OT: Build nukes to power these:

On Jun 22, 11:57=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
> > Nowhere do I suggest to stop pursuit of alternate energy sources.
>
> I have suggested we hang onto resources we can't replace, and using NG
> as a stop-gap fuel is wasteful and not smart.
> -------------------------------
> How many hundred years before we run out of N/G?
>
> One?
> Two?
> Two+?
>
> Lew

Point is, we *will* run out at the current rate of extraction. It is
also irresponsible to let our children's children be saddled with the
aftermath of our reckless behaviour.
Add to that that the processes to extract the last bit of NG is going
to be more and more destructive the closer to the last gasp we get.
The fracking, fricking, cracking, digging and boiling of rock at
insane depths is going to push the cost of NG to the point where the
economic toll of that bad addiction is going to cause some bad
behaviour by those who feel they have the exclusive right to such
resources.

The quest for energy has made us do some pretty sad things, take some
bad chances. From the guy with the harpoon in his quest to capture
metric tons of whale oil to the scientist who burns his vital organs
because the forgot to close the lead lid on those powerful radio
active sources, they have learned that specific sources of energy are
either finite (whales) or difficult to handle (nukes).
There was a time when they thought the oceans would never run out of
whales, just like some think we'll never run out of oil or gas. The
"as long as there's enough while I'm alive" argument is selfish and
disgusting.

Here's an idea: Seriously increase the price of gas today and set up a
fund to use for fusion research. Take control of the oil and gas
industries because that shit in the ground belongs to all of us, not
just a few manipulative greedy bastards that are behaving badly.

On Jun 21, 12:19=A0pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in news:a6ffea6e-eacd-43ce-9096-
> [email protected]:
>
> > Notice there is no pantograph.
>
> I guess there is some kind of induction transfer of power. =A0
> Not sure I get all of this threadlet ...

Induction motor, same as on your tablesaw, but
with one winding opened up and laid out flat.

On Jun 21, 4:36=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:53:49 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Jun 20, 11:19=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:11:24 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >http://www.wimp.com/maglevtrain/
>
> >> >500 kph... holy shiat!!
>
> >> LOVE TO, but not in earthquake territory, please.
>
> >> If it weren't for traffic, I'd love to drive 300mph on freeways.
> >> My trips down to the bay area would only take a couple hours with the
> >> slowdowns in the mountains.
>
> >Notice there is no pantograph.
>
> Huh? =A0WTH are you on about, Toy? =A0Are you drinking again?
>


I will try to speak m o r e s l o w l y next time.

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 22:05:33 -0700, Lew Hodgett wrote:

> "Robatoy" wrote:
>> The status quo needs a bit of polish, other than that, what other
>> plan
> do you have to move millions of people when the oil runs out?
> It is a lot easier to put up a barrier than a solution.
> ---------------------------------
> Natural gas buys 30-40 years which buys enough time to develop
> electric,
> hydrogen, etc for mass transit via rail.
>
> Freight train locomotives already have DC motors in the power loop.
>
> Replace the diesel engine with a gas turbine tidy up the interface
> changes
> and you're in business.
>
<snip>

Too noisy for Californians

http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/history/loco/locohs05.shtml

basilisk

Mike Marlow wrote:
.
>
> And still produce hazardous waste. To beat a drum... your proposal
> for that waste? Your proposal to deal with accidents? How
> economical do you think they really are in the course of one person's
> lifetime, when you consider installation costs, etc.?
>

The current view regarding nuclear waste is to ignore the problem until it
becomes critical.

At that point, chose the best solution (of about ten viable ones) already
known plus those that may be developed between now and then.

k-nuttle wrote:

>>
> The lack of disposal methods for nuclear waste is cause by US laws
> that prohibit the reprocessing of nuclear waste. The cost of
> operation is artificially high because of the regulations that were
> put in place to drive them out of existence.
>
> While the government Tilt at windmills, private enterprise is
> developing small nuclear units that can provide energy for years that
> will be placed in every neighborhood in the country ECONOMICALLY.

I do not disagree with the economics of nukes. If I was not clear in that,
then I'll take this opportunity to make myself clear. In fact, I fully
support the economics of nukes - after all... too cheap to meter, right? Oh
yeah - that didn't really work either, did it? But... disposal remains a
problem - regardless of big plants or lots of little plants. Do you have an
ECONOMICAL nuke plant near where you live? If so, does the economics of
that plant really make you more comfortable in light of the hazards it
otherwise presents?

> Current designs are about the size of a tractor trailer. I assume
> the design is based on the nuclear units that went into space craft
> 30 years ago. Because of their size, they will not take up miles of
> land, and produce energy only a fraction of the time.

And still produce hazardous waste. To beat a drum... your proposal for that
waste? Your proposal to deal with accidents? How economical do you think
they really are in the course of one person's lifetime, when you consider
installation costs, etc.?

>
> As you drive through wind mill farms, the norm is that only a small
> percentages are actually working. Government subsidies are the only
> thing that is keeping them active.

Agreed.

On Jun 22, 11:22=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:

[snipped a shitload of back-n-forth]

> Can agree with much of the above EXCEPT for the nukes.
>
> There are simply too many alternate energy possibilities not to pursue
> them.
>
> Lew

Nowhere do I suggest to stop pursuit of alternate energy sources.
I have suggested we hang onto resources we can't replace, and using NG
as a stop-gap fuel is wasteful and not smart.
Build small nukes with better safety devices and better location
selection.

RE: Subject

When a nuke plant can purchase commercial liability insurance and has
a real plan for handling the waste stream (Burying it isn't a plan),
get back to me.

Lew

"Robatoy" wrote:
> The status quo needs a bit of polish, other than that, what other
> plan
do you have to move millions of people when the oil runs out?
It is a lot easier to put up a barrier than a solution.
---------------------------------
Natural gas buys 30-40 years which buys enough time to develop
electric,
hydrogen, etc for mass transit via rail.

Freight train locomotives already have DC motors in the power loop.

Replace the diesel engine with a gas turbine tidy up the interface
changes
and you're in business.

Fuel cells are beginning to show promise (Ask eBay headquarters).

Bus transit systems such as Los Angeles have already switched from
diesel to N/G.

20 years from now they will be ready for the next generation of energy
sources
and motive devices.

In the mean time, both coal and oil are fuels that are the enemy of
the environment
and our lungs.

It's time to get serious about getting off our dependence on oil and
coal.

I've seen what strip mining does to the land.

The people who live in strip mining areas have been raped for a long
enough period
of time by the coal operators.

Deep mines are another thing.

John L Lewis would roll over in his grave if he knew how much he
fought for to bring
the miners a betterlife along with improved safety standards have been
lost.

About the only thing that remains gone is the "Company Store".

It's is a tough but doable challenge to transition away from fossil
fuels; however,
at this point in time, nuclear is simply not ready for prime time..

Throwing up our hands and saying it can't be done or it's just too
expensive are not
acceptable excuses.

Lew

"Larry W" wrote:

> Plan or not, nuclear plants are doing a much better job of handling
> their waste than coal fired plants.
--------------------------------
Not sure the Japanese would agree with you.

BTW, did you see where Florida Power & Light leveled a coal fired
generating
station over the weekend so the it can be replaced with a natural gas
fired generating
station on the same site.

How much fly ash does natural gas generate?

Progress IS being made dumping dirty non renewable fuel sources.

Lew

"Larry W" wrote:

> Well, I'm not sure either, but do you think they'd rather deal with
> something like these:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Creek_Flood
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_County_coal_sludge_spill
>
---------------------------------
You think maybe that the above had something to do with the Florida
Light & Power
decision to replace a coal fired unit with a natural gas unit?

Lew

I wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Natural gas buys 30-40 years which buys enough time to develop
> electric,
> hydrogen, etc for mass transit via rail.
-----------------------------------
"Robatoy" wrote:

> That is a pie-in-the-sky gamble at best. That 30-40 years can be
stretched enormously by applying technology we already have. Besides,
NG can be used for better things than burning it in inefficient
generators.
---------------------------------
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, misguided as it may be.
---------------------------------------

> NG doesn't have the BTU density of diesel and spear-heading a
passenger train with a couple of tank-cars full of compressed NG
doesn't give me the warm fuzzies from a safety standpoint.
---------------------------------------
Must have enough BTU content for not only public transportation but
also enough to satisfy Florida Power & Light needs for the generating
station they are about to build.

As far as safety is concerned, the risks can be defined within limits,
at least it's possible to buy liability insurance.

The same can't be said about nukes.
------------------------------------

> Fuel cells are beginning to show promise (Ask eBay headquarters).
----------------------------------
> I, on the other hand, am talking about things we have today.
-----------------------------------
Precisely.

Silicon Valley is investing some serious money in alternate energy.

Some of it for scale up required.
-------------------------------
> NG is NOT
a solution, it's a stop-gap and an irresponsible and bloody expensive,
non-renewable one at that.
-------------------------------------
Obviously it is a stop gap fuel.

Expense is relative, especially since we have lots of in within the
USA.

If we are going to spend in excess of $1B/Month for fuel, might as
well keep it on shore.
-----------------------------------

> Bus transit systems such as Los Angeles have already switched from
> diesel to N/G.
------------------------------
> That is to help solve a pollution problem and not done to solve the
oil crisis we're facing.
-----------------------------
It addresses both problems by reducing pollution and demand for diesel
fuel.
> 20 years from now they will be ready for the next generation of
> energy
> sources
> and motive devices.
---------------------------------
> The motive for that development will be stifled as long as you keep
throwing 'easy' stop-gap solutions at it by simply switching fuels.
----------------------------
It's a process of evolution not revolution.
--------------------------------
> Hoping for a break-through doesn't address today's problems of
> supply
from unstable regions that would like nothing more than nuke us if
given the chance. The other reason why that break-through won't happen
easily, is that the oil companies aren't quite finished sucking every
cent from us yet. Give those bastards an incentive and you might get
your dream power source sooner.
--------------------------------
Hope has nothing to do with it, hard work does.

The oil companies aren't run buy idiots.

They are investing in alternate energy development as well as
increasing their ownership of N/G operations.
----------------------------------
> In the mean time, both coal and oil are fuels that are the enemy of
> the environment
> and our lungs.

That's a gimme and I agree completely.
--------------------------------------

> All nukes do is concentrate
that environmental problem to a much more manageable and smaller
problem albeit a trickier one.
-----------------------------------
Tell that one to the Ruskies and the Japanese.
------------------------------------

> It's time to get serious about getting off our dependence on oil and
> coal.

Amen^n degree. But then what excuse would there be to attack oil-rich
countries and supporting the defence industries?
--------------------------------------

> I've seen what strip mining does to the land.

So have I and it is disgusting. You can eliminate all that by going
nuke.
-----------------------------------

You are not going to see any new nukes built in my lifetime, even if I
make it to 100 like my mother did, unless the safety and waste issues
are resolved.
-------------------------------

> Lew... we ALL belong to the Company Store, except it has changed its
face to the corporate/oil/defence industries/banking/government
conglomerate. And them cocksuckers have tasers, riot shields and guns!
-------------------------------------
Yep, Eisenhower's words have lived long enough to haunt us.
-------------------------------------

> It's is a tough but doable challenge to transition away from fossil
> fuels; however,
> at this point in time, nuclear is simply not ready for prime time..
-------------------------------------
> Japan was stupid to build a plant where it did. Granted. It gave a
black eye to a very well developed technology that has proven itself
to deliver gazillion terawatts of power efficiently and safely. It is
totally unfair to judge the nuclear industry by hammering away at a
couple of incidents, serious as they may be.
---------------------------------
What it illustrates is the total arrogance of the utility industry
world wide.

