Kevin Smith "2 Fat 2 Fly" Southwest Airlines

[John Picard]

Um, John Picard, do you really think you could cross the US in 6 hours by train?

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?

Please REREAD and then COMPREHEND the part of my statement I put in BOLD.

Like I stated earlier -- remove the subsidies the airlines get, and then tell me how wonderful air travel is. I promise you, $99 bargains to Las Vegas would not exist.

 

[Pilot Ace]

So, maybe this train talk should have its own thread?

 

[Obiwanshinobi]

agreed, this thread has been derailed, (pun intended) and hijacked by talk of High Speed trains what the eff? hahaha

 

[John Picard]

So, maybe this train talk should have its own thread?

Please do!

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=111140

 

[Trekker4747]

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?

Please REREAD and then COMPREHEND the part of my statement I put in BOLD.

Like I stated earlier -- remove the subsidies the airlines get, and then tell me how wonderful air travel is. I promise you, $99 bargains to Las Vegas would not exist.

What does that have to do with what I posted.

The question was posted if you think you could cross the US in 6 hours via train. You, then responded with a train could do it it in 6 hours going 200 miles an hour. I then responded that you were wrong.

 

[exodus]

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?

Please REREAD and then COMPREHEND the part of my statement I put in BOLD.

Like I stated earlier -- remove the subsidies the airlines get, and then tell me how wonderful air travel is. I promise you, $99 bargains to Las Vegas would not exist.

What does that have to do with what I posted.

The question was posted if you think you could cross the US in 6 hours via train. You, then responded with a train could do it it in 6 hours going 200 miles an hour. I then responded that you were wrong.

He said "not" coast to coast.
Your quote "is" an estimate of a coast to coast trip.

You never asked where his starting point was that only required 6hrs to reach his destination.

 

[John Picard]

Please REREAD and then COMPREHEND the part of my statement I put in BOLD.

Like I stated earlier -- remove the subsidies the airlines get, and then tell me how wonderful air travel is. I promise you, $99 bargains to Las Vegas would not exist.

What does that have to do with what I posted.

The question was posted if you think you could cross the US in 6 hours via train. You, then responded with a train could do it it in 6 hours going 200 miles an hour. I then responded that you were wrong.

He said "not" coast to coast.
Your quote "is" an estimate of a coast to coast trip.

You never asked where his starting point was that only required 6hrs to reach his destination.

Exodus, I have learned that when talking to Americans about public transit, they're all convinced that the US underwent some uber-radical change after the 1950's that renders trains/trolleys completely inefficient. Our cities can't be redesigned to take rail service into account, etc.

What I love about visiting foreign countries that have public transit is that they're easy for a foreigner to navigate. The US is not like that. Again

 

[exodus]

What does that have to do with what I posted.

The question was posted if you think you could cross the US in 6 hours via train. You, then responded with a train could do it it in 6 hours going 200 miles an hour. I then responded that you were wrong.

He said "not" coast to coast.
Your quote "is" an estimate of a coast to coast trip.

You never asked where his starting point was that only required 6hrs to reach his destination.

Exodus, I have learned that when talking to Americans about public transit, they're all convinced that the US underwent some uber-radical change after the 1950's that renders trains/trolleys completely inefficient. Our cities can't be redesigned to take rail service into account, etc.

What I love about visiting foreign countries that have public transit is that they're easy for a foreigner to navigate. The US is not like that. Again

I find Boston's Trolley system is very easy to get around on.

 

[CaptJimboJones]

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.

Actually there are very few subsidies for airlines - the only significant one being the "Essential Air Service" grants that subsidize air service in very small towns. And that program's TOTAL subsidy is just about $115 million annually. Compare that with the total revenues earned last year by just one airline - Delta - of $6.8 billion.

The subsidy could vanish overnight and it wouldn't affect the airlines one bit.

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.

HSR would be a great option that could work well for people traveling between large cities that are relatively close to one another. But the vast majority of American travelers aren't engaging in that type of travel. HSR isn't going to do much for me if I'm going from Lubbock to San Francisco. An airline, however, can get me from Lubbock to DFW on a regional jet, and then from DFW to SFO on a mainline aircraft. Trains simply can't replicate the "hub and spoke" system that is the backbone of U.S. commerical aviation.

And if somehow a national train system DID become workable and popular, it would become exactly like air travel is today. You'd have the exact same security (a packed train is a great target for a terrorist) the same crowded cabins (pack in the passengers to maximize the revenues) etc.

Plus realistically, there's no way that Congress is going to spend the billions necessary to lay the infrastructure for nationwide HSR when we already have a commercial aviation system in place. It would be far better to spend a fraction of the cost of HSR to upgrade the nationwide ATC system, which would take care of much of the congestion that's a problem today in places like New York.

 

[Obiwanshinobi]

oye vay.

 

[Trekker4747]

"Fuck DVD!"

-Kevin Smith, Chasing Amy Commentary Track.

 

[Checkmate]

Um, John Picard, do you really think you could cross the US in 6 hours by train?

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.

Please REREAD and then COMPREHEND the part of my statement I put in BOLD.

Ditto.

