Amtrak Horror

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
On 4 Jan 2006 13:08:29 -0800, Bill in Schenectady, Upstate New York
wrote:

Train fuel efficiency is cut by air conditioning and internal car power
needs, by sleepers (rolling hotel rooms), and by freight cars.
However, there is some work being done in Europe to use solar panels
for air conditioning. Also, as train use increases, a unit of fuel
will carry more people.

Those solar panels don't save electricity; more electricity is used to
make the panels then will ever be saved.

As train use increases, the amount of fuel per person will remain constant
unless you like the idea of standing packed like a NYC subway car during
rush hour.


So based on the above scenario, it may remain more efficient to travel
by car with a family, but more efficient to travel by train with one or
two people. However trains provide another option: as petroleum
becomes more and more expensive, assuming that we come up with other
ways to produce electricity, trains can run on electric power.

That depends on the cost of adding overhead wires, or a third rail.
Electric trains don't run on batteries!
If the electricity is generated from petroleum, there will be no savings.

re passenger miles/gallon: the proposed increase for trains is due to the
fact that the research was based on trains that were considerably less than
full. I'm not talking subway type crowding...simply filling the seats.

As for solar panels: there is work going on to produce them out of different
materials and for less energy input cost.

And as for electricity, I'm assuming that we will have to produce
electricity from sources other than petroleum based products. I'm even
rethinking my long term opposition to nuclear power. However in an era in
which cheap oil has powered our lives and economy, we could all live with
private cars. In the era to come, we will be forced to use much less energy
and to reduce travel considerably. What travel remains will be largely
train driven, as that remains the most efficient way to move people.

Bill in Schenectady wrote:
roducts. I'm even
rethinking my long term opposition to nuclear power. However in an era in
which cheap oil has powered our lives and economy, we could all live with
private cars. In the era to come, we will be forced to use much less energy
and to reduce travel considerably.

That will be true ONLY if the socialists (in the USA read: Democrats)
rule the world by force. Otherwise, the natural forces of capitalism
will keep private cars purring along just fine.

Doug McDonald

Doug McDonald wrote:
Bill in Schenectady wrote:

roducts. I'm even
rethinking my long term opposition to nuclear power. However in an
era in which cheap oil has powered our lives and economy, we could all
live with private cars. In the era to come, we will be forced to use
much less energy and to reduce travel considerably.


That will be true ONLY if the socialists (in the USA read: Democrats)
rule the world by force. Otherwise, the natural forces of capitalism
will keep private cars purring along just fine.

Do you consider that good, bad or neutral?

Doug McDonald wrote:
Bill in Schenectady wrote:
roducts. I'm even
rethinking my long term opposition to nuclear power. However in an era in
which cheap oil has powered our lives and economy, we could all live with
private cars. In the era to come, we will be forced to use much less energy
and to reduce travel considerably.

That will be true ONLY if the socialists (in the USA read: Democrats)
rule the world by force. Otherwise, the natural forces of capitalism
will keep private cars purring along just fine.

Doug McDonald

Only for the ever decreasing share of the population that will be able
to afford private cars and the fuel to run them. And that IS
capitalism working there. As fewer and fewer people drive long
distances in private cars, the government will have less support to
subsidize their driving by spending billions of dollars on roads. They
will instead have to think about the most efficient way to move people
and goods....and that is rail and, for freight, often by boat.

Most people will not be able to affort $10 a gallon gas for more than
very short trips ... even with the forces of capitalism working to
improve automotive fuel efficiency.

However, because it will take a huge investment to get the trains back
on track, so to speak, we will need government support to accomplish
that. And I believe as car travel becomes out of range for more and
more Americans, support for government action will be there. And
that's called Democracy.

Todd Michel McComb wrote:
In article .com,
Bill in Schenectady, Upstate New York wrote:
For me and my family, the $2500 vacation simply won't happen. The
last vacation we took that approached that value was a two week
tour of the Utah area national parks in '02.

Ah, I'm doing the Utah National Parks (and some other things) this
coming summer. Anyway, it does depend on your priorities, yes. We
don't make much money -- in fact, here in Santa Clara County, CA,
we are officially below the poverty line as defined by cost/income
ratios -- but we save all year for trips. I also have a natural
disinterest in many of the modern conveniences that some people
consider necessities, and that saves a lot of money right there.
So it all works out, although it makes for an interesting juxtaposition
sometimes.

(That said, you can do a pretty nice drive with less than 8000
miles. That is probably the longest trip we'll ever take, although
we might hit 6000 this summer.)

In spite of my ramblings about gas prices, I do love driving trips.
One of the most memorable times of my life was the three month van trip
around the U.S. just after college, living in the van and just going
where we wanted to go. That was back in the 70's, and prior to that
trip, I had never been outside of the Northeast.

This past summer, our family vacation was to Quebec City and the town
northeast of Quebec City. Wonderful landscapes, and Quebec City itself
is charming. Originally, I wanted to go to the Gaspee Peninsula, until
I saw how long it would take to drive there. If it was up to me, I'd
have taken the extra time to go, but my wife has limited tolerance for
long driving trips.