Even now the nuke lobbyists are getting regulations for older plants
relaxed so they can keep them in service.

The industry lies thru it's teeth IMHO, saying whatever is necessary
to advance their agenda.
-----------------------------------------------------
> You don't halt all air
traffic because we have people die on us in those aluminum winged
tubes.
-------------------------------------------------------
No and you don't fuck up half a country for 75-100 years when you
crash a plane with 500 people on board.
------------------------------------------------------
> There is an element of risk in all power related technology and
we have proven that the fossil fuel component is the most lethal of
them all. Stripmines, lungs, soldiers, acid rain, bad gasses in the
air we breathe. Concentrate all that effluent into a small area, like
20 sq miles, put CNNABCNBCABC's cameras on that blob of destruction
and I assure you that the nuke problems would look like a fart in a
hurricane in comparison.
----------------------------------------------------
That might be an approach, certainly better that what exists now.
------------------------------------------------------

> Throwing up our hands and saying it can't be done or it's just too
> expensive are not
> acceptable excuses.

Again, I agree, but like that story of that child who burnt the
matches to warm herself, instead of selling them, burning our finite
NG resources is irresponsible in light of the technology we have.
Build and run nukes. Electrify the mass transport systems and
concentrate on fusion as a solution.
And start thinking of running the oil barons out of town because THEY
are the ones who LIKE us being addicted. There is something wrong with
a business model that includes a military component to their
development plans.
------------------------------------------------
Can agree with much of the above EXCEPT for the nukes.

There are simply too many alternate energy possibilities not to pursue
them.

Lew

"Robatoy" wrote:

> Nowhere do I suggest to stop pursuit of alternate energy sources.
I have suggested we hang onto resources we can't replace, and using NG
as a stop-gap fuel is wasteful and not smart.
-------------------------------
How many hundred years before we run out of N/G?

One?
Two?
Two+?

Lew

"Robatoy" wrote:
.

Concentrate all that effluent into a small area, like
20 sq miles, put CNNABCNBCABC's cameras on that blob of destruction
and I assure you that the nuke problems would look like a fart in a
hurricane in comparison.
--------------------------------
A few questions I forgot to ask.

When this common radio active waste dump fucks up inside it's 20 sq
miles, who is responsibility is it to clean it up?

Who assumes responsibility for transporting radio active waste
material thru high density population centers to this 20 sq mile site?

In case of a transportation accident, what's the game plan to clean up
the problem?

Where is this 20 sq mile radio active waste dump going to be located
given the NIMBY syndrome in this country?

Lew

"Robatoy" wrote:


>Point is, we *will* run out at the current rate of extraction.
--------------------------------
100,200,200+ years?

By any estimate, alternate renewable energies will have been developed
and deployed as more cost effective than N/G long before supplies are
exhausted.
--------------------------------------
> It is
also irresponsible to let our children's children be saddled with the
aftermath of our reckless behavior.
-------------------------------------
So much for coal and oil.
-----------------------------------
> Add to that that the processes to extract the last bit of NG is
> going
to be more and more destructive the closer to the last gasp we get.
The fracking, fricking, cracking, digging and boiling of rock at
insane depths is going to push the cost of NG to the point where the
economic toll of that bad addiction is going to cause some bad
behaviour by those who feel they have the exclusive right to such
resources.
--------------------------------------
A good case for dropping oil exploration if you ask me.
------------------------------------
> The quest for energy has made us do some pretty sad things, take
> some
bad chances. From the guy with the harpoon in his quest to capture
metric tons of whale oil to the scientist who burns his vital organs
because the forgot to close the lead lid on those powerful radio
active sources, they have learned that specific sources of energy are
either finite (whales) or difficult to handle (nukes).
There was a time when they thought the oceans would never run out of
whales, just like some think we'll never run out of oil or gas. The
"as long as there's enough while I'm alive" argument is selfish and
disgusting.
-------------------------------------
Yep.
----------------------------------------
> Here's an idea: Seriously increase the price of gas today and set up
> a
fund to use for fusion research. Take control of the oil and gas
industries because that shit in the ground belongs to all of us, not
just a few manipulative greedy bastards that are behaving badly.
------------------------------------
How about "Cap & Trade"?

As others have said before, our survival as a planet depends on
finding and developing renewable energy forms at affordable prices
while eliminating fossil fuel sources from our energy sources.

Current weather conditions are simply indicative of things to come if
we don't start getting CO2 out of our atmosphere.

I would love to see nuclear be part of that energy mix; however, no
commercial insurance carrier will write liability coverage for a nuke
and the blatant bull shit being spewed by the industry lobby does
nothing to make me believe the industry is ready for prime time.

The nuke industry is looking at initial cost to make a sale, trying to
ignore total cost of ownership over the life cycle of a facility.

Been to that movie.

Lew

On Jun 22, 1:05=A0am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
> > The status quo needs a bit of polish, other than that, what other
> > plan
>
> do you have to move millions of people when the oil runs out?
> It is a lot easier to put up a barrier than a solution.
> ---------------------------------
> Natural gas buys 30-40 years which buys enough time to develop
> electric,
> hydrogen, etc for mass transit via rail.

That is a pie-in-the-sky gamble at best. That 30-40 years can be
stretched enormously by applying technology we already have. Besides,
NG can be used for better things than burning it in inefficient
generators.
>
> Freight train locomotives already have DC motors in the power loop.

I am all for DC motors as I am for any electric propulsion. And those
locomotives dragging their own generating stations around with them is
still a helluva lot more efficient than busses, cars and trucks.
>
> Replace the diesel engine with a gas turbine tidy up the interface
> changes
> and you're in business.

NG doesn't have the BTU density of diesel and spear-heading a
passenger train with a couple of tank-cars full of compressed NG
doesn't give me the warm fuzzies from a safety standpoint.

>
> Fuel cells are beginning to show promise (Ask eBay headquarters).

I, on the other hand, am talking about things we have today. NG is NOT
a solution, it's a stop-gap and an irresponsible and bloody expensive,
non-renewable one at that.
>
> Bus transit systems such as Los Angeles have already switched from
> diesel to N/G.

That is to help solve a pollution problem and not done to solve the
oil crisis we're facing.

> 20 years from now they will be ready for the next generation of energy
> sources
> and motive devices.

The motive for that development will be stifled as long as you keep
throwing 'easy' stop-gap solutions at it by simply switching fuels.
Hoping for a break-through doesn't address today's problems of supply
from unstable regions that would like nothing more than nuke us if
given the chance. The other reason why that break-through won't happen
easily, is that the oil companies aren't quite finished sucking every
cent from us yet. Give those bastards an incentive and you might get
your dream power source sooner.
>
> In the mean time, both coal and oil are fuels that are the enemy of
> the environment
> and our lungs.

That's a gimme and I agree completely. All nukes do is concentrate
that environmental problem to a much more manageable and smaller
problem albeit a trickier one.
>
> It's time to get serious about getting off our dependence on oil and
> coal.

Amen^n degree. But then what excuse would there be to attack oil-rich
countries and supporting the defence industries?

> I've seen what strip mining does to the land.

So have I and it is disgusting. You can eliminate all that by going
nuke.

[snip]
> About the only thing that remains gone is the "Company Store".

Lew... we ALL belong to the Company Store, except it has changed its
face to the corporate/oil/defence industries/banking/government
conglomerate. And them cocksuckers have tasers, riot shields and guns!
>
> It's is a tough but doable challenge to transition away from fossil
> fuels; however,
> at this point in time, nuclear is simply not ready for prime time..

Japan was stupid to build a plant where it did. Granted. It gave a
black eye to a very well developed technology that has proven itself
to deliver gazillion terawatts of power efficiently and safely. It is
totally unfair to judge the nuclear industry by hammering away at a
couple of incidents, serious as they may be. You don't halt all air
traffic because we have people die on us in those aluminum winged
tubes. There is an element of risk in all power related technology and
we have proven that the fossil fuel component is the most lethal of
them all. Stripmines, lungs, soldiers, acid rain, bad gasses in the
air we breathe. Concentrate all that effluent into a small area, like
20 sq miles, put CNNABCNBCABC's cameras on that blob of destruction
and I assure you that the nuke problems would look like a fart in a
hurricane in comparison.
>
> Throwing up our hands and saying it can't be done or it's just too
> expensive are not
> acceptable excuses.

Again, I agree, but like that story of that child who burnt the
matches to warm herself, instead of selling them, burning our finite
NG resources is irresponsible in light of the technology we have.
Build and run nukes. Electrify the mass transport systems and
concentrate on fusion as a solution.
And start thinking of running the oil barons out of town because THEY
are the ones who LIKE us being addicted. There is something wrong with
a business model that includes a military component to their
development plans.

On Jun 21, 8:23=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> RE: Subject
>
> When a nuke plant can purchase commercial liability insurance and has
> a real plan for handling the waste stream (Burying it isn't a plan),
> get back to me.
>
> Lew

The status quo needs a bit of polish, other than that, what other plan
do you have to move millions of people when the oil runs out?
It is a lot easier to put up a barrier than a solution.

On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:11:24 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>http://www.wimp.com/maglevtrain/
>
>500 kph... holy shiat!!

LOVE TO, but not in earthquake territory, please.

If it weren't for traffic, I'd love to drive 300mph on freeways.
My trips down to the bay area would only take a couple hours with the
slowdowns in the mountains.

--
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball!

On Jun 21, 12:19=A0pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in news:a6ffea6e-eacd-43ce-9096-
> [email protected]:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 20, 11:19 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:11:24 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >http://www.wimp.com/maglevtrain/
>
> >> >500 kph... holy shiat!!
>
> >> LOVE TO, but not in earthquake territory, please.
>
> >> If it weren't for traffic, I'd love to drive 300mph on freeways.
> >> My trips down to the bay area would only take a couple hours with the
> >> slowdowns in the mountains.
>
> >> --
> >> Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball!
>
> > Notice there is no pantograph.
>
> I guess there is some kind of induction transfer of power. =A0
> Not sure I get all of this threadlet ...
>
> --
> Best regards
> Han
> email address is invalid

Maglev's are power hungry beasts, but when a track is powered by a
nuclear station, it is clean to operate.... and fast, competing with
air transport on medium distances. Initial capital outlay is heavy,
but there are very few parts that can/will wear out.

