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 |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
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 * |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on trains and planes.
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 |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on trains and planes.
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) |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on trains and planes.
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) |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on trains and planes.
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 * |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on trains and planes.
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 * |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on trains and planes.
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) |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on trains and planes.
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) |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on trains and planes.
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 * |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on trains and planes.
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Trains or Planes from Barcelona to Florence | MMM | Europe | 2 | October 30th, 2005 04:12 PM |
missing planes !! | [email protected] | Air travel | 0 | October 15th, 2005 11:56 AM |
OT Low Planes | [email protected] | Cruises | 2 | October 5th, 2005 04:58 PM |
Exercise on planes | Frank F. Matthews | Air travel | 0 | September 10th, 2004 02:24 PM |