|
|
| Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail (1152895) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
|
| (1153277) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 09:14:18 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Apr 27 04:14:59 2012. Oops, meant to say between WAS and BOS |
|
|
| (1153278) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 09:23:26 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Apr 27 04:14:59 2012. Also, I agree 110% that Acela should've been sent via the inland route. More of the population lives along that way anyway. Why the shoreline route became the more valuable one is beyond me (perhaps b/c CSX owns the inland route?). With the shoreline route being supposedly maxed out b/c of the bridge issues, the inland route is the logical next step. Hell you could have inland route trains running to North Station, allowing for connection to the Downeaster. Imagine one station being just for regionals and the other being only for Acela. |
|
|
| (1153279) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 09:28:34 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Apr 27 04:43:24 2012. Obviously if it's cheaper to build a new line then financially speaking it makes sense to build the new line. But would the new line be able to stop in the middle of the smaller cities (Fort Wayne, South Bend) or will the stop be on the outskirts of town? Will it cost more to build a new line that connects to the old line for the sake of getting trains into downtown? Honestly, I can't imagine how building a new line would be cheaper in most cases. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1153286) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri Apr 27 11:33:38 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 09:23:26 2012. Why the shoreline route became the more valuable one is beyond me (perhaps b/c CSX owns the inland route?)Allegedly, some have argued that the other reason is that going through Providence has the benefit of securing Rhode Island's congressional delegation... |
|
|
| (1153287) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Apr 27 11:40:27 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri Apr 27 11:33:38 2012. Specifically Claiborne Pell.That said, I think upgrading the inland route and routing alternate acelas that way would work great, if you could cut the "Springfield Corner" along the I84 ROW. |
|
|
| (1153293) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Apr 27 12:12:31 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 09:28:34 2012. I wasn't really thinking about the downtown parts of an HSL when I wrote that post. Whether new or not, those parts will be slow anyway. |
|
|
| (1153297) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Apr 27 13:12:32 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 09:13:54 2012. Not exactly but trains were scheduled to arrive at each city after 9 am, sometimes even after 10 am, perhaps avoiding rush hours.To give you an idea where I come from, this is a pre-March 2012 timetable of the Tokaido Shinkansen without the new 14th train at 1800 hours. I couldn't find a non-pdf current time table in English. The red ones are the super expresses, blue ones semi-fast and green ones locals. The 6 am train is usually packed and many lines around Tokyo have their first train of the day scheduled to meet this one. It arrives at Shin-Osaka around 8:30. |
|
|
| (1153302) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Apr 27 13:24:03 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 09:14:18 2012. Between NYP and WAS, it's Portal, Newark, ZOO and the whole Philadelphia area then the tunnels at Baltimore. |
|
|
| (1153317) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Apr 27 14:43:23 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 09:23:26 2012. Even before CSX, the Shore Line route was more popular than the Inland Route. In pre-Penn Central days, the Shore Line route was the way New Haven RR trains went from Boston to NYC. Back then, you couldn't go via Springfield because the New York Central owned the tracks from Boston to Springfield. At least now you can on Amtrak. But there really should be a more direct route between Boston and New York. The 84 Corridor between Hartford and Sturbridge, Mass, would be the most direct and could offer much faster train service than what is offered now |
|
|
| (1153322) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 15:10:57 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Apr 27 13:12:32 2012. Then perhaps that is the problem. They need to schedule it at a time when the most people are traveling. Syncing it up with other trains I'm not so sure would do much unless the Amtrak system was able to automatically link connecting services with this one. |
|
|
| (1153323) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 15:11:13 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 15:10:57 2012. Reservations system I mean |
|
|
| (1153326) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 15:29:52 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Apr 27 13:24:03 2012. Well Portal can be expanded, and from a simple glance it looks like Newark could be as well if they expand the station over the roadway on the SE side. I'm not too familiar with ZOO or the Philadelphia area. Are there any grade crossovers than could be converted into flyovers? The only other thing I could think of is perhaps routing a few trains over what I believe is the CSX line on the other side of the river and putting a couple of platforms there with an enclosed bridge extending from 30th St Station. It wouldn't be any longer than the bridge from Airtrain to terminal 5. Are there any runs from NYC that terminate in Philly anymore, or are they all thru runs? |