On Jun 22, 6:08=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 06:02:46 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Jun 22, 12:59=A0am, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:00:49 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >On Jun 21, 4:36=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]=
>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:53:49 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >On Jun 20, 11:19=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]=
.com>
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:11:24 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >http://www.wimp.com/maglevtrain/
>
> >> >> >> >500 kph... holy shiat!!
>
> >> >> >> LOVE TO, but not in earthquake territory, please.
>
> >> >> >> If it weren't for traffic, I'd love to drive 300mph on freeways.
> >> >> >> My trips down to the bay area would only take a couple hours wit=
h the
> >> >> >> slowdowns in the mountains.
>
> >> >> >Notice there is no pantograph.
>
> >> >> Huh? =A0WTH are you on about, Toy? =A0Are you drinking again?
>
> >> >I will try to speak m o r e =A0s l o w l y =A0next time.
>
> >> I had never before heard of the secondary definition of a pantograph
> >> as applied to a train. =A0So sue me.
>
> >> I'm still trying to figure out what you want to draw at a larger size
> >> when you have a perfectly good computer and Vectric Aspire.
>
> >That Aspire software is some powerful. Looks so simple and basic on
> >the face of it, but those waters run real deep.
> >Every time I learn a new rule, command, tool, I am amazed at how
> >flawlessly it executes everything.
>
> That's really great. =A0There's nothing worse than to have a software
> translate into garbage what you spent hours to produce. =A0Early PC
> printer drivers come to mind.
>
> >I can't wait for the 5-axis
> >version...and Shopbot has a 5 axis machine now...under 40 grand.
>
> Really? =A0Sounds like a damned good deal, but what size? =A0Hmm, 48" x
> 34" x 24". =A0Pretty nice. =A0How does PartWorks compare to Aspire? At
> all?
>

Both are made by Vectric. Aspire, however, has a 3D modelling
component that PartsWorks doesn't. When buying a ShopBot, Partsworks
(VCarvePro) is included but the 3D version (Aspire) is another
$800.00.

In article <[email protected]>,
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> >
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >In article <f-GdnSik1pC-
> > >[email protected]>, [email protected]
> > >bonomi.com says...
> > >>
> > >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > >> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >In article <t7CdnWx2h8fFE5jTnZ2dnUVZ_v-
> > >> >[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > >> >>
> > >> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > >> >> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >None of these fancy trains address the real obstacle to high speed
> > >> >> >rail
> > >> >> >in the US though, which is that somebody has to pay for the track.
> > >> >> >Running on track that is shared with freight lines Amtrak is barely
> > >> >> >cost
> > >> >> >competitive with airlines now. If Amtrak had to pay for dedicated
> > >> >> >track
> > >> >> >in addition to the other costs they incur now it would cost so much
> > >> >> >more
> > >> >> >to take the train that nobody would ride it.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Fact: In the "NorthEast Corridor" Amtrak _does_ own the tracks, and
> > >> >> all
> > >> >> the rest ff the physical infrastructure. For trips that both
> > >> >> start
> > >> >> and end in the NEC, Amtrak carries more passengers than _all_
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> airlines, =combined=. Virtually all the trains in the NEC show
> > >> >> an
> > >> >> operating profit. The premium higher-speed service ("Acela")
> > >> >> is
> > >> >> profitable enough that it covers all of the associated
> > >> >> 'overhead'
> > >> >> costs, as welL, and then some.
> > >> >
> > >> >Amtrak didn't pay for that track though, they got it more or less for
> > >> >free--the deal was that Conrail gave Amtrak the track and Conrail
> > >> >didn't
> > >> >have to pay trackage on it for 10 years.
> > >> >
> > >> >Would Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor still be profitable if they were
> > >> >paying interest on purchase of the rights of way and construction of
> > >> >the
> > >> >track? At 1976 Northeast Corridor land prices?
> > >>
> > >> Wanna guess on the value of that "10 years of trackage rights" that
> > >> Conrail
> > >> didn't pay? Including all the deferred maintenance (that Conrail hadn't
> > >> done) needed to bring the tracks back 'up to spec' -- even for freight
> > >> use. Don't forget the taxes they didn't have to pay. Conrail got rid
> > >> of
> > >> a sh*tload of liabilities by dumping that track on Amtrak.
> > >
> > >So you're saying that it cost Amtrak just as much to not pay anything as
> > >it would have for them to have bought the rights of way and laid the
> > >track from scratch?
> > >
> > >> Hint: _BY_LAW_, Conrail could not dispose of an asset for _less_ than
> > >> 'fair
> > >> market value'.
> > >> Hint: _BY_LAW_, Amtrak could could not buy things at a price materially
> > >> _above_ 'fair market value'.
> > >>
> > >> The 'price paid' in transaction _was_ "fair market value" -- under the
> > >> accepted definition of "where a _willing_ seller finds a _willing_
> > >> buyer".
> > >
> > >Except that Conrail did not sell the track and Amtrak did not buy it.
> > >
> > >It was not "disposal of an asset" it was a government mandated transfer.
> > >
> > >
> > >> >As for carrying more passengers than the airlines, you can't take the
> > >> >plane from Windsor to Windsor Locks. According to Amtrak 250,000
> > >> >riders
> > >> >a day ride 4.9 million passenger miles in the Northeast Corridor. That
> > >> >makes the average trip 19.6 miles. Airlines don't serve 20 mile
> > >> >routes.
> > >>
> > >> "male bovine excrement" applies.
> > >>
> > >> Fact: The _entire_ Amtrak system carries less than 80,000 passengers/day
> > >> (28+ million riders a _year). Your claim"250,000 riders a day" is
> > >> over THREE TIMES the entire Amtrak ridership.
> > >>
> > >> "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure" would seem to apply.
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> That 250,000/day number includes all the 'commuter rail' services (_not_
> > >> part of Amtrak) that use the NEC tracks (for a fee). That commuter rail
> > >> service makes up well over 210,000 of that 250,000 trips. Needless to
> > >> say, these commuter rail trips *are* relatively short -- *especially*
> > >> if you only count the _part_ of the trip that *is* on Amtrak NEC rails.
> > >>
> > >> ACTUAL "AMTRAK TRAINS" DATA:
> > >>
> > >> Amtrak NEC trains carried over 11 million (an average of about thirty
> > >> thousand riders a day, less than _1/8_ of what you claim) passengers
> > >> in 2010, with an average trip length of over _160_miles_. That _is_
> > >> in the range that airlines serve in the NEC.
> > >>
> > >> _ALL_ the top-volume city-pairs for NEC trains have directly competing
> > >> air service. ('Route 128' and 'Back Bay' are both in the Boston Metro
> > >> area, serviced by Logan International)
> > >>
> > >> 'Acela' service, alone, carried over 3.1 million passengers in 2010,
> > >> with an _average_ trip length of *189 miles*. (over 85% of these trips
> > >> were more than 100 miles, and over 57% were more than 200 miles.)
> > >>
> > >> The top city pairs were:
> > >> NYC -- Wash. D.C. 225 miles
> > >> Boston -- NYC 231 miles
> > >> NYC -- Philadelphia 91 miles
> > >> Philadelphia -- D.C. 134 miles
> > >> NYC -- Rte 128 (boston) 220 miles
> > >> NYC -- Providence, RI 188 miles
> > >> NYC -- Back Bay (boston) 230 miles
> > >> NYC -- Wilmington DE 117 miles
> > >> Newark -- Wash. D.C. 215 miles
> > >>
> > >> Northeast corridor non-Acela service carried 7.8 million passengers in
> > >> 2010
> > >> with an average trip distance of *154 miles*. (almost 2/3 of these
> > >> trips
> > >> were over 100 miles, and more than 1/3 were over 200 miles).
> > >>
> > >> Combined, that's an total of just over 11 million riders a year, with
> > >> an
> > >> average trip length of *164 miles*.
> > >>
> > >> In 2010, over 7.5 million Amtrak NEC trips were over 100 miles, with
> > >> over
> > >> 3 million of them over 200 miles. This _is_ in the range for air
> > >> flights
> > >> in NEC territory.
> > >>
> > >> >Sorry, but Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor is not any kind of evidence
> > >> >that any kind of rail can compete with airlines.
> > >>
> > >> Your statistics were bogus, and your conclusion is similarly flawed.
> > >
> > >So you're saying that "Amtrak's Northeast Corridor (NEC) is the busiest
> > >railroad in North America, with more than 2,200 trains operating over
> > >some portion of the Washington-Boston route each day. More than a
> > >quarter of a million riders use the NEC on every weekday, generating
> > >more than 4.9 million daily passenger miles " is a lie?
> >
> > No, I am saying *YOU*LIED*, whether intentionally or not, in your
> > 'interpretation' of those numbers. Either you didn't read carefully, or
> > didn't care about accuracy, or _deliberately_ distorted what you read.
> >
> > To be precise, when you claimed the 'average Amtrak trip' was a mere
> > 19+ miles, you were GROSSLY in error.
> >
> > In reality, _Amtrak_ carries about 30,000 passengers a day in the NEC, with
> > an average trip distance of over 164 miles.
> >
> > Note: "250,000 riders a day" is OVER THREE TIMES the _entire_ national
> > rider
> > ship on Amtrak.
> >
> > Yes, there _are_ 250,000 riders/day on the NEC. Nearly 90% of them are on
> > various short-distance "commuter rail" systems many of which run on Amtrak
> > rail for only a _small_ portion of their travel. Consider the LIRR, which
> > uses Amtrak rails _only_ in the immediate vicinity of NYC Penn station.
> >
> >
> > A partial list of the commuter rail agencies, operating over 20 different
> > routes, that contribute that 88% of the 'over 250,000 riders/day':
> > New Jersey Transit (7 lines, connecting to NYC)
> > MARC (1 line, connecting to Wash D.C.)
> > MTBA (4 lines, connecting to Boston)
> > Metro-North (3 lines, Connecticut)
> > SEPTA (5 lines, connecting to Philadelphia)
> > Shore Line East (1 line, Connecticut)
> >
> > You either "don't know" the actual facts, "don't care" about the accuracy
> > of what you claim, or deliberately falsify numbers to attempt to support
> > your fallacious claims.
> >
> > >
> > >> The
> > >> fact remains that Amtrak _does_ carry a majority of the local traffic in
> > >> the NEC, and between major city pairs there, cities where there is
> > >> 'parallel' air service.
> > >
> > >So let's see, how many people drive cars between those city pairs?
> >
> > Far less than those who fly or take the train -- for all the above-listed
> > city pairs, with possible exceptions of NYC-Wilmington, and NYC-Philly.
> >
> > >> Further, if you look in Europe, you can find multiple major city pairs
> > >> where
> > >> TGV type trains have taken _so_much_ of the traffic away from the
> > >> airlines
> > >> that the airlines have _discontinued_service_ on those routes. _NO_
> > >> airline
> > >> flies between those cities any more. Rail is the now the _only_
> > >> alternative
> > >> to driving on those routes.
> > >
> > >So what? The US is not Europe.
> >
> > BFD. You wanted 'evidence' that rail can compete with air. There is
> > _LOTS_
> > of such evidence in Europe.
> >
> > >> Quality, -frequent-, passenger rail service, can and *does* compete very
> > >> successfully with air service. Virtually everybody in the
> > >> transportation
> > >> industry recognizes that this _is_ a *fact*.
> > >
> > >It does? So how is it that the TGV needs government subsidies?
> >
> > _SOME_ TVG routes do. A number do not. Routes that have killed the
> > competing airline service did it without any subsidies.
> >
> > Why do _automobiles_ *everywhere* need government subsidies?
> >
> > Why do _airplanes *everywhere* need government subsidies?
> >
> > Why has passenger airline service, over the entire _lifetime_ of such
> > service not made a profit? Government bail-outs, subsidies, and gov't
> > 'assumption of liabilities, plus bankruptcy write-offs, _matches_ the
> > total lifetime profits for the entire U.S. passenger industry. EVERY
> > penny of profits ever paid out to passenger airline shareholders has come
> > out of the government's pockets, in one way or another.
> >
> >
> > >> The 'big problem' in _most_ of the U.S. -- basically anywhere except the
> > >> East and West coasts -- is that the population density is not high
> > >> enough
> > >> to support 'frequent' service of any type.
> > >
> > >So why build fancy high speed trains all over the US?
> >
> > Nice strawman attempt.
> >
> > FACT: *nobody* rational is proposing 'high speed' trains "all over the US".
> > In fact, I've never heard *anybody*, "rational. or otherwise, propose
> > a high speed train from Albuquerque to Salt lake, for example. Or,
> > from Spokane to Fargo.
> >
> > FACT: 'higher speed' rail _is_ being proposed for _A_FEW__SELECTED_ markets
> > where there _is_ potential traffic levels to make it feasible.
>
> OK, I quoted Amtrak, cut and pasted from their site, and you say I lied.
>
> <plonk>

What a surprise. Clarke again plonked somebody because he got caught
lying or misquoting and putting up strawmen. So he has been copying and
pasting all along? Imagine my surprise.

