Re: Why Mars?
From: Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' ) (stderr2_at_backpacker.com)
Date: 11/20/04
- Next message: Miguel Cruz: "Re: Solar Power Satellites (Was: Re: Why Mars?)"
- Previous message: Scott Hedrick: "Re: SpaceShipOne News Coverage just a little rough on the edges"
- In reply to: Jeff Hacker: "Re: Why Mars?"
- Next in thread: Scott Lowther: "Re: Why Mars?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:40:52 -0800
Jeff Hacker wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )"
> <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> news:419D04AF.4153EFAE@backpacker.com...
> >
> >
> > Alan Anderson wrote:
> >>
> >> mnc@admin.u.nu (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
> >>
> >> > >>> People would take the train if it were substantially cheaper than
> >> > >>> taking
> >> > >>> an airplane. It isn't.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Amtrak is almost always running a deal between Chicago, Cleveland,
> >> > >> or
> >> > >> somewhere like that to/from the east coast for under $20.
> >> > >
> >> > > Never heard of it.
> >> >
> >> > http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/amtrak/WeeklySpecials
> >> >
> >> > There. Now you have.
> >>
> >> $38.70 is not substantially cheaper than $49.
> >>
> > Trains should be dirt cheap to operate but we have Amtrak mucking around
> > with everything. If Amtrak would take high value goods like UPS and Fed
> > Ex does, and use their need to be more or less on time for the
> > passengers to benefit the freight shipping, as every airline in the
> > country does with their air freight, the cost for a train trip from SEA
> > to LAX could be five bucks or something low like that. As it is, Amtrak
> > can charge more than an airline and still lose tons of money.
>
> First of all, trains require extensive maintenance to the rolling stock and
> the track.
>
Track is an easy target for terrorists. Of course it does have the
benefit that you can't hijack a train and take it anywhere you might
want. The track is needed for bulk freight so that's taken care of.
Trucks chew up the freeways and roads, so it isn't like they obviate
maintenance of infrastructure needs.
> And secondly, union regulations are really strict, raising
> operating costs. Thirdly, most Amtrak trains roll on tracks owned by the
> freight railroads, which can hold them up for freight trains.
>
I'm sure for practical considerations stopping an Amtrak train and
restarting it is easy compared to a massive cross-country freight train.
> Forthly, the
> regulations severely limit Amtrak's ability to carry freight or "express,"
> which the freight railroads want for themselves.
>
But the fright trains aren't taking UPS and Fex Ex type freight, but
rather bulk cargo, containerized materials. There is some use of trains
by UPS but I think this is mostly the slow East to/from West stuff. I'm
talking about Amtrak being able to take a package you hand them just
before the train leaves. That would require using the cars they have for
people and automating the loading and unloading. It might not be as
difficult as people might think.
-- I heard Clinton buried a time capsule at his new presidential library sized like an overseas shipping container filled with stuff he didn't want anyone to find till long after his death, the real deed to Whitewater, the envelope for the Tyson Foods chicken payoffs, the real gun he used to whack Foster, the keys to the Exocet missile he took Ron Brown out with, copies of another few thousand illegally acquired FBI files on his enemies, tickets to Tahiti from the White House Travel Office, a few more soiled dresses, a couple of cases of well chewed Cuban cigars, and the unabridged version of his autobiography. That last one was touch and go just getting the bugger in.
- Next message: Miguel Cruz: "Re: Solar Power Satellites (Was: Re: Why Mars?)"
- Previous message: Scott Hedrick: "Re: SpaceShipOne News Coverage just a little rough on the edges"
- In reply to: Jeff Hacker: "Re: Why Mars?"
- Next in thread: Scott Lowther: "Re: Why Mars?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
