On 06-Nov-14 18:24, conklin wrote:
Interesting report. But at some point the airlines are going to have
to put large planes to work on the East Coast to carry future demand.
Many small airplanes simply clog up the runways.
The trend is toward smaller planes because they can just bribe
politicians to spend billions in taxpayers' money expanding airports.
Trains do not have the option of larger cars.
Trains have the option of adding more cars, which is both more flexible
and more cost-effective than replacing small planes with big planes.
S
"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message >news:m42shg$18k$2@dont-email.me...
Trains have the option of adding more cars, which is both more flexible
and more cost-effective than replacing small planes with big planes.
I rather suspect that the slots cannot be increased in the Washington-DC
corridor, or even to Boston.
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:36:41 -0500, "conklin"
<nilknocgeo@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message
news:m42shg$18k$2@dont-email.me...
Trains have the option of adding more cars, which is both more flexible
and more cost-effective than replacing small planes with big planes.
I rather suspect that the slots cannot be increased in the Washington-DC
corridor, or even to Boston.
Which is not relevant to the option of adding more cars to existing
trains running in the same slots.
Trains do not have the option of larger cars.
Trains have the option of adding more cars, which is both more flexible
and more cost-effective than replacing small planes with big planes.
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:36:41 -0500, "conklin"
<nilknocgeo@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message >>news:m42shg$18k$2@dont-email.me...
Trains have the option of adding more cars, which is both more flexible
and more cost-effective than replacing small planes with big planes.
I rather suspect that the slots cannot be increased in the Washington-DC >>corridor, or even to Boston.
Which is not relevant to the option of adding more cars to existing
trains running in the same slots.
--
Peter Schleifer
"Ignorance is easy and you get it for free"
On 11/14/2014 6:21 PM, Peter Schleifer wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:36:41 -0500, "conklin"
<nilknocgeo@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message
news:m42shg$18k$2@dont-email.me...
Trains have the option of adding more cars, which is both more flexible >>>> and more cost-effective than replacing small planes with big planes.
I rather suspect that the slots cannot be increased in the
Washington-DC
corridor, or even to Boston.
Which is not relevant to the option of adding more cars to existing
trains running in the same slots.
The only segment of the NEC south that is truly slot restricted at
present is the segment between Swift interlocking and New York Penn
Station, and that too only at certain hours of the day in a single
direction.
Amtrak can easily increase its capacity on the NEC Regionals by 50%
without requiring any new slots, just by adding cars to their trains
that would still continue to fit at the platforms at the major stops.
For the Acelas they could almost double the capacity, provided they had
the cars, without requiring any extra slots.
Bribing politicians to expand airports is at best a very long term investment, and in some areas useless. No amount of bribery will
cause new runways to be built at LGA or DCA. Fortunately, they are
probably the two US airports with the largest amount of traffic that
could plausibly move to rail.
In the case of Sea-Tac it sits at the top of a ridge that is the only non-water flat spot of significant size anywhere nearby. Another runway would mean a massive fill project to turn a valley or two into flat
areas.
"Peter Schleifer" <pschleif@speakeasy.org> wrote:
"conklin" <nilknocgeo@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
Trains have the option of adding more cars, which is both more
flexible and more cost-effective than replacing small planes
with big planes.
I rather suspect that the slots cannot be increased in the
Washington-DC corridor, or even to Boston.
Which is not relevant to the option of adding more cars to
existing trains running in the same slots. -- Peter Schleifer
"Ignorance is easy and you get it for free"
It is relevant to increasing the number of humans who can travel
between Boston and NYC. The increase in capacity is due to air
carrier policy, not the lack of runways. How many new cars can
Amtrak put on the corridor to increase capacity?
Amtrak could increase their rolling stock 50%-75% if they had the funds.
If you allow investment in more/faster tracks too, they could double
that again without much difficulty--aside from funding.
It ain't chump change, but it's still a lot less per passenger than the
same amount of capacity by road or air.
On Sunday, November 16, 2014 1:01:43 AM UTC-5, Glen Labah wrote:
In the case of Sea-Tac it sits at the top of a ridge that is the only
non-water flat spot of significant size anywhere nearby. Another runway
would mean a massive fill project to turn a valley or two into flat
areas.
Many airports across the country face similar constraints.
On 14-Nov-14 20:56, conklin wrote:
"Peter Schleifer" <pschleif@speakeasy.org> wrote:
"conklin" <nilknocgeo@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
Trains have the option of adding more cars, which is both more
flexible and more cost-effective than replacing small planes
with big planes.
I rather suspect that the slots cannot be increased in the
Washington-DC corridor, or even to Boston.
Which is not relevant to the option of adding more cars to
existing trains running in the same slots. -- Peter Schleifer
"Ignorance is easy and you get it for free"
It is relevant to increasing the number of humans who can travel
between Boston and NYC. The increase in capacity is due to air
carrier policy, not the lack of runways. How many new cars can
Amtrak put on the corridor to increase capacity?
Amtrak could increase their rolling stock 50%-75% if they had the funds.
If you allow investment in more/faster tracks too, they could double
that again without much difficulty--aside from funding.
It ain't chump change, but it's still a lot less per passenger than the
same amount of capacity by road or air.
S
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:16:27 -0600, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Trains do not have the option of larger cars.
Trains have the option of adding more cars, which is both more
flexible and more cost-effective than replacing small planes with
big planes.
You can only add so many cars before your train no longer fits in the station.
Of course, if you add enough cars, your train becomes a footpath
from one end of the railroad to the other which happens to have a
lot of seats along the way.
True, but you can make the platforms longer or add more of them, to a
point, before the tracks are fully utilized. AFAIK, aside from a few commuter lines around NYC, there are _no_ lines in the US that are
anywhere near that heavily loaded with passenger trains--and adding
tracks there has special problems that don't generally apply.
On Monday, December 1, 2014 7:59:43 AM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote:trains, and also added extra trains (borrowing commuter equipment). Would anyone know how many extra people they carried over Thanksgiving?
True, but you can make the platforms longer or add more of them, to a
point, before the tracks are fully utilized. AFAIK, aside from a few
commuter lines around NYC, there are _no_ lines in the US that are
anywhere near that heavily loaded with passenger trains--and adding
tracks there has special problems that don't generally apply.
I don't know the numbers, but yesterday Amtrak added many cars to its NEC
On 12/1/2014 10:16 AM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
On Monday, December 1, 2014 7:59:43 AM UTC-5, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
True, but you can make the platforms longer or add more of them, to a
point, before the tracks are fully utilized. AFAIK, aside from a few
commuter lines around NYC, there are _no_ lines in the US that are
anywhere near that heavily loaded with passenger trains--and adding
tracks there has special problems that don't generally apply.
I don't know the numbers, but yesterday Amtrak added many cars to its NEC
trains, and also added extra trains (borrowing commuter equipment).
Would anyone know how many extra people they carried over Thanksgiving?
Just wait until the November performance report is posted on the Amtrak
site. Then you can easily figure it out.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 910 |
| Nodes: | 10 (1 / 9) |
| Uptime: | 70:01:57 |
| Calls: | 12,122 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 186,510 |
| Messages: | 2,229,025 |