So <plonk yourself, you fucking loser>

Bart

In article <05b98030-a2e3-44ce-b34e-6cae5ffc9cb1
@o4g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Jun 21, 12:19 pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in news:a6ffea6e-eacd-43ce-9096-
> > [email protected]:
> >
> > > Notice there is no pantograph.
> >
> > I guess there is some kind of induction transfer of power.  
> > Not sure I get all of this threadlet ...
>
> Induction motor, same as on your tablesaw, but
> with one winding opened up and laid out flat.

Yep.

That train is the Japanese JR-Maglev.

I'm not impressed by this maglev crap. Here's what a real train can do.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJfDWtbioEM>.

That's on a regular section of track, with regular rolling stock that's
in daily service. They took two cars out, added an engine, tightened
the catenary, and swept the track before the run. Other than that all
they did was put the hammer down.

Note that it was riding smoothly and still accelerating strongly.

None of these fancy trains address the real obstacle to high speed rail
in the US though, which is that somebody has to pay for the track.
Running on track that is shared with freight lines Amtrak is barely cost
competitive with airlines now. If Amtrak had to pay for dedicated track
in addition to the other costs they incur now it would cost so much more
to take the train that nobody would ride it.

And maglev track is going to cost a lot more per mile than TGV track.

Oh, and there's the matter of that Japanese maglev depending on helium,
yet another nonrenewable resource.

In article <t7CdnWx2h8fFE5jTnZ2dnUVZ_v-
[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >None of these fancy trains address the real obstacle to high speed rail
> >in the US though, which is that somebody has to pay for the track.
> >Running on track that is shared with freight lines Amtrak is barely cost
> >competitive with airlines now. If Amtrak had to pay for dedicated track
> >in addition to the other costs they incur now it would cost so much more
> >to take the train that nobody would ride it.
>
> Fact: In the "NorthEast Corridor" Amtrak _does_ own the tracks, and all
> the rest ff the physical infrastructure. For trips that both start
> and end in the NEC, Amtrak carries more passengers than _all_ the
> airlines, =combined=. Virtually all the trains in the NEC show an
> operating profit. The premium higher-speed service ("Acela") is
> profitable enough that it covers all of the associated 'overhead'
> costs, as welL, and then some.

So?

Amtrak didn't pay for that track though, they got it more or less for
free--the deal was that Conrail gave Amtrak the track and Conrail didn't
have to pay trackage on it for 10 years.

Would Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor still be profitable if they were
paying interest on purchase of the rights of way and construction of the
track? At 1976 Northeast Corridor land prices?

As for carrying more passengers than the airlines, you can't take the
plane from Windsor to Windsor Locks. According to Amtrak 250,000 riders
a day ride 4.9 million passenger miles in the Northeast Corridor. That
makes the average trip 19.6 miles. Airlines don't serve 20 mile routes.
Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor isn't competing with the airlines,
they're competing with buses and taxicabs and bicycles and cars.

Sorry, but Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor is not any kind of evidence
that any kind of rail can compete with airlines.

> >And maglev track is going to cost a lot more per mile than TGV track.
>
> Maglev is simply _not_ economical. Without regard to the horrendous
> initial outlay, The operating cost is extremely high. It takes *lots*
> of watts to run a maglev, even at medium speeds. At high speeds, its
> even worse.

It takes "lots of watts" to run any kind of high speed electric train.
In point of fact the Transrapid draws about 5 megawatts, 500 kw or so of
which is for levitation. The TGV at full power draws about 9 megawatts
to achieve similar performance (configured for record runs with two
engines, the TGV draws more like 18). Apparently the energy cost to
levitate is more than outweighed by the elimination of rolling friction.

While I agree that maglev is a nonstarter (and so do the Germans and the
British and the Chinese--the only folks who look likely to put one in
service on more than a trial basis are the Japanese) it's not because of
the power consumption.


> Maglev _is_ capable of higher speeds than is practical with
> wheels-on-rails, but that is, essentially, it's -only- advantage.

The fastest demonstrated maglev went 3 mph faster than than the TGV.
And the TGV did it on track that is in daily service, not a special
closed test track.

On the other hand, a Maglev does't beat the track to death at that
speed, or so the advocates claim.

In article <f-GdnSik1pC-
[email protected]>, [email protected]
bonomi.com says...
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> >In article <t7CdnWx2h8fFE5jTnZ2dnUVZ_v-
> >[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >None of these fancy trains address the real obstacle to high speed rail
> >> >in the US though, which is that somebody has to pay for the track.
> >> >Running on track that is shared with freight lines Amtrak is barely cost
> >> >competitive with airlines now. If Amtrak had to pay for dedicated track
> >> >in addition to the other costs they incur now it would cost so much more
> >> >to take the train that nobody would ride it.
> >>
> >> Fact: In the "NorthEast Corridor" Amtrak _does_ own the tracks, and all
> >> the rest ff the physical infrastructure. For trips that both start
> >> and end in the NEC, Amtrak carries more passengers than _all_ the
> >> airlines, =combined=. Virtually all the trains in the NEC show an
> >> operating profit. The premium higher-speed service ("Acela") is
> >> profitable enough that it covers all of the associated 'overhead'
> >> costs, as welL, and then some.
> >
> >Amtrak didn't pay for that track though, they got it more or less for
> >free--the deal was that Conrail gave Amtrak the track and Conrail didn't
> >have to pay trackage on it for 10 years.
> >
> >Would Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor still be profitable if they were
> >paying interest on purchase of the rights of way and construction of the
> >track? At 1976 Northeast Corridor land prices?
>
> Wanna guess on the value of that "10 years of trackage rights" that Conrail
> didn't pay? Including all the deferred maintenance (that Conrail hadn't
> done) needed to bring the tracks back 'up to spec' -- even for freight
> use. Don't forget the taxes they didn't have to pay. Conrail got rid of
> a sh*tload of liabilities by dumping that track on Amtrak.

So you're saying that it cost Amtrak just as much to not pay anything as
it would have for them to have bought the rights of way and laid the
track from scratch?

> Hint: _BY_LAW_, Conrail could not dispose of an asset for _less_ than 'fair
> market value'.
> Hint: _BY_LAW_, Amtrak could could not buy things at a price materially
> _above_ 'fair market value'.
>
> The 'price paid' in transaction _was_ "fair market value" -- under the
> accepted definition of "where a _willing_ seller finds a _willing_ buyer".

Except that Conrail did not sell the track and Amtrak did not buy it.

It was not "disposal of an asset" it was a government mandated transfer.


> >As for carrying more passengers than the airlines, you can't take the
> >plane from Windsor to Windsor Locks. According to Amtrak 250,000 riders
> >a day ride 4.9 million passenger miles in the Northeast Corridor. That
> >makes the average trip 19.6 miles. Airlines don't serve 20 mile routes.
>
> "male bovine excrement" applies.
>
> Fact: The _entire_ Amtrak system carries less than 80,000 passengers/day
> (28+ million riders a _year). Your claim"250,000 riders a day" is
> over THREE TIMES the entire Amtrak ridership.
>
> "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure" would seem to apply.


>
> That 250,000/day number includes all the 'commuter rail' services (_not_
> part of Amtrak) that use the NEC tracks (for a fee). That commuter rail
> service makes up well over 210,000 of that 250,000 trips. Needless to
> say, these commuter rail trips *are* relatively short -- *especially*
> if you only count the _part_ of the trip that *is* on Amtrak NEC rails.
>
> ACTUAL "AMTRAK TRAINS" DATA:
>
> Amtrak NEC trains carried over 11 million (an average of about thirty
> thousand riders a day, less than _1/8_ of what you claim) passengers
> in 2010, with an average trip length of over _160_miles_. That _is_
> in the range that airlines serve in the NEC.
>
> _ALL_ the top-volume city-pairs for NEC trains have directly competing
> air service. ('Route 128' and 'Back Bay' are both in the Boston Metro
> area, serviced by Logan International)
>
> 'Acela' service, alone, carried over 3.1 million passengers in 2010,
> with an _average_ trip length of *189 miles*. (over 85% of these trips
> were more than 100 miles, and over 57% were more than 200 miles.)
>
> The top city pairs were:
> NYC -- Wash. D.C. 225 miles
> Boston -- NYC 231 miles
> NYC -- Philadelphia 91 miles
> Philadelphia -- D.C. 134 miles
> NYC -- Rte 128 (boston) 220 miles
> NYC -- Providence, RI 188 miles
> NYC -- Back Bay (boston) 230 miles
> NYC -- Wilmington DE 117 miles
> Newark -- Wash. D.C. 215 miles
>
> Northeast corridor non-Acela service carried 7.8 million passengers in 2010
> with an average trip distance of *154 miles*. (almost 2/3 of these trips
> were over 100 miles, and more than 1/3 were over 200 miles).
>
> Combined, that's an total of just over 11 million riders a year, with an
> average trip length of *164 miles*.
>
> In 2010, over 7.5 million Amtrak NEC trips were over 100 miles, with over
> 3 million of them over 200 miles. This _is_ in the range for air flights
> in NEC territory.
>
> >Sorry, but Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor is not any kind of evidence
> >that any kind of rail can compete with airlines.
>
> Your statistics were bogus, and your conclusion is similarly flawed.

So you're saying that "Amtrak's Northeast Corridor (NEC) is the busiest
railroad in North America, with more than 2,200 trains operating over
some portion of the Washington-Boston route each day. More than a
quarter of a million riders use the NEC on every weekday, generating
more than 4.9 million daily passenger miles " is a lie? If so take it
up with Amtrak, it's cut and pasted directly from their web site.

> The
> fact remains that Amtrak _does_ carry a majority of the local traffic in
> the NEC, and between major city pairs there, cities where there is 'parallel'
> air service.