Upon reviewing Quebec road maps, I noticed a long, long road that goes
to Labrador. Left to my own devices, I'd have followed it!

sechumlib wrote:
Doug McDonald wrote:

Bill in Schenectady wrote:

roducts. I'm even
rethinking my long term opposition to nuclear power. However in an
era in which cheap oil has powered our lives and economy, we could
all live with private cars. In the era to come, we will be forced to
use much less energy and to reduce travel considerably.



That will be true ONLY if the socialists (in the USA read: Democrats)
rule the world by force. Otherwise, the natural forces of capitalism
will keep private cars purring along just fine.


Do you consider that good, bad or neutral?

Capitalism is basically good, as it adjusts automatically to
the will of the people. Socialism is basically bad, because
it adjusts only to the will of the rulers (in the short term, of course:
in the long term it will result in economic failure.)

Doug McDonald

Bill in Schenectady, Upstate New York wrote:

Doug McDonald wrote:

Bill in Schenectady wrote:

roducts. I'm even
rethinking my long term opposition to nuclear power. However in an era in
which cheap oil has powered our lives and economy, we could all live with
private cars. In the era to come, we will be forced to use much less energy
and to reduce travel considerably.

That will be true ONLY if the socialists (in the USA read: Democrats)
rule the world by force. Otherwise, the natural forces of capitalism
will keep private cars purring along just fine.

Doug McDonald


Only for the ever decreasing share of the population that will be able
to afford private cars and the fuel to run them.

Uh, no. Capitalism will INCREASE the share of the people who
will be able to afford cars. It's doing that right now in Asia.

They
will instead have to think about the most efficient way to move people
and goods....and that is rail and, for freight, often by boat.

Uh, no. The most efficient way is by whatever method the INDIVIDUAL
decides.

And I believe as car travel becomes out of range for more and
more Americans, support for government action will be there. And
that's called Democracy.


So long as the socialists (in the USA read: Democrats) are out of power,
EVERYONE who is not a loafer will be able to afford a car or two or
three. This even includes illegal aliens.

Trains are a very inefficient method of moving people. They are
basically useful only for long distance moving of commodities. This is
because they have limited scope (that is, tracks don;t go everywhere)
and limited timing: they don't go when the individual wants to go.
This is the definition of inefficiency. Planes have the same problem
as rail, but they are so much faster that they can become quite
efficient at moving people long distances.

Doug McDonald

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 15:51:05 -0600, Doug McDonald wrote:


sechumlib wrote:
Doug McDonald wrote:

Bill in Schenectady wrote:

roducts. I'm even
rethinking my long term opposition to nuclear power. However in an
era in which cheap oil has powered our lives and economy, we could
all live with private cars. In the era to come, we will be forced to
use much less energy and to reduce travel considerably.



That will be true ONLY if the socialists (in the USA read: Democrats)
rule the world by force. Otherwise, the natural forces of capitalism
will keep private cars purring along just fine.


Do you consider that good, bad or neutral?

Capitalism is basically good, as it adjusts automatically to
the will of the people. Socialism is basically bad, because
it adjusts only to the will of the rulers (in the short term, of course:
in the long term it will result in economic failure.)

You're confusing politics with economics.
Socialism under a democracy can easily follow the will of the people;
capitalism under a fascist govt. is quite effective at supporting
only an elite aristocracy.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 15:56:39 -0600, Doug McDonald wrote:

Uh, no. Capitalism will INCREASE the share of the people who
will be able to afford cars. It's doing that right now in Asia.
china? Hardly a great example of capitalism.

Doug McDonald wrote:
sechumlib wrote:
Doug McDonald wrote:

Bill in Schenectady wrote:

roducts. I'm even
rethinking my long term opposition to nuclear power. However in an
era in which cheap oil has powered our lives and economy, we could
all live with private cars. In the era to come, we will be forced to
use much less energy and to reduce travel considerably.



That will be true ONLY if the socialists (in the USA read: Democrats)
rule the world by force. Otherwise, the natural forces of capitalism
will keep private cars purring along just fine.


Do you consider that good, bad or neutral?

Capitalism is basically good, as it adjusts automatically to
the will of the people. Socialism is basically bad, because
it adjusts only to the will of the rulers (in the short term, of course:
in the long term it will result in economic failure.)

Doug McDonald

Actually, your analysis is extremely simplistic. Capitalism is a
method of distributing goods and services and work. However it has no
moral values and as such, can do extreme human harm if not regulated.
You confuse Socialism with Communism...and not even Communism but what
was self described as Communism by the rulers of a failed authoritarian
system modeled by and after Soviet Russia.

Where "socialism", by which I assume you mean decisions to distribute
goods and services made by government, is done according to democratic
principles, it can work very well for certain functions that are not
adequately performed under a purely capitalistic system. You can go to
much of Western Europe and schedule your day easily by the government
controlled train and bus system. There it is convenient and useful.
Here, instead, we chose to socialize our road network (paid for by
taxes) and our airport system and severely underfund a potentially much
more efficient train system, resulting in trains that fail to serve the
public.

I neither support a full Capitalist system nor a full socialist system
as either one by itself fails to meet human needs. I do support
allowing Capitalism to do what it does best: develop more efficient
means of developing and distributing goods and services, and I support
using subsidized government systems to provide services that capitalism
fails to provide and which the public, through a representative
democratic process, demands, and to use government authority to limit
the abuses of capitalism.