or Japanese style trains were available (say, 400
kph)? I would think that Washington DC to San Francisco
might be a bit far. The journey would take about 10 hours as
the unstopping crow flies but more likely 15 with a few
stops and as the track is laid.

I don't like to get up early in the morning but, allowing
time to drive to the airport, get thro' security, fly on a
plane leaving at noon and drive a rental car to my hotel or
other destination, I have to allocate most of a day
(certainly at least 12 hours) to get to San Francisco. I've never been
able to sleep on planes so "red eyes" are really that!

I would have thought that 5 hours is going to be the absolute
max.

Unless of course you have sleeper trains. A lot of people
travelling from Northern
Europe to Italy catch overnight trains. Waking up as the train
pulls in Florence or Milan after a good dinner on the train is
rather a nice way to travel.

Unless you have an old fashioned sleeper that allows changing and showers
available, you are going to be a little decrepit on arrival. I suppose you
could travel in leisure clothes and make use of showers and bathrooms in
the station. I've never understood the attraction of the recliners offered
in First Class by airlines like Japan Air Lines but I suppose it's better
than sitting upright.


Actually new fashioned sleepers have fully-made-up beds in private
compartments.
The beds fold away for evening and morning use, converting the compartment
to a private sitting room with sofa and coffee table. Each compartment has
a
washbasin, soap and towels are provided, and there are toilets at the end of
the corridor.

There are cheaper couchettes for those on a budget.

Keith

"JamesStep" wrote in message
...

The only exception was taking the Eurostar. That's an
international train and there was a brief look at passports at
the station before you got to go to the platform.

Several years ago my family took the Eurostar from London to Paris. A
very enjoyable ride, and we were amazed that when we got off in Paris
no one asked to see our passports or any other paperwork. We just
walked right out. Don't know if this was typical or not, but it sure
was nice.

James

Thats the normal procedure, you clear both sets of customs and
immigration when you board the train.

Keith

"DevilsPGD" wrote in message
...

If the US has any sense, it will invest in the necessary infrastructure
rather than using the present rail tracks but I am not all that hopeful.

What makes you think that check-in and security would be any less stupid
on trains vs planes?

Experience, check in times and lines on Eurostar are much shorter
than travelling by air. If you have first class tickets or a members of
the frequent travellers club you can turn up 10 minutes before the
journey and have time to check in, clear immigration and board the
train. Other passengers are requested to arrive 30 minutes before
departure. At the other hand you just walk off the train.

You dont need to check in any bags and nobody weighs it.
If you can get it on the train you can take it.

Keith

"PeterL" wrote in message
...


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


Bombs on trains are no less dangerous.

Actually they are, as the Lockerbie bomb showed just a few
ounces of Semtex can destroy an aircraft. The same size bomb
on a train would kill a few people, most would survive.

Keith

"Tom P" wrote in message
...
JamesStep wrote:
One factor that's often not considered is that around 25% of people
consider themselves nervous flyers, according to some surveys. Many of
these people would probably prefer train travel if it was comparable
to airlines in cost and time.

James

I commute regularly 250 miles inside Germany, sometimes by plane,
sometimes by rail. It is comparable in terms of cost and time - but as
time goes by I am getting more nervous travelling by high speed train than
by air. Trains are intrinsically less safe than airplanes for many
reasons-
- an airplane has two engines. If one stops, it carries on flying.
A train has dozens of wheels and axles. If just one of these breaks at
high speed, you're dead.

Nope, in most cases what happens is the train limps into the next
station

- a plane has two pilots and a whole bunch of ATC guys making sure you
never get anywhere near anything that might hit you. A train has one
driver and thousands of trees, animals and stupid car drivers flashing
past you just yards away from where you are sitting. It just takes one
tree, one cow or a stupid truck driver to be just a few yards in the wrong
place, and you're dead again.

Wrong, high speed rail is just as tightly controlled as air traffic


- a plane can stop on the runway in less than a mile. A high speed train
needs over 3 miles to stop from full speed. Even if the driver can see an
obstacle, he can't do a thing about it
Even if you're not dead, it just takes one single stalled train anywhere
and the entire system collapses. We have had trains stalled all night in
the middle of nowhere, with no help for the passengers, with the power
lines down after a storm.
T.

And I've been stuck in an airport for a day because of a storm

Keith

tim..... wrote:
"PeterL" wrote in message
...
On Aug 18, 9:15 pm, Hatunen wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:00:06 -0600, DevilsPGD

wrote:
What makes you think that check-in and security would be any less
stupid on trains vs planes?

I don't think anyone is afraid that hijackers will fly a train
into a skyscraper.

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


Bombs on trains are no less dangerous.

How so? Please tell us how to take down the World Trade Center or
damage the Pentagon with a bomb on an Amtrak train.

--------------------------------------------------

Bombs under the tracks usually more so

??? How does putting a bomb under railroad tracks result in
skyscrapers falling down?

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