So let's see, how many people drive cars between those city pairs?

> Further, if you look in Europe, you can find multiple major city pairs where
> TGV type trains have taken _so_much_ of the traffic away from the airlines
> that the airlines have _discontinued_service_ on those routes. _NO_ airline
> flies between those cities any more. Rail is the now the _only_ alternative
> to driving on those routes.

So what? The US is not Europe.

> Quality, -frequent-, passenger rail service, can and *does* compete very
> successfully with air service. Virtually everybody in the transportation
> industry recognizes that this _is_ a *fact*.

It does? So how is it that the TGV needs government subsidies?

> The 'big problem' in _most_ of the U.S. -- basically anywhere except the
> East and West coasts -- is that the population density is not high enough
> to support 'frequent' service of any type.

So why build fancy high speed trains all over the US?

In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> >In article <f-GdnSik1pC-
> >[email protected]>, [email protected]
> >bonomi.com says...
> >>
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >In article <t7CdnWx2h8fFE5jTnZ2dnUVZ_v-
> >> >[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> >> >>
> >> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> >> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >None of these fancy trains address the real obstacle to high speed rail
> >> >> >in the US though, which is that somebody has to pay for the track.
> >> >> >Running on track that is shared with freight lines Amtrak is barely cost
> >> >> >competitive with airlines now. If Amtrak had to pay for dedicated track
> >> >> >in addition to the other costs they incur now it would cost so much more
> >> >> >to take the train that nobody would ride it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Fact: In the "NorthEast Corridor" Amtrak _does_ own the tracks, and all
> >> >> the rest ff the physical infrastructure. For trips that both start
> >> >> and end in the NEC, Amtrak carries more passengers than _all_ the
> >> >> airlines, =combined=. Virtually all the trains in the NEC show an
> >> >> operating profit. The premium higher-speed service ("Acela") is
> >> >> profitable enough that it covers all of the associated 'overhead'
> >> >> costs, as welL, and then some.
> >> >
> >> >Amtrak didn't pay for that track though, they got it more or less for
> >> >free--the deal was that Conrail gave Amtrak the track and Conrail didn't
> >> >have to pay trackage on it for 10 years.
> >> >
> >> >Would Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor still be profitable if they were
> >> >paying interest on purchase of the rights of way and construction of the
> >> >track? At 1976 Northeast Corridor land prices?
> >>
> >> Wanna guess on the value of that "10 years of trackage rights" that Conrail
> >> didn't pay? Including all the deferred maintenance (that Conrail hadn't
> >> done) needed to bring the tracks back 'up to spec' -- even for freight
> >> use. Don't forget the taxes they didn't have to pay. Conrail got rid of
> >> a sh*tload of liabilities by dumping that track on Amtrak.
> >
> >So you're saying that it cost Amtrak just as much to not pay anything as
> >it would have for them to have bought the rights of way and laid the
> >track from scratch?
> >
> >> Hint: _BY_LAW_, Conrail could not dispose of an asset for _less_ than 'fair
> >> market value'.
> >> Hint: _BY_LAW_, Amtrak could could not buy things at a price materially
> >> _above_ 'fair market value'.
> >>
> >> The 'price paid' in transaction _was_ "fair market value" -- under the
> >> accepted definition of "where a _willing_ seller finds a _willing_ buyer".
> >
> >Except that Conrail did not sell the track and Amtrak did not buy it.
> >
> >It was not "disposal of an asset" it was a government mandated transfer.
> >
> >
> >> >As for carrying more passengers than the airlines, you can't take the
> >> >plane from Windsor to Windsor Locks. According to Amtrak 250,000 riders
> >> >a day ride 4.9 million passenger miles in the Northeast Corridor. That
> >> >makes the average trip 19.6 miles. Airlines don't serve 20 mile routes.
> >>
> >> "male bovine excrement" applies.
> >>
> >> Fact: The _entire_ Amtrak system carries less than 80,000 passengers/day
> >> (28+ million riders a _year). Your claim"250,000 riders a day" is
> >> over THREE TIMES the entire Amtrak ridership.
> >>
> >> "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure" would seem to apply.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> That 250,000/day number includes all the 'commuter rail' services (_not_
> >> part of Amtrak) that use the NEC tracks (for a fee). That commuter rail
> >> service makes up well over 210,000 of that 250,000 trips. Needless to
> >> say, these commuter rail trips *are* relatively short -- *especially*
> >> if you only count the _part_ of the trip that *is* on Amtrak NEC rails.
> >>
> >> ACTUAL "AMTRAK TRAINS" DATA:
> >>
> >> Amtrak NEC trains carried over 11 million (an average of about thirty
> >> thousand riders a day, less than _1/8_ of what you claim) passengers
> >> in 2010, with an average trip length of over _160_miles_. That _is_
> >> in the range that airlines serve in the NEC.
> >>
> >> _ALL_ the top-volume city-pairs for NEC trains have directly competing
> >> air service. ('Route 128' and 'Back Bay' are both in the Boston Metro
> >> area, serviced by Logan International)
> >>
> >> 'Acela' service, alone, carried over 3.1 million passengers in 2010,
> >> with an _average_ trip length of *189 miles*. (over 85% of these trips
> >> were more than 100 miles, and over 57% were more than 200 miles.)
> >>
> >> The top city pairs were:
> >> NYC -- Wash. D.C. 225 miles
> >> Boston -- NYC 231 miles
> >> NYC -- Philadelphia 91 miles
> >> Philadelphia -- D.C. 134 miles
> >> NYC -- Rte 128 (boston) 220 miles
> >> NYC -- Providence, RI 188 miles
> >> NYC -- Back Bay (boston) 230 miles
> >> NYC -- Wilmington DE 117 miles
> >> Newark -- Wash. D.C. 215 miles
> >>
> >> Northeast corridor non-Acela service carried 7.8 million passengers in 2010
> >> with an average trip distance of *154 miles*. (almost 2/3 of these trips
> >> were over 100 miles, and more than 1/3 were over 200 miles).
> >>
> >> Combined, that's an total of just over 11 million riders a year, with an
> >> average trip length of *164 miles*.
> >>
> >> In 2010, over 7.5 million Amtrak NEC trips were over 100 miles, with over
> >> 3 million of them over 200 miles. This _is_ in the range for air flights
> >> in NEC territory.
> >>
> >> >Sorry, but Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor is not any kind of evidence
> >> >that any kind of rail can compete with airlines.
> >>
> >> Your statistics were bogus, and your conclusion is similarly flawed.
> >
> >So you're saying that "Amtrak's Northeast Corridor (NEC) is the busiest
> >railroad in North America, with more than 2,200 trains operating over
> >some portion of the Washington-Boston route each day. More than a
> >quarter of a million riders use the NEC on every weekday, generating
> >more than 4.9 million daily passenger miles " is a lie?
>
> No, I am saying *YOU*LIED*, whether intentionally or not, in your
> 'interpretation' of those numbers. Either you didn't read carefully, or
> didn't care about accuracy, or _deliberately_ distorted what you read.
>
> To be precise, when you claimed the 'average Amtrak trip' was a mere
> 19+ miles, you were GROSSLY in error.
>
> In reality, _Amtrak_ carries about 30,000 passengers a day in the NEC, with
> an average trip distance of over 164 miles.
>
> Note: "250,000 riders a day" is OVER THREE TIMES the _entire_ national rider
> ship on Amtrak.
>
> Yes, there _are_ 250,000 riders/day on the NEC. Nearly 90% of them are on
> various short-distance "commuter rail" systems many of which run on Amtrak
> rail for only a _small_ portion of their travel. Consider the LIRR, which
> uses Amtrak rails _only_ in the immediate vicinity of NYC Penn station.
>
>
> A partial list of the commuter rail agencies, operating over 20 different
> routes, that contribute that 88% of the 'over 250,000 riders/day':
> New Jersey Transit (7 lines, connecting to NYC)
> MARC (1 line, connecting to Wash D.C.)
> MTBA (4 lines, connecting to Boston)
> Metro-North (3 lines, Connecticut)
> SEPTA (5 lines, connecting to Philadelphia)
> Shore Line East (1 line, Connecticut)
>
> You either "don't know" the actual facts, "don't care" about the accuracy
> of what you claim, or deliberately falsify numbers to attempt to support
> your fallacious claims.
>
> >
> >> The
> >> fact remains that Amtrak _does_ carry a majority of the local traffic in
> >> the NEC, and between major city pairs there, cities where there is
> >> 'parallel' air service.
> >
> >So let's see, how many people drive cars between those city pairs?
>
> Far less than those who fly or take the train -- for all the above-listed
> city pairs, with possible exceptions of NYC-Wilmington, and NYC-Philly.
>
> >> Further, if you look in Europe, you can find multiple major city pairs where
> >> TGV type trains have taken _so_much_ of the traffic away from the airlines
> >> that the airlines have _discontinued_service_ on those routes. _NO_ airline
> >> flies between those cities any more. Rail is the now the _only_ alternative
> >> to driving on those routes.
> >
> >So what? The US is not Europe.
>
> BFD. You wanted 'evidence' that rail can compete with air. There is _LOTS_
> of such evidence in Europe.
>
> >> Quality, -frequent-, passenger rail service, can and *does* compete very
> >> successfully with air service. Virtually everybody in the transportation
> >> industry recognizes that this _is_ a *fact*.
> >
> >It does? So how is it that the TGV needs government subsidies?
>
> _SOME_ TVG routes do. A number do not. Routes that have killed the
> competing airline service did it without any subsidies.
>
> Why do _automobiles_ *everywhere* need government subsidies?
>
> Why do _airplanes *everywhere* need government subsidies?
>
> Why has passenger airline service, over the entire _lifetime_ of such
> service not made a profit? Government bail-outs, subsidies, and gov't
> 'assumption of liabilities, plus bankruptcy write-offs, _matches_ the
> total lifetime profits for the entire U.S. passenger industry. EVERY
> penny of profits ever paid out to passenger airline shareholders has come
> out of the government's pockets, in one way or another.
>
>
> >> The 'big problem' in _most_ of the U.S. -- basically anywhere except the
> >> East and West coasts -- is that the population density is not high enough
> >> to support 'frequent' service of any type.
> >
> >So why build fancy high speed trains all over the US?
>
> Nice strawman attempt.
>
> FACT: *nobody* rational is proposing 'high speed' trains "all over the US".
> In fact, I've never heard *anybody*, "rational. or otherwise, propose
> a high speed train from Albuquerque to Salt lake, for example. Or,
> from Spokane to Fargo.
>
> FACT: 'higher speed' rail _is_ being proposed for _A_FEW__SELECTED_ markets
> where there _is_ potential traffic levels to make it feasible.

OK, I quoted Amtrak, cut and pasted from their site, and you say I lied.

