BF2S Forums California's High Speed Rail

Jay wrote:

-Whiteroom- wrote:

13urnzz wrote:

you must admit, Jay's attempts to derail a thread about high speed trains is admirable . . .

Is he an engineer or something?

Yes.

Are you any good?

Jay wrote:

Extra Medium wrote:

Jay wrote:

Yes.

Are you any good?

What kind of question is that? Are you good at your job?

Maybe he was asking because it's not the first time you have made an engineering related comment that even the dummies on here pick up on as being wrong.

Whatever level an engineer is at, its best to always be humble as arrogance and complacency do not fly well in what is not a science.
Inexperienced know-it-alls invariably come a cropper, as do time-served engineers who think that because they haven't had a disaster so far that means they must be geniuses.

Jay wrote:

You're talking about the stupid boating gif that I saw on my phone? Sue me.

Thats the spirit.

On topic:

High speed rail is a complex business and not for noobs





As far as California goes, its probably best to start a high-speed system from scratch and cost accordingly.

I don't know why people feel the need to whizz from place to place at speed when a phone call will usually do, but at least rail can be electrified and independent of fossil fuels so its not a bad option.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-11-26 02:53:42)

Any form of travel sucks. The less time I spend traveling the happier I am.

I caught a coach from Melbourne to Perth when I was a kid. 3,280 km. Took three days, stopping every six hours during the day for half an hour at a time

Last edited by Jaekus (2012-11-26 06:07:03)

Yeah I know musos who have driven from Adelaide to Brisbane in a single trip after finishing a gig, they said they were hallucinating at times

Extra Medium wrote:

Jay wrote:

Extra Medium wrote:

Are you any good?

What kind of question is that? Are you good at your job?

I did well in school and have two years worth of work experience at this point, but I wouldn't say I'm good. I'm regularly humbled by men with 30+ years of experience, as it should be. They're good. Ask me again in ten years and I might have a different answer.

I think you are a liar.

welcome to the forum.

Jay wrote:

What people (mostly Europeans) don't seem to realize is that high speed rail may be awesome in Europe, but that's because the cities are close together. This is the equivalent of Paris to Berlin in America:

New York to Detroit.

Paris to Nice is even shorter.

New York to Boston or Philadelphia or Washington DC by train is not terrible as it's only a few hours on the train. Anything beyond that is pretty unbearable.

we have trains between major cities in europe, and they're very popular fwiw

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

for example. we're not some little compact continent either.

FatherTed wrote:

Jay wrote:

What people (mostly Europeans) don't seem to realize is that high speed rail may be awesome in Europe, but that's because the cities are close together. This is the equivalent of Paris to Berlin in America:

New York to Detroit.

Paris to Nice is even shorter.

New York to Boston or Philadelphia or Washington DC by train is not terrible as it's only a few hours on the train. Anything beyond that is pretty unbearable.

we have trains between major cities in europe, and they're very popular fwiw

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

for example. we're not some little compact continent either.

You are much more compact than we are. London to Paris is like New York to Boston.

Last edited by Jay (2012-11-26 07:29:42)

FatherTed wrote:

it doesn't just go to paris it's also set to expand to germany/italy/holland/switzerland/the rest of france and potentially up the spine of the UK.

Why wouldn't you just fly?

and we're talking about a service that is hamstrung by various EU thingos (schengen agreement is a major limiter on what eurostar can do), is like anything rail in europe run by middle managers, and involves the fucking french AND IT STILL works out as a good service

just imagine what good 'ole american capitalism could do with HS

I mean, would you want to take the train from London to Moscow, or would you rather fly?

Extra Medium wrote:

Jay wrote:

American capitalism wouldn't touch HS rail with a ten foot pole, honestly. Like I said before, train travel is fine for short distances, but once you extend those distances, traveling by air with all the annoyances of dealing with airport security etc becomes a better bet. Our national passenger railroad, Amtrak, is an annual money loser, even with subsidized fares.

I think your argument is baseless and unfounded.  Could you please add some source material to back up claims?  I can hardly take your word about Amtrak losing money and having subsidized fare after you lost my trust in the preceding comments.

Lost your trust? Go fuck yourself.

Amtrak’s ridership and revenue has been steadily increasing over the last 10 years, and 2011 set a new ridership record with 30.2 million passengers, and $1.9 billion in ticket revenue. But, even though it took in $1.42 billion from Congress last year, it still manages to lose $1 billion annually. This is hardly a new development. Amtrak has a long and storied history of functioning at a loss despite government subsidies.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/05/ … rofitable/