Plenty of whites enjoy unions and welfare and other aspects of
Detroit was destroyed by blacks and their habbit of forming fatherless
families, which led to "white-flight".
By the way, Canadian tar-sands oil is being pumped to a Marathon
refinery in Detroit. The refinery for the first time is processing
heavy Canadian crude oil brought in by pipeline from the Alberta
Marathon Oil refinery completed a $2-billion facility upgrade to process
Alberta oilsands crude oil last fall.
There is presently several piles of petroleum coke (the byproduct of
processing the oil) accumulating on the Detroit side of the river,
apparently waiting to be taken by ship to China.
Lots of people are apparently not happy about the mountains of this
stuff accumulating on the waterfront.
We had passenger rail service in the central U.S. long ago. It
wasn't high speed. I remember dropping my grandma off at one small
town in Nebraska. She rode the train to the next town which was about 8
Amtrak does still run here. I checked out of curiosity to see about
going from the nearest station in Lincoln, NE to St. Louis, MO. It
would cost me $156 and take almost 16 hours. I can drive there in about
9 hours with plenty of rest stops. I think the IRS allows 50¢ per mile
for business tax purposes. That would be about $250 using that figure.
So it's about $100 extra at most to drive but I save at least 7 hours
of my time. I'd actually save at least 8 hours since I would have to
drive to the Lincoln depot. That $100 saving would be less since I
would need to pay for long term parking.
There used to be freight service to many small towns. It was mainly
to the grain elevators. Many of those tracks have been pulled up.
It just didn't pay to keep the tracks maintained to the smaller towns
and facilities. The railroads won't load anything less the a 55 car unit
train if I understand things correctly.
Coal trains are common though. They run loaded from Wyoming east.
There is still bus service running along I-80. One would have to
get to the depots, of course. There used to be Greyhound and
Continental Trailways running in various places here in Nebraska.
Those days are long gone.
Cattle here get moved by truck to the nearest packing plants.
They're processed then shipped out. Processed cattle don't require
water and feed, and don't create waste products like the live ones do.
It comes down to money. You can buy planes and build airports a lot
cheaper than buying land and laying track. The environmental impact
studies would sink you before you ever cut down the fist tree or
filled the first wet land. Somewhere in that thousand mile route there
would be some endangered bird or fish.
When you were finished you would serve a dozen cities and leave a
thousand too far from the station to make the railroad useful.
You really are the village idiot harry. Why do you persist in making
such a fool of yourself? I can take you to vast sections of railroads
that are either closed for good or in such sad shape that they can
only support freight traffic at 10 MPH. I can take you to JFK which
features brand new terminals, eg #8, and supportes flights of the
Concorde and now the A380. I can show you trains from Paris
to Milan that take a day and a plane that gets you there in 2 hours.
You really don't travel much, do you?
A 100 year old railway will not handle trains today. Track requires
constant maintenance and as trains go faster, the older track will not
handle it. That is one reason why the US does not have bullet trains.
They can't afford to take the older track out of service to upgrade it
and getting the right of way to build new track is very expensive. If
an area is unpopulated enough to be politically viable, it is probably
a protected wildlife area. I suppose the Europeans are more used to
the government coming in and taking their land, since you have had a
war every 30 or 40 years where they redraw all of the maps and
everyone loses their land.
On Mar 11, 11:32 am, email@example.com wrote:
Maybe it's time for a closer look at what the UK actually
has. You've probably noticed harry referencing the Chinese.
This is why:
"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. "
Amtrak's Acela has a top speed of 150mph.
trader4 @ optonline.net used improper usenet message composition style
by unnecessarily full-quoting:
===========Acela Express trains are the only true high-speed trainsets in North
America; the highest speed they attain is 150 mph (240 km/h), though
their average is less than half that speed.
The Acela has become popular with business travelers, and by some
reckoning has captured over half of the market share of air or train
travelers between Washington and New York. Between New York and Boston
the Acela Express has up to a 54% share of the combined train and air
The Acela Express train sets comprise two power cars and six passenger
cars each. The current fleet started service between 1999 and 2000.
The trains were made by a consortium between Bombardier (75%) and GEC
Alsthom (now Alstom) 25%. Bombardier is a Canadian company, and Alstom
Amtrack announced (in Dec last year) plans to replace it's fleet of
Acela trains, with the first of the new trains to enter service in 5 to
7 years. This story doesn't mention who is going to be making the new
The real advantage to the Acela is on the New York end. People go to
New York to get to Manhattan and that is where the train stops. (Penn
Plaza) The airports are an ugly cab ride from downtown and they
routinely get overloaded so you can circle for an hour or more.
The DC end is not so great. If you are not going to Capitol Hill.the
downtown station is not that handy. Most of the actual business is
moving outside the beltway. There is a beltway station but it is 2
o'clock on the Beltway and the business cluster is in the 270 corridor
at 10 o'clock, 30 miles or more away,so you still need a car.
It is still the best example in the US of where the train makes sense
(if you live near DC and you are going to Manhattan).
I assume that is similar on the Boston leg.
They are talking about a high speed train here in Florida from Tampa
to Orlando but I am not sure who would ride it.
It might make better sense to build a commuter light rail line at both
# The USA is ideal for passenger trains, especially across the mid
# West. High speed passenger trains. You could have the fastest rains
# in the world.
# But nothing has been done.
# People in the USA are stuck in the past. And the politicians.
If there are NO PASSENGERS to use it, there is NO MONEY to pay for it.
And unless you can get a train to go 600 mph, you're not competing with a
I'm beginning to wonder if harry was involved with the Concorde.
That program came out of some of the same thinking, courtesy
of the UK. The US govt even had a program to build a SST
at the time and Boeing was working
on it. After some development work was done and we figured out
the cost versus economics of it, the US pulled the funding plug.
Boeing decided it didn't make sense either and put their $$$ on
the 747. That plane first flew in 1969 and the world's airlines are
still buying them, Boeing is still building them. The airlines are
making money, Boeing is making money. The Concorde
lost huge amounts of money every year it was in service. That
despite the fact that a ticket cost $12,000. A huge percentage
of those flying paid nothing at all because they had empty seats
and passengers used airline frequent flyer points for tickets to
ride the technological marvel.
What harry is proposing is similarly divorced from reality.
The economics of Concorde fell through when the price of oil rose.
The price of oil will rise again will rise again and the economics of
all air travel will fall down.
If you don't have a substitute, the USA will fall down.
Buffet has all this figured out. But you're so thick, you can't see
Cousin Harry, The U.S. Air Force is developing jet fuel derived from
biomass. At the present time it's too expensive to replace dinosaur
juice but if petroleum ever becomes unavailable bio-fuels could take
the place of those derived from petroleum. ^_^
On Mar 11, 5:57 pm, The Daring Dufas <the-daring-du...@stinky-
pay for it.
Heh heh. I though you were gonna say it ran on wood chippings.
There was experimental commercial jets running on bio fuel over here
I seem to remember there were viscosity problems when it got very
cold. Dunno if they were resolved.
Bio fuel is not the answer anyway, it takes up agricultural space and
needs fuel (for agricultural tractors & other stuff ) to make it.
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.