<plonk>

In article <[email protected]>,
J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <f-GdnSik1pC-
>[email protected]>, [email protected]
>bonomi.com says...
>>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >In article <t7CdnWx2h8fFE5jTnZ2dnUVZ_v-
>> >[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>> >>
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >None of these fancy trains address the real obstacle to high speed rail
>> >> >in the US though, which is that somebody has to pay for the track.
>> >> >Running on track that is shared with freight lines Amtrak is barely cost
>> >> >competitive with airlines now. If Amtrak had to pay for dedicated track
>> >> >in addition to the other costs they incur now it would cost so much more
>> >> >to take the train that nobody would ride it.
>> >>
>> >> Fact: In the "NorthEast Corridor" Amtrak _does_ own the tracks, and all
>> >> the rest ff the physical infrastructure. For trips that both start
>> >> and end in the NEC, Amtrak carries more passengers than _all_ the
>> >> airlines, =combined=. Virtually all the trains in the NEC show an
>> >> operating profit. The premium higher-speed service ("Acela") is
>> >> profitable enough that it covers all of the associated 'overhead'
>> >> costs, as welL, and then some.
>> >
>> >Amtrak didn't pay for that track though, they got it more or less for
>> >free--the deal was that Conrail gave Amtrak the track and Conrail didn't
>> >have to pay trackage on it for 10 years.
>> >
>> >Would Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor still be profitable if they were
>> >paying interest on purchase of the rights of way and construction of the
>> >track? At 1976 Northeast Corridor land prices?
>>
>> Wanna guess on the value of that "10 years of trackage rights" that Conrail
>> didn't pay? Including all the deferred maintenance (that Conrail hadn't
>> done) needed to bring the tracks back 'up to spec' -- even for freight
>> use. Don't forget the taxes they didn't have to pay. Conrail got rid of
>> a sh*tload of liabilities by dumping that track on Amtrak.
>
>So you're saying that it cost Amtrak just as much to not pay anything as
>it would have for them to have bought the rights of way and laid the
>track from scratch?
>
>> Hint: _BY_LAW_, Conrail could not dispose of an asset for _less_ than 'fair
>> market value'.
>> Hint: _BY_LAW_, Amtrak could could not buy things at a price materially
>> _above_ 'fair market value'.
>>
>> The 'price paid' in transaction _was_ "fair market value" -- under the
>> accepted definition of "where a _willing_ seller finds a _willing_ buyer".
>
>Except that Conrail did not sell the track and Amtrak did not buy it.
>
>It was not "disposal of an asset" it was a government mandated transfer.
>
>
>> >As for carrying more passengers than the airlines, you can't take the
>> >plane from Windsor to Windsor Locks. According to Amtrak 250,000 riders
>> >a day ride 4.9 million passenger miles in the Northeast Corridor. That
>> >makes the average trip 19.6 miles. Airlines don't serve 20 mile routes.
>>
>> "male bovine excrement" applies.
>>
>> Fact: The _entire_ Amtrak system carries less than 80,000 passengers/day
>> (28+ million riders a _year). Your claim"250,000 riders a day" is
>> over THREE TIMES the entire Amtrak ridership.
>>
>> "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure" would seem to apply.
>
>
>>
>> That 250,000/day number includes all the 'commuter rail' services (_not_
>> part of Amtrak) that use the NEC tracks (for a fee). That commuter rail
>> service makes up well over 210,000 of that 250,000 trips. Needless to
>> say, these commuter rail trips *are* relatively short -- *especially*
>> if you only count the _part_ of the trip that *is* on Amtrak NEC rails.
>>
>> ACTUAL "AMTRAK TRAINS" DATA:
>>
>> Amtrak NEC trains carried over 11 million (an average of about thirty
>> thousand riders a day, less than _1/8_ of what you claim) passengers
>> in 2010, with an average trip length of over _160_miles_. That _is_
>> in the range that airlines serve in the NEC.
>>
>> _ALL_ the top-volume city-pairs for NEC trains have directly competing
>> air service. ('Route 128' and 'Back Bay' are both in the Boston Metro
>> area, serviced by Logan International)
>>
>> 'Acela' service, alone, carried over 3.1 million passengers in 2010,
>> with an _average_ trip length of *189 miles*. (over 85% of these trips
>> were more than 100 miles, and over 57% were more than 200 miles.)
>>
>> The top city pairs were:
>> NYC -- Wash. D.C. 225 miles
>> Boston -- NYC 231 miles
>> NYC -- Philadelphia 91 miles
>> Philadelphia -- D.C. 134 miles
>> NYC -- Rte 128 (boston) 220 miles
>> NYC -- Providence, RI 188 miles
>> NYC -- Back Bay (boston) 230 miles
>> NYC -- Wilmington DE 117 miles
>> Newark -- Wash. D.C. 215 miles
>>
>> Northeast corridor non-Acela service carried 7.8 million passengers in 2010
>> with an average trip distance of *154 miles*. (almost 2/3 of these trips
>> were over 100 miles, and more than 1/3 were over 200 miles).
>>
>> Combined, that's an total of just over 11 million riders a year, with an
>> average trip length of *164 miles*.
>>
>> In 2010, over 7.5 million Amtrak NEC trips were over 100 miles, with over
>> 3 million of them over 200 miles. This _is_ in the range for air flights
>> in NEC territory.
>>
>> >Sorry, but Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor is not any kind of evidence
>> >that any kind of rail can compete with airlines.
>>
>> Your statistics were bogus, and your conclusion is similarly flawed.
>
>So you're saying that "Amtrak's Northeast Corridor (NEC) is the busiest
>railroad in North America, with more than 2,200 trains operating over
>some portion of the Washington-Boston route each day. More than a
>quarter of a million riders use the NEC on every weekday, generating
>more than 4.9 million daily passenger miles " is a lie?

No, I am saying *YOU*LIED*, whether intentionally or not, in your
'interpretation' of those numbers. Either you didn't read carefully, or
didn't care about accuracy, or _deliberately_ distorted what you read.

To be precise, when you claimed the 'average Amtrak trip' was a mere
19+ miles, you were GROSSLY in error.

In reality, _Amtrak_ carries about 30,000 passengers a day in the NEC, with
an average trip distance of over 164 miles.

Note: "250,000 riders a day" is OVER THREE TIMES the _entire_ national rider
ship on Amtrak.

Yes, there _are_ 250,000 riders/day on the NEC. Nearly 90% of them are on
various short-distance "commuter rail" systems many of which run on Amtrak
rail for only a _small_ portion of their travel. Consider the LIRR, which
uses Amtrak rails _only_ in the immediate vicinity of NYC Penn station.


A partial list of the commuter rail agencies, operating over 20 different
routes, that contribute that 88% of the 'over 250,000 riders/day':
New Jersey Transit (7 lines, connecting to NYC)
MARC (1 line, connecting to Wash D.C.)
MTBA (4 lines, connecting to Boston)
Metro-North (3 lines, Connecticut)
SEPTA (5 lines, connecting to Philadelphia)
Shore Line East (1 line, Connecticut)

You either "don't know" the actual facts, "don't care" about the accuracy
of what you claim, or deliberately falsify numbers to attempt to support
your fallacious claims.

>
>> The
>> fact remains that Amtrak _does_ carry a majority of the local traffic in
>> the NEC, and between major city pairs there, cities where there is
>> 'parallel' air service.
>
>So let's see, how many people drive cars between those city pairs?

Far less than those who fly or take the train -- for all the above-listed
city pairs, with possible exceptions of NYC-Wilmington, and NYC-Philly.

>> Further, if you look in Europe, you can find multiple major city pairs where
>> TGV type trains have taken _so_much_ of the traffic away from the airlines
>> that the airlines have _discontinued_service_ on those routes. _NO_ airline
>> flies between those cities any more. Rail is the now the _only_ alternative
>> to driving on those routes.
>
>So what? The US is not Europe.

BFD. You wanted 'evidence' that rail can compete with air. There is _LOTS_
of such evidence in Europe.

>> Quality, -frequent-, passenger rail service, can and *does* compete very
>> successfully with air service. Virtually everybody in the transportation
>> industry recognizes that this _is_ a *fact*.
>
>It does? So how is it that the TGV needs government subsidies?

_SOME_ TVG routes do. A number do not. Routes that have killed the
competing airline service did it without any subsidies.

Why do _automobiles_ *everywhere* need government subsidies?

Why do _airplanes *everywhere* need government subsidies?

Why has passenger airline service, over the entire _lifetime_ of such
service not made a profit? Government bail-outs, subsidies, and gov't
'assumption of liabilities, plus bankruptcy write-offs, _matches_ the
total lifetime profits for the entire U.S. passenger industry. EVERY
penny of profits ever paid out to passenger airline shareholders has come
out of the government's pockets, in one way or another.


>> The 'big problem' in _most_ of the U.S. -- basically anywhere except the
>> East and West coasts -- is that the population density is not high enough
>> to support 'frequent' service of any type.
>
>So why build fancy high speed trains all over the US?

Nice strawman attempt.

FACT: *nobody* rational is proposing 'high speed' trains "all over the US".
In fact, I've never heard *anybody*, "rational. or otherwise, propose
a high speed train from Albuquerque to Salt lake, for example. Or,
from Spokane to Fargo.

FACT: 'higher speed' rail _is_ being proposed for _A_FEW__SELECTED_ markets
where there _is_ potential traffic levels to make it feasible.

On 6/22/2011 12:16 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

> How much fly ash does natural gas generate?

> Progress IS being made dumping dirty non renewable fuel sources.


Push on a balloon and it pooches out elsewhere, something CA has yet to
learn ... and up goes the price of concrete by 30%, a basic building
block of ALL construction projects in the country ... "progress"?


A Modest Proposal: CA state legislators, who seem hell bent on
regulating all facets of life, should consider a law prohibiting their
residents from opining on economic matters until they get their own
house in order:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-state-budget-20110616,0,1467047.story?lanow

http://taxdidactic.blogspot.com/2011/06/adult-supervision.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2011-06-20-Mothballed-Hillcrest-High-School-Riverside-California_n.htm

http://www.economist.com/node/18712862

http://www.dailyrepublic.com/apnews/wave-of-lawsuits-over-seats-hit-california-retail-stores/

http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/15/hotel-union-tucks-support-behind-california-legislation-mandating-fitted-bed-sheets/

The absurdity of CA regulatory machinations would be hilarious if it
wasn't so damn sad.

The saddest part is that, as the unass CA to get away from the
absurdness, they will move to TX and pollute the economic waters here.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in news:a6ffea6e-eacd-43ce-9096-
[email protected]:

> On Jun 20, 11:19 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:11:24 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >http://www.wimp.com/maglevtrain/
>>
>> >500 kph... holy shiat!!
>>
>> LOVE TO, but not in earthquake territory, please.
>>
>> If it weren't for traffic, I'd love to drive 300mph on freeways.
>> My trips down to the bay area would only take a couple hours with the
>> slowdowns in the mountains.
>>
>> --
>> Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball!
>
> Notice there is no pantograph.

I guess there is some kind of induction transfer of power.
Not sure I get all of this threadlet ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> None of these fancy trains address the real obstacle to high speed rail
> in the US though, which is that somebody has to pay for the track.
> Running on track that is shared with freight lines Amtrak is barely cost
> competitive with airlines now. If Amtrak had to pay for dedicated track
> in addition to the other costs they incur now it would cost so much more
> to take the train that nobody would ride it.

Of course if there was a similar subsidy for tracks as for airports and air
traffic control, the price of the track would be covered.

