Why there will be no XL pipeline: Warren Buffett

Page 7 of 8  
wrote:

You think that's likely?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, I think it's likely you would join them in jumping off the tower, because you're a commie loving, monkey see, monkey do, kind of clown. Following your logic, the USA should have followed your lead off the cliff in building the Concorde too, because building a SST aircraft was the in thing to do. Why, you'd have to be dumb not to build SST, they are the future of travel.
Instead, Boeing bet the company on the 747. The results? To date 1,500 747s have been built and are flown by the major airlines of the world. They continue to be built today. The Concorde? You and your friends the French, who you needed to help you, built 20 of them and none are flying today......
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

747? Obsolete. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A380
Is that so? Boeing tried and failed. They even got hold of a Concordski but still failed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_SST
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Is that so? Even if it were true, it took Airbus 40+ years to build a plane that competes with what Boeing had in 1968. And Boeing still has orders for hundreds of 747's. Most of the demand for what would have been 747's has not gone to the A380. It's gone to planes like the 777, twin engine, less expensive to operate. That the 747 is a spectacular success is indisputable. Boeing has built 1500 of them so far.
The story of the A380 has only just begun. And it's rather odd that you of all people would be trumpting it because you're the one complaining about putting people on crowded planes. The double deck A380 is the crowning achievement of that.......

They did not try and fail. They and the US govt realized after a few years of development work that SST aircraft for commercial use did not make sense. Instead of putting their money into what would have bankrupted the company, Boeing put it all on the 747s. Such spectacular aircraft that virtually all the long haul airlines in the world bought them and most still fly them today, including British Airways. I've flown a lot and the only airline that ever lost my luggage, couldn't tell me where it was, couldn't get it to me at the hotel even days later, never found it period, was BA.
You geniuses Britts and the French bet your money on the Concorde. The results:
Boeing 747: 1,500 built, still being built, still flying, a huge private economic success Concorde: 20 built, none flying, an economic disaster, funded by taxpayers
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

t>

You need to get your facts right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing#Airbus_A 380_vs_Boeing_747
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

# You need to get your facts right. # <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing#Airbus_A380_vs_Boeing_747> Poor harry. not even able to track the conversation. Or are you stupid enough to imagine that the Concorde is the A380 ?
And by the way, did you even read the article ? " ... Following another delay to the A380 program in October 2006, FedEx and the United Parcel Service cancelled their orders for the A380-800 freighter." "Some A380 launch customers deferred delivery or considered switching to the 747-8 and 777F aircraft." "Boeing's advertising claims the 747-8I to be over 10% lighter per seat and have 11% less fuel consumption per passenger, with a trip-cost reduction of 21% and a seat-mile cost reduction of more than 6%, compared to the A380. The 747-8F's empty weight is expected to be 80 tonnes (88 tons) lighter and 24% lower fuel burnt per ton with 21% lower trip costs and 23% lower ton-mile costs than the A380F." "Boeing currently has four commercial airline orders for the 747-8I: Lufthansa (20), Korean Airlines (5), Air China (5), and Arik Air (2)"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I see you read "Boeings Claims" But snipped the next bit. I wonder why? Quote On the other side, Airbus' advertising claims the A380 to have 8% less fuel consumption per passenger than the 747-8I and emphasises the longer range of the A380 while using up to 17% shorter runways.[5] In order to counter the perceived strength of the 747-8I, from 2012 Airbus will offer, as an option, improved maximum take-off weight allowing for better payload/range performance. Unquote.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

# Astonishing. #You need to be using the train for passenger/goods transport not for # moving oil.
You demonstrate what a moron you are again 1) Oil qualifies as "goods" for mass transit purposes 2) There are not enough "passengers" to justify building a passenger infrastructure.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The passengers are the ones that wont be able to afford air fares.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

# The passengers are the ones that wont be able to afford air fares.
#
So you're just pulling shit out of your ass again ? What do you need to do that in public ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/10/13 1:31 PM, harry wrote:

The reason more oil is moving by train (at least from north-to-south) is that the government won't give the go-ahead on the Keystone pipeline.
So, the oil is still "moving" -- by whatever means works...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article

oh we could just take the direct and indirect subsidies that Nuclear Power gets/will get and put that money into fixing all those tracks, sort of just like when we built the interstates

the difference being that you don't have to take a car to/from either airport to get to/from the city...kind of makes the train safer than driving your car on those dangerous roads/motorways
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Personal example: North Jersey suburb to Somerville, MA door to door (i.e New York City area to Boston area)
Car ~4 1/2 hours driving. Cost: gas + tolls end result: have car available at all times (watch out for Boston area parking tickets)
Bus: Walk to train station, train to Penn Sta (~45 min); Bus (4 hr); T + walk another 45 min total including waiting 6 hours (advantage very cheap, I don't have to drive, disadvantage bus is less comfortable)
Train: same as bus, but quite a bit more expensive (depending on train chosen, time of day), much more comfortable
Plane: 45 min to Newark airport (drive yourself, cost of parking, cost of limo, or cost of train (then it takes longer than 45 min because of transfers). TSA etc 1 1/2 hours. Flight 1 hr; transportation in Boston, 1 hr. Total time 4 1/2 hours (estimate, never done it). Cost: Close to or more than cheaper Amtrak, depends on fare conditions.
Btw, I think Amtrak makes money on the Boston to Washington corridor, certainly on the Acela which is a nice train if it has no problems <ahem>. Trains have much less subsidy than airlines do. Certainly for the middle distances trains should be much more economical (taking ALL costs into account) than cars or planes. But who can truthfully account for all costs. Having ridden high speed trains in Europe, I would reallylike them here too, but the costs and the NIMBY would be very high since true high speed trains require special tracks and rights of way without same level crossings. This works in Europe because, despite population densities similar to the Washington-Boston area, there is still much more land available for rights of way (towns are much more compact with agricultural and recreational lands between). And especially in the early era, the French rail development just said we need the land.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That depends entirely on how you look at it. If you look at it in strictly dollar terms, then it's probably true. If you look at it in terms of how many passengers are moved, then Amtrak is getting huge subsidies per compared to the airlines. It's about the VOLUME.
 >Certainly for the middle