He asked if you really thought you could cross the US in 6 hours. You said yes. Then you ranted on about not talking about coast-to-coast even though you and the person you were talking to were. If you're going to tell other people that they can't comprehend basic English, maybe you should make sure you can first.

 

[Ryan]

Take away the subsidies the airlines enjoy and you'll see at least two go under and ticket prices go through the roof.

Which subsidies specifically? Would you also get rid of the large subsidies rail receives?

 

[Trekker4747]

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.

Please REREAD and then COMPREHEND the part of my statement I put in BOLD.

Ditto.

He asked if you really thought you could cross the US in 6 hours. You said yes. Then you ranted on about not talking about coast-to-coast even though you and the person you were talking to were. If you're going to tell other people that they can't comprehend basic English, maybe you should make sure you can first.

He also said this:

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.

Emphasis Mine.

Yeah. But he's totaly not talking about long-distance travel.

Yeah, we're the ones who can't read.

 

[Pilot Ace]

Yeah, we're the ones who can't read.

It seems a lot of you have trouble reading given this is a thread dedicated to Kevin Smith being potentially too fat to fly.

The relation to trains is tangential enough to deserve its own thread, please take it somewhere else.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

Go by train NO WAY i like flying to phoenix from ohio because it only 4 hour flight not 3 day! And Kevin when you can get kick off a plane because you LOOK like your fat maybe it time to cut down on your food intake just saiding love dr

HSR from Phoenix to Ohio will likely be the same 4 hours, you never know. If the US government built Maglev (Magnetic levitation) trains (a technology made in America, BTW!) the trip would be cut down to three hours max.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Go by train NO WAY i like flying to phoenix from ohio because it only 4 hour flight not 3 day! And Kevin when you can get kick off a plane because you LOOK like your fat maybe it time to cut down on your food intake just saiding love dr

HSR from Phoenix to Ohio will likely be the same 4 hours, you never know. If the US government built Maglev (Magnetic levitation) trains (a technology made in America, BTW!) the trip would be cut down to three hours max.

Nope.

It's 2096 kilometers from Phoenix to Cleveland, OH.

The train you linked to averaged 250 km/h.

That's 8.3 hours.

IF it did it NON STOP.

Which it wouldn't.

Now, if it were able to travel at it's maximum speed (431 km/h) the entire time (not likely) then it would take 4.8 hours.

This of course be if the train could travel in a straight line. Which, it wouldn't either.

 

[Checkmate]

I personally don't give a damn about travel time. If I'm going that far, it's going to be for something long-term and not a spur of the moment vacation or something. I'd plan accordingly and thoroughly enjoy the experience, especially if and when the price matched the time difference and (as I prefer to do anyway) assuming I'm traveling at night.

Sit back, relax, catch up on some work, play online, go to bed for the night and bam... destination. It'd be pretty much what I do every night except I'd end up somewhere else. Plus there'd be some nice scenery, people to talk to if I so chose, and who knows what kind of fun things onboard. Casinos, bars, whatever.

If I absolutely had to be somewhere right frelling now then I could always chose to travel by air. But if I'm just going to visit family or take a vacation for a week or two, gimme that kinda rail. Less expensive, more enjoyable. Win win for me.

 

[Amaris]

I personally don't give a damn about travel time. If I'm going that far, it's going to be for something long-term and not a spur of the moment vacation or something. I'd plan accordingly and thoroughly enjoy the experience, especially if and when the price matched the time difference and (as I prefer to do anyway) assuming I'm traveling at night.

Sit back, relax, catch up on some work, play online, go to bed for the night and bam... destination. It'd be pretty much what I do every night except I'd end up somewhere else. Plus there'd be some nice scenery, people to talk to if I so chose, and who knows what kind of fun things onboard. Casinos, bars, whatever.

If I absolutely had to be somewhere right frelling now then I could always chose to travel by air. But if I'm just going to visit family or take a vacation for a week or two, gimme that kinda rail. Less expensive, more enjoyable. Win win for me.

Exactly. If I'm going across country, I've set aside some vacation time. In a two week vacation, if a total of two of those days are devoted to traveling to and from my vacation destination, then I consider that reasonable! Plus, on the way back, I would imagine you could relax on a train better than you can on a plane.

 

[J.T.B.]

Actually there are very few subsidies for airlines - the only significant one being the "Essential Air Service" grants that subsidize air service in very small towns.

Seriously? Airlines have been one of the most publicly-supported industries ever, going back to the days when the government started paying them to haul the mail. Airports are built with publicly bonded money and maintained by tax-exempt government entities. Municipalities give big tax breaks to airlines to locate a hub in their city. Air traffic is managed by government employees who are forbidden by law to strike for higher wages. Less than half of the FAA's budget is paid by airline fees, the rest is from taxpayers. Airlines have anti-trust exemptions that allow them to collaborate on setting fares. Foreign-owned airlines are forbidden from competing on US routes. The cost of aircraft is lowered by research grants and military contracts. Plus the billions in bailout money paid to airlines after 9/11.

I'm not saying using public money to maintain a national air transportation infrastructure is an invalid proposition. But everything I've read about the economics of commercial air travel indicates that without government money underwriting them the airline as we think of it today would probably not exist.

--Justin