High speed rail is most effective for middle distances (2-4 hrs travel
time) in denser populated areas. The real problem in the US then is that
you have to raze homes to get a right of way that is straight enough for
high speed. In US suburbia there isn't enough open space to do that.
While Europe is overall more densely populated than the US, there really is
more open space between towns in Europe than there is in the US. Also, the
tolerances for tracks would have to be tightened to get to really high
speed rail.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Fact: In the "NorthEast Corridor" Amtrak _does_ own the tracks, and
> all
> the rest ff the physical infrastructure. For trips that both
> start and end in the NEC, Amtrak carries more passengers than
> _all_ the airlines, =combined=. Virtually all the trains in the
> NEC show an operating profit. The premium higher-speed service
> ("Acela") is profitable enough that it covers all of the
> associated 'overhead' costs, as welL, and then some.

Another fact is the rather deplorable condition of the tracks, overhead
wires, signals and powerstations, as well as the traffic control on the
heavily overused NEC tracks. A reason I used to be glad of having the
option to commute into NY via Hoboken, definitely one of the reasons I am
happy to be retired ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <t7CdnWx2h8fFE5jTnZ2dnUVZ_v-
> [email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >None of these fancy trains address the real obstacle to high speed
>> >rail in the US though, which is that somebody has to pay for the
>> >track. Running on track that is shared with freight lines Amtrak is
>> >barely cost competitive with airlines now. If Amtrak had to pay for
>> >dedicated track in addition to the other costs they incur now it
>> >would cost so much more to take the train that nobody would ride it.
>>
>> Fact: In the "NorthEast Corridor" Amtrak _does_ own the tracks, and
>> all
>> the rest ff the physical infrastructure. For trips that both
>> start and end in the NEC, Amtrak carries more passengers than
>> _all_ the airlines, =combined=. Virtually all the trains in
>> the NEC show an operating profit. The premium higher-speed
>> service ("Acela") is profitable enough that it covers all of
>> the associated 'overhead' costs, as welL, and then some.
>
> So?
>
> Amtrak didn't pay for that track though, they got it more or less for
> free--the deal was that Conrail gave Amtrak the track and Conrail
> didn't have to pay trackage on it for 10 years.

I don't believe that the airlines collectively (and hence the people who
fly, public and private) pay for all the costs of airports and air
traffic control. So that argument is moot (my opinion).

> Would Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor still be profitable if they
> were paying interest on purchase of the rights of way and construction
> of the track? At 1976 Northeast Corridor land prices?

Amtrak acquired this by act of Congress, IIRC. No interest payments
necessary.

> As for carrying more passengers than the airlines, you can't take the
> plane from Windsor to Windsor Locks. According to Amtrak 250,000
> riders a day ride 4.9 million passenger miles in the Northeast
> Corridor. That makes the average trip 19.6 miles. Airlines don't
> serve 20 mile routes. Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor isn't
> competing with the airlines, they're competing with buses and taxicabs
> and bicycles and cars.

Not totally correct. I live near NYC in Jersey, worked in NYC (now
retired). If I had to travel for work to Boston, Washington DC or in
between, I would take the train (Acela preferred). We also did for a
while when traveling privately to visit family near Boston,but the train
switching and delays got to me, and now we're traveling faster and more
cheaply by car (faster being the more important factor).

The huge successes of cheap bus travel also demonstrate a need for
travelling other than by plane on routes that take around 4-6 hours by
car. Why skulk around airports for 3 hours total if the flight is less
than 1 to 1 1/2 hour?

> Sorry, but Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor is not any kind of
> evidence that any kind of rail can compete with airlines.

See above - not true under admittedly limited conditions

<snip>

TGV and similar trains are a very good way to travel in my experiences in
Europe, but not especially cheap. With my broken leg the trip Rotterdam
to Paris was just fine, on a par with first class on AirFrance/Delta
Paris to EWR (except the food was MUCH better <grin>).

For longer distances (>500 miles) RyanAir and similar are very effective.
Again, IMNSHO.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Jun 20, 11:19=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:11:24 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >http://www.wimp.com/maglevtrain/
>
> >500 kph... holy shiat!!
>
> LOVE TO, but not in earthquake territory, please.
>
> If it weren't for traffic, I'd love to drive 300mph on freeways.
> My trips down to the bay area would only take a couple hours with the
> slowdowns in the mountains.
>
> --
> Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball!

Notice there is no pantograph.

Lew Hodgett wrote:

>
> Current weather conditions are simply indicative of things to come if
> we don't start getting CO2 out of our atmosphere.
>
> I would love to see nuclear be part of that energy mix; however, no
> commercial insurance carrier will write liability coverage for a nuke
> and the blatant bull shit being spewed by the industry lobby does
> nothing to make me believe the industry is ready for prime time.
>
> The nuke industry is looking at initial cost to make a sale, trying to
> ignore total cost of ownership over the life cycle of a facility.
>
> Been to that movie.
>

The problem is that nuke advocates point out that we are depleting resources
and that we owe it to future generations not to use up all of these resouces
(though, they also advocate no future use of these same resources - so why
worry about depletion...), but they seem at the same time to show no concern
for the toxic dump nuke promises to turn the planet into. Between accidents
and a lack of disposal of waste, we are saddling future generations with a
much worse offering than the depletion of coal and natural gas.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Jun 24, 7:46=A0am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
> > Current weather conditions are simply indicative of things to come if
> > we don't start getting CO2 out of our atmosphere.
>
> > I would love to see nuclear be part of that energy mix; however, no
> > commercial insurance carrier will write liability coverage for a nuke
> > and the blatant bull shit being spewed by the industry lobby does
> > nothing to make me believe the industry is ready for prime time.
>
> > The nuke industry is looking at initial cost to make a sale, trying to
> > ignore total cost of ownership over the life cycle of a facility.
>
> > Been to that movie.
>
> The problem is that nuke advocates point out that we are depleting resour=
ces
> and that we owe it to future generations not to use up all of these resou=
ces
> (though, they also advocate no future use of these same resources - so wh=
y
> worry about depletion...), but they seem at the same time to show no conc=
ern
> for the toxic dump nuke promises to turn the planet into.

Nobody is going to spray the waste all over the place. It can be
managed in concentrated forms and placed in defunct coal mines.
There's enough capacity for storage to last millennium.

>=A0Between accidents

You mean like Exxon Valdez? Like BP Gulf? Like people dying in Libya/
Iraq etc., etc.,?

> and a lack of disposal of waste, we are saddling future generations with =
a
> much worse offering than the depletion of coal and natural gas.
>

Mike, it is not just the depletion, it's the environmental and
economic damage as well.

I'm not pro-nuke because I think it is all peaches and cream. It is
not. But is sure as hell is the lesser of evils.
Easier to manage small concentrated high risk than risks that have no
discernible boundaries.

Robatoy wrote:

>
> Nobody is going to spray the waste all over the place. It can be
> managed in concentrated forms and placed in defunct coal mines.
> There's enough capacity for storage to last millennium.

Never suggested spraying it all over the place. Storage and disposal is a
looming problem for all countries - not just the US, as it is a very real
problem. It does not work to simply say stick it in an empty coal mine.
This stuff is very dangerous. Think about geological disturbances,
terrorism, etc. The fact of the matter is that management of the waste is a
very real problem. Even the french are wrestling with this very issue and
they are not bound by the US regulations. The problem is - as you point
out - the problem is a millennium long problem. There has been no good
solution put forward to address this to date - by any country. It may be
easy to see burial as a good solution if that site is not near you or will
not effect you, but there are really very few of those sites anywhere on the
globe.

>
>> Between accidents
>
> You mean like Exxon Valdez? Like BP Gulf? Like people dying in Libya/
> Iraq etc., etc.,?

Significantly less impacting than the release of radioactive waste. I'll
take those any day over the risks of nuclear accidents.

>
>> and a lack of disposal of waste, we are saddling future generations
>> with a much worse offering than the depletion of coal and natural
>> gas.
>>
>
> Mike, it is not just the depletion, it's the environmental and
> economic damage as well.
>

Again - significantly less than the impact of nukes.

> I'm not pro-nuke because I think it is all peaches and cream. It is
> not. But is sure as hell is the lesser of evils.
> Easier to manage small concentrated high risk than risks that have no
> discernible boundaries.

I'm reasonably pro-nuke - but I'm not willing to sign on completely until
the issue of waste can be resolved. The waste and the impact of it is far
greater in the near term than the long term impact of alternatives.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Jun 22, 12:59=A0am, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:00:49 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Jun 21, 4:36=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:53:49 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >On Jun 20, 11:19=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]=
m>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:11:24 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >http://www.wimp.com/maglevtrain/
>
> >> >> >500 kph... holy shiat!!
>
> >> >> LOVE TO, but not in earthquake territory, please.
>
> >> >> If it weren't for traffic, I'd love to drive 300mph on freeways.
> >> >> My trips down to the bay area would only take a couple hours with t=
he
> >> >> slowdowns in the mountains.
>
> >> >Notice there is no pantograph.
>
> >> Huh? =A0WTH are you on about, Toy? =A0Are you drinking again?
>
> >I will try to speak m o r e =A0s l o w l y =A0next time.
>
> I had never before heard of the secondary definition of a pantograph
> as applied to a train. =A0So sue me.
>
> I'm still trying to figure out what you want to draw at a larger size
> when you have a perfectly good computer and Vectric Aspire.
>
That Aspire software is some powerful. Looks so simple and basic on
the face of it, but those waters run real deep.
Every time I learn a new rule, command, tool, I am amazed at how
flawlessly it executes everything. I can't wait for the 5-axis
version...and Shopbot has a 5 axis machine now...under 40 grand.

In article <[email protected]>,
J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <t7CdnWx2h8fFE5jTnZ2dnUVZ_v-
>[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >None of these fancy trains address the real obstacle to high speed rail
>> >in the US though, which is that somebody has to pay for the track.
>> >Running on track that is shared with freight lines Amtrak is barely cost
>> >competitive with airlines now. If Amtrak had to pay for dedicated track
>> >in addition to the other costs they incur now it would cost so much more
>> >to take the train that nobody would ride it.
>>
>> Fact: In the "NorthEast Corridor" Amtrak _does_ own the tracks, and all
>> the rest ff the physical infrastructure. For trips that both start
>> and end in the NEC, Amtrak carries more passengers than _all_ the
>> airlines, =combined=. Virtually all the trains in the NEC show an
>> operating profit. The premium higher-speed service ("Acela") is
>> profitable enough that it covers all of the associated 'overhead'
>> costs, as welL, and then some.
>
>Amtrak didn't pay for that track though, they got it more or less for
>free--the deal was that Conrail gave Amtrak the track and Conrail didn't
>have to pay trackage on it for 10 years.
>
>Would Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor still be profitable if they were
>paying interest on purchase of the rights of way and construction of the
>track? At 1976 Northeast Corridor land prices?

Wanna guess on the value of that "10 years of trackage rights" that Conrail
didn't pay? Including all the deferred maintenance (that Conrail hadn't
done) needed to bring the tracks back 'up to spec' -- even for freight
use. Don't forget the taxes they didn't have to pay. Conrail got rid of
a sh*tload of liabilities by dumping that track on Amtrak.

