Kevin Smith "2 Fat 2 Fly" Southwest Airlines
- Thread starter JacksonArcher
- Start date
Take away the subsidies the airlines enjoy and you'll see at least two go under and ticket prices go through the roof. Suddenly, traveling by train isn't such a "cumbersome" ordeal after all. It's also interesting how Americans just turn their noses up at high speed rail, thinking HSR is limited to 50mph and not 200mph. Given the choice between traveling across the US in 6 hours via train @ 200mph or 2 hours in a cramp airplane, airport security, and annoying passengers -- I'll take the train.
A
Amaris
Guest
Agreed!
I like having the train system here in New York, and the surrounding area, it's great, convenient, especially since I don't have a car.
But, to get to LA from New York, that HSR train at 200 mph would take almost 12 hours, and that's if it rain non stop. Which, I can't believe a train would do. Wouldn't it stop in (at least) the major cities along the way? And that's going to add time.
I'm with you there. I had to take a business trip to Toronto from Ottawa last week and opted for the train instead of flying. I only had to be there 30 minutes before the train was scheduled to leave, the train station is more conveniently located and you can just walk right onto the train without all the hassle of security.
Not me.
I tried, traveling on a train for that long made me far too restless. I can't imagine being on a trip that long with new mother and a crying, restless or teething baby. That's just 6hrs of Hell on wheels.
he's not John Candy fat. Not yet anyways. So he says. But even so, the fatter he gets, his face and head stays at a pretty consistent size.
Like Apocalypse.
New Smodcast up where he talks to the woman he met on his second, reassigned flight that was also hassled by the airlines.
#107: http://smodcast.com/
#107: http://smodcast.com/
I think it's simply an observation that jetliners usually travel at around 550 mph, give or take wind speed, and 200 mph is over a third of that.
But yeah, if there were a DC-to-Vermont train that could get me there in 2 hours, I'd take that over commercial flights, certainly.
There won't be, though----as it is, Amtrak is restricted to about 30mph in Vermont. Which means that while DC -> New York Penn is about 3 hours, NY Penn -> Rutland is another 5 hours.
Certain parts of the US and Canada could certainly use more robust rail systems, but I don't think people truly appreciate how big North American is compared to the EU, which is about the size of three Canadian provinces but contains half a billion people. It takes days to travel from one side of North America to the other by rail. And you know what? They don't travel at 300 mph, but pretty much ever major city in the USA is reachable by rail, and the NE corridor is heavily used and genuine competition for air travel. Millions of Canadians and American around the largest centres use go-train transit systems to commute tens of kilometres a day to and from work, and millions more are able to use subway systems.
High speed rail in excess of 200mph? Most likely. I keep talking about HSR and everyone who disagrees with me keeps thinking Choo-Choo at 50mph
I'm also not talking Coast-to-Coast, but nevermind. For some mythical reason, there is some great, unknown power that renders trains completely useless on the North American Continent.
I have seen videos of the TGV and other high-speed trains of the world. If we had such in the USA, I would love to experience them. But they would not be my first choice for travel between cities or states.
High speed rail in excess of 200mph? Most likely. I keep talking about HSR and everyone who disagrees with me keeps thinking Choo-Choo at 50mph
I'm also not talking Coast-to-Coast, but nevermind. For some mythical reason, there is some great, unknown power that renders trains completely useless on the North American Continent.
The United States is around 2000 miles. That's "as the crow flies" from coast to coast. 2000 miles / 200mph = 10 hours, not 6.
That's allowing for a constant speed in a straight line. Which isn't likely to happen even with high-speed rail as numerous safety regulations would require the train to slow down in populated areas and the train will also likely make other stops in other cities along the way to drop off/pick up other passengers.
So, most likely, you'd be looking at probably close to a full day if all things go ideally. Which they wouldn't.
That's a full day sitting on a train, in a single seat, just to travel across the country. Where do I sign up to do that as opposed to riding on a plane for 3 or 4 hours?
Checkmate
Commodore
And any of that has to do with what I said... how exactly? Regardless of your attempts to rationalize otherwise, rail travel is a joke in the United States. If it were readily available and commonly used, you wouldn't have to go on a long, meandering rant about its virtues.