I agree. The folks that think you could easily put in a high speed 250mph train between Boston and DC for example, have no idea what that would entail. Like all the grade crossings. You want a 250mph train going through those? Of the turn radiuses that support 100mph. What happens when you have to widen them out for a mile? All the homes, businesses, roads, highways that are in the way? All the environmental studies, issues that come into play. harry keeps bringing up China. It's mostly open space, and if the commies want to take your hut, they give you $1000 and bring over the bulldozer. Oh, and unlike the Chinese, we'd have to pay union wages and benefits for all the labor, etc.....
I road the fastest train in the world. It connects Shanghai to the airport. It's only like 20 miles. It reached 260mph. They have a speedometer display so you can see it, like the Concorde did. Yes, it gets you there fast, but.......
We were staying at a hotel and they wanted to know our flight so they could pick us up in a car. Yes, that's right, a car. We said we wanted to experience the train, and they didn't like that idea at all. They couldn't even seem to grasp why one would want to try the train. In the end, they insisted on sending a car to the airport to greet us and escort us to the train. They were worried we would have trouble finding it. That's kind of funny, considering it's a nice modern airport and the world's fastest train. So, that's what we did. They met us and escorted us over to the train, which wasn't hard to find at all. We took the speedy 20 mile ride. At the other end, the train ended kind of in a crummy neighborhood part of Shanghai, not a transportation hub, subway center, or anything like that. Another one of their cars was waiting and took us to the hotel. Given that people have luggage, want to get to their hotel direct without having to get on a train, off a train, into a taxi, etc, and that car transportation is cheap in China, I can see why the train doesn't make much sense.
Oh, and despite the fact that it was afternoon, there were few people on it. Probably because the cost was about $10 or so, I suspect the locals can get a bus or similar to the airport for a lot less. Also, it only hits that 260mph speed for one brief period on straight track..
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 07:47:39 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

When they talk about airline "subsidies, they are really talking about the fact that FAA runs the air traffic control system at a loss (air fare taxes do not cover that cost) and the fact that the government operates a lot of the airports. There are still substantial gate fees paid by the airlines that defray that cost. The subsidies for passenger rail are a lot higher per ticket and they are direct payments to the railroad along with government maintained infrastructure. The air fare subsidies are a couple bucks a ticket, the rail subsidy is twice what the ticket costs on some trips.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That is an experimental maglev train. Not very practical at the moment, But maybe a pointer for the future. There is even a proposal for a sub Atlantic train. I don't suppose we'd see that fora few years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_tunnel
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

BS. IT's *not* experimental. It's just the fastest and newest such train. It's in commercial operation. It's how you get the fast trains you're bitching about. WTF do you want? First you crow about how smart the Chinese are with regard to high speed trains. Then you call them experimental and not very practical. Make up your mind. They are not experimental. They are very expensive and because of a whole host of issues, principally economic, they are of limited appeal, which is why they are not widely deployed everywhere.
And here's some breaking news for you:
"The fastest trains in the UK operating domestic services are the Intercity 225 trains operated by National Express East Coast. These trains run at a maximum speed of 125mph and average 112mph between London and York. "
Well, well, well. Amtraks Acela runs at a top speed of 150mph.

Is that when you Britts plan to build it?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

* Not very practical because of cost and how do you make points for such a train? plans to build more are suspended. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train#Extensions * *

* That train is years old. The fastest trains in the UK run through the Channel tunnel to continental Europe at speeds of up to 200mph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurostar#Records_achieved
There are plans for an even faster one from London to Scotland at speeds of up to 250mph intially though the line is to be designed for up to 300mph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HS2 * *

We might. We were the first to build tunnels under water and invented the technology to do it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Tunnel
You Yanks are such stick-in-the-muds.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

YOU were the one demanding high speed trains, crowing about how essential they are for transportation. YOU dragged the Chinese into it, as examples of folks that are deploying them, that are smarter than the USA, that know what they are doing. So, I give you an example of one of the Chinese trains that I have actual experience riding on, and now you piss all over it. You really are the village idiot. Why do you persist in embarrassing yourself here?

So is Eurostar.

That's a lie. A one time test record is not a train in actual service. The actual top speed of the Eurostar service from London to Paris is 186mph. So here you are, telling us how the USA has no high speed trains and in reality, only one small section of railroad in the UK is any faster than Amtrak's Acela. That being the Eurostar between London and the Chunnel. And it reaches a top speed of 186mph, vs 150mph for Amtrak. And about this, you're bragging? I suppose you brag because your penis is 1/4" bigger than the average groundhog too.

I have plans too for a brain transplant for you. Plans <> real lines today.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/11/13 10:47 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

All the grade crossings between New York and D.C. have been eliminated. There haven't been any grade crossings between New York and New Haven since the early 1900's. There are about five or six grade crossings left between New Haven and Boston, and they aren't in the high-speed areas.
Grade crossings are a non-issue in the Northeast Corridor.
(I worked on Amtrak for much of my 32 years in railroading. However I, too, believe that "high-speed rail" is pretty much a public-money-eating boondoggle in the USA...)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.