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......
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
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.......
quoted text -
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
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
# You need to get your facts right.
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
"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)"
I see you read "Boeings Claims"
But snipped the next bit. I wonder why?
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. 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.
#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
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...
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
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.
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
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
studies, issues that come into play. harry keeps bringing up China.
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,
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
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
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
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..
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 07:47:39 -0700 (PDT), " email@example.com"
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
The air fare subsidies are a couple bucks a ticket, the rail subsidy
is twice what the ticket costs on some trips.
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.
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
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
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
I have plans too for a brain transplant for you. Plans <> real lines
On 3/11/13 10:47 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
All the grade crossings between New York and D.C. have been
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...)
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.