Hint: _BY_LAW_, Conrail could not dispose of an asset for _less_ than 'fair
market value'.
Hint: _BY_LAW_, Amtrak could could not buy things at a price materially
_above_ 'fair market value'.

The 'price paid' in transaction _was_ "fair market value" -- under the
accepted definition of "where a _willing_ seller finds a _willing_ buyer".

>As for carrying more passengers than the airlines, you can't take the
>plane from Windsor to Windsor Locks. According to Amtrak 250,000 riders
>a day ride 4.9 million passenger miles in the Northeast Corridor. That
>makes the average trip 19.6 miles. Airlines don't serve 20 mile routes.

"male bovine excrement" applies.

Fact: The _entire_ Amtrak system carries less than 80,000 passengers/day
(28+ million riders a _year). Your claim"250,000 riders a day" is
over THREE TIMES the entire Amtrak ridership.

"Figures don't lie, but liars can figure" would seem to apply.

That 250,000/day number includes all the 'commuter rail' services (_not_
part of Amtrak) that use the NEC tracks (for a fee). That commuter rail
service makes up well over 210,000 of that 250,000 trips. Needless to
say, these commuter rail trips *are* relatively short -- *especially*
if you only count the _part_ of the trip that *is* on Amtrak NEC rails.

ACTUAL "AMTRAK TRAINS" DATA:

Amtrak NEC trains carried over 11 million (an average of about thirty
thousand riders a day, less than _1/8_ of what you claim) passengers
in 2010, with an average trip length of over _160_miles_. That _is_
in the range that airlines serve in the NEC.

_ALL_ the top-volume city-pairs for NEC trains have directly competing
air service. ('Route 128' and 'Back Bay' are both in the Boston Metro
area, serviced by Logan International)

'Acela' service, alone, carried over 3.1 million passengers in 2010,
with an _average_ trip length of *189 miles*. (over 85% of these trips
were more than 100 miles, and over 57% were more than 200 miles.)

The top city pairs were:
NYC -- Wash. D.C. 225 miles
Boston -- NYC 231 miles
NYC -- Philadelphia 91 miles
Philadelphia -- D.C. 134 miles
NYC -- Rte 128 (boston) 220 miles
NYC -- Providence, RI 188 miles
NYC -- Back Bay (boston) 230 miles
NYC -- Wilmington DE 117 miles
Newark -- Wash. D.C. 215 miles

Northeast corridor non-Acela service carried 7.8 million passengers in 2010
with an average trip distance of *154 miles*. (almost 2/3 of these trips
were over 100 miles, and more than 1/3 were over 200 miles).

Combined, that's an total of just over 11 million riders a year, with an
average trip length of *164 miles*.

In 2010, over 7.5 million Amtrak NEC trips were over 100 miles, with over
3 million of them over 200 miles. This _is_ in the range for air flights
in NEC territory.

>Sorry, but Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor is not any kind of evidence
>that any kind of rail can compete with airlines.

Your statistics were bogus, and your conclusion is similarly flawed. The
fact remains that Amtrak _does_ carry a majority of the local traffic in
the NEC, and between major city pairs there, cities where there is 'parallel'
air service.

Further, if you look in Europe, you can find multiple major city pairs where
TGV type trains have taken _so_much_ of the traffic away from the airlines
that the airlines have _discontinued_service_ on those routes. _NO_ airline
flies between those cities any more. Rail is the now the _only_ alternative
to driving on those routes.

Quality, -frequent-, passenger rail service, can and *does* compete very
successfully with air service. Virtually everybody in the transportation
industry recognizes that this _is_ a *fact*.

The 'big problem' in _most_ of the U.S. -- basically anywhere except the
East and West coasts -- is that the population density is not high enough
to support 'frequent' service of any type.

In article <[email protected]>,
Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>RE: Subject
>
>When a nuke plant can purchase commercial liability insurance and has
>a real plan for handling the waste stream (Burying it isn't a plan),
>get back to me.
>
>Lew
>
>
>

Plan or not, nuclear plants are doing a much better job of handling
their waste than coal fired plants. Quite a bit cleaner on the input
side too, though most any kind of mining can be problematic.
--
There are no stupid questions, but there are lots of stupid answers.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

In article <[email protected]>,
Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Larry W" wrote:
>
>> Plan or not, nuclear plants are doing a much better job of handling
>> their waste than coal fired plants.
>--------------------------------
>Not sure the Japanese would agree with you.
>

Well, I'm not sure either, but do you think they'd rather deal with
something like these:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Creek_Flood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_County_coal_sludge_spill


--
There are no stupid questions, but there are lots of stupid answers.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

On 6/24/2011 7:46 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>>
>> Current weather conditions are simply indicative of things to come if
>> we don't start getting CO2 out of our atmosphere.
>>
>> I would love to see nuclear be part of that energy mix; however, no
>> commercial insurance carrier will write liability coverage for a nuke
>> and the blatant bull shit being spewed by the industry lobby does
>> nothing to make me believe the industry is ready for prime time.
>>
>> The nuke industry is looking at initial cost to make a sale, trying to
>> ignore total cost of ownership over the life cycle of a facility.
>>
>> Been to that movie.
>>
>
> The problem is that nuke advocates point out that we are depleting resources
> and that we owe it to future generations not to use up all of these resouces
> (though, they also advocate no future use of these same resources - so why
> worry about depletion...), but they seem at the same time to show no concern
> for the toxic dump nuke promises to turn the planet into. Between accidents
> and a lack of disposal of waste, we are saddling future generations with a
> much worse offering than the depletion of coal and natural gas.
>
The lack of disposal methods for nuclear waste is cause by US laws that
prohibit the reprocessing of nuclear waste. The cost of operation is
artificially high because of the regulations that were put in place to
drive them out of existence.

While the government Tilt at windmills, private enterprise is developing
small nuclear units that can provide energy for years that will be
placed in every neighborhood in the country ECONOMICALLY. Current
designs are about the size of a tractor trailer. I assume the design
is based on the nuclear units that went into space craft 30 years ago.
Because of their size, they will not take up miles of land, and produce
energy only a fraction of the time.

As you drive through wind mill farms, the norm is that only a small
percentages are actually working. Government subsidies are the only
thing that is keeping them active.

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 06:02:46 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jun 22, 12:59 am, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:00:49 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Jun 21, 4:36 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:53:49 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>>
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >On Jun 20, 11:19 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:11:24 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>>
>> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >http://www.wimp.com/maglevtrain/
>>
>> >> >> >500 kph... holy shiat!!
>>
>> >> >> LOVE TO, but not in earthquake territory, please.
>>
>> >> >> If it weren't for traffic, I'd love to drive 300mph on freeways.
>> >> >> My trips down to the bay area would only take a couple hours with the
>> >> >> slowdowns in the mountains.
>>
>> >> >Notice there is no pantograph.
>>
>> >> Huh?  WTH are you on about, Toy?  Are you drinking again?
>>
>> >I will try to speak m o r e  s l o w l y  next time.
>>
>> I had never before heard of the secondary definition of a pantograph
>> as applied to a train.  So sue me.
>>
>> I'm still trying to figure out what you want to draw at a larger size
>> when you have a perfectly good computer and Vectric Aspire.
>>
>That Aspire software is some powerful. Looks so simple and basic on
>the face of it, but those waters run real deep.
>Every time I learn a new rule, command, tool, I am amazed at how
>flawlessly it executes everything.

That's really great. There's nothing worse than to have a software
translate into garbage what you spent hours to produce. Early PC
printer drivers come to mind.


>I can't wait for the 5-axis
>version...and Shopbot has a 5 axis machine now...under 40 grand.

Really? Sounds like a damned good deal, but what size? Hmm, 48" x
34" x 24". Pretty nice. How does PartWorks compare to Aspire? At
all?

--
"Human nature itself is evermore an advocate for liberty.
There is also in human nature a resentment of injury, and
indignation against wrong. A love of truth and a veneration
of virtue. These amiable passions, are the latent spark. If
the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling
the differences between true and false, right and wrong,
virtue and vice, to what better principle can the friends of
mankind apply than to the sense of this difference?"
--John Adams

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:00:49 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jun 21, 4:36 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:53:49 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Jun 20, 11:19 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:11:24 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>>
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >http://www.wimp.com/maglevtrain/
>>
>> >> >500 kph... holy shiat!!
>>
>> >> LOVE TO, but not in earthquake territory, please.
>>
>> >> If it weren't for traffic, I'd love to drive 300mph on freeways.
>> >> My trips down to the bay area would only take a couple hours with the
>> >> slowdowns in the mountains.
>>
>> >Notice there is no pantograph.
>>
>> Huh?  WTH are you on about, Toy?  Are you drinking again?
>>
>
>I will try to speak m o r e s l o w l y next time.

I had never before heard of the secondary definition of a pantograph
as applied to a train. So sue me.

I'm still trying to figure out what you want to draw at a larger size
when you have a perfectly good computer and Vectric Aspire.

--
"Human nature itself is evermore an advocate for liberty.
There is also in human nature a resentment of injury, and
indignation against wrong. A love of truth and a veneration
of virtue. These amiable passions, are the latent spark. If
the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling
the differences between true and false, right and wrong,
virtue and vice, to what better principle can the friends of
mankind apply than to the sense of this difference?"
--John Adams

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:53:49 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jun 20, 11:19 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:11:24 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >http://www.wimp.com/maglevtrain/
>>
>> >500 kph... holy shiat!!
>>
>> LOVE TO, but not in earthquake territory, please.
>>
>> If it weren't for traffic, I'd love to drive 300mph on freeways.
>> My trips down to the bay area would only take a couple hours with the
>> slowdowns in the mountains.
>
>Notice there is no pantograph.

Huh? WTH are you on about, Toy? Are you drinking again?

--
"Human nature itself is evermore an advocate for liberty.
There is also in human nature a resentment of injury, and
indignation against wrong. A love of truth and a veneration
of virtue. These amiable passions, are the latent spark. If
the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling
the differences between true and false, right and wrong,
virtue and vice, to what better principle can the friends of
mankind apply than to the sense of this difference?"
--John Adams

In article <[email protected]>,
J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>None of these fancy trains address the real obstacle to high speed rail
>in the US though, which is that somebody has to pay for the track.
>Running on track that is shared with freight lines Amtrak is barely cost
>competitive with airlines now. If Amtrak had to pay for dedicated track
>in addition to the other costs they incur now it would cost so much more
>to take the train that nobody would ride it.

Fact: In the "NorthEast Corridor" Amtrak _does_ own the tracks, and all
the rest ff the physical infrastructure. For trips that both start
and end in the NEC, Amtrak carries more passengers than _all_ the
airlines, =combined=. Virtually all the trains in the NEC show an
operating profit. The premium higher-speed service ("Acela") is
profitable enough that it covers all of the associated 'overhead'
costs, as welL, and then some.

>And maglev track is going to cost a lot more per mile than TGV track.

Maglev is simply _not_ economical. Without regard to the horrendous
initial outlay, The operating cost is extremely high. It takes *lots*
of watts to run a maglev, even at medium speeds. At high speeds, its
even worse. Maglev _is_ capable of higher speeds than is practical with
wheels-on-rails, but that is, essentially, it's -only- advantage.