|
|
| (1153328) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 15:41:06 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Apr 27 14:43:23 2012. I understand because of the historical operation of the line, it's what naturally followed, but now that the shoreline is maxed out they really should focus on getting the inland route running. It may take longer though because it goes all the way up to Springfield before cutting over to Boston, but there should be plenty of ridership to Hartford, Springfield, and Worcestor anyway to offset that since that corridor is where the majority of the population lives anyway. The line through Middletown, Willimantic and Putnam (I think it's called the Putnam Division?) would still be able to serve Worcestor, but it's got plenty of curves on it and would probably be even slower. Same with the line through Norwich. You'd get direct casino service but the curves through the Norwich area probably kill any time savings. That and you'd still have to contend with the bridge issue between New London and New Haven. Honestly, doing anything but running the inland route seems idiotic to me since you'd be skipping Springfield entirely which certainly deserves a huge boost in the number of trains |
|
|
| (1153330) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 15:43:59 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by R30A on Fri Apr 27 11:40:27 2012. The thing is then you're completely missing out on a huge population area that would then need to be served by even more trains that can't fit into NYC. To me using the inland route is not just about cramming more trains into Boston, but also about serving a corridor that is more densely populated (Hartford-Springfield-Worcestor) |
|
|
| (1153343) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Apr 27 17:16:46 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Apr 27 04:14:59 2012. 100 mph speed limit on MNR land and its four or five draw bridges100 mph since when? Nowhere on Metro-North allows 100 mph (which would require some kind of ATS and Class 6 track). You getting things mixed up with the MBTA-owned section of the NEC? When you think of business, politics and geography, that line should have a HSL run through Hartford and leave the Shore line for tourists Politics? No, those favored the Shore Line in every respect. The Shore Line was always the heaviest in terms of passenger traffic going back to New Haven RR days as well. You're not going to get away with evading Providence or the entire state of Rhode Island either, in terms of both politics and geography and even business. Boston is closer to New York than DC No, it's the same distance, give or take five miles depending on the route. This is clearly visible on any map, too. Claytor said at the time the run will eventually become shorter than NY-DC He wasn't telling the truth; the fastest conceived speed on the Shore Line was three hours NYP-BOS or a 75-mph average speed, which the AE hasn't achieved; it has achieved its goal of 2:45 for NYP-WAS though. Or was he conceiving having the Acela run via the currently-rail-trailed former New Haven Air Line? Too many curves and the grades were steeper. |
|
|
| (1153346) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Apr 27 17:42:02 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 15:29:52 2012. I'm not too familiar with ZOO or the Philadelphia area. Are there any grade crossovers than could be converted into flyovers?Zoo is almost all flyovers. It's the curves that slow things down there. The only other thing I could think of is perhaps routing a few trains over what I believe is the CSX line on the other side of the river and putting a couple of platforms there with an enclosed bridge extending from 30th St Station That's the former B&O line. That railroad used to have competing trains running between the New York area and Washington DC, namely the Royal Blue. Their Philly station was at 24th Street; there's nothing left of that station now. |
|
|
| (1153347) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 17:49:20 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Apr 27 17:42:02 2012. Okay, that's all fine. I wasn't saying have it run the entire line or to have it stop at the old location. Just have it use the line through the Philly area and stop across the river from 30th st. But it doesn't seem like congestion is the issue |
|
|
| (1153348) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Apr 27 17:53:56 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 17:49:20 2012. Gotcha.BTW, forgot to include a map of Zoo last time.  |
|
|
| (1153363) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 19:03:03 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Apr 27 17:53:56 2012. Great map, thank you! The turns are definitely slow through there, but are there any congestion issues at all? |
|
|
| (1153365) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Apr 27 19:03:37 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 19:03:03 2012. Not that I know of; not even with SEPTA. |
|
|
| (1153366) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 19:06:03 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Apr 27 17:16:46 2012. Which ROW is that, the one running Middletown-Willimantic-Putnam-Worcestor? I mentioned the same thing before, too many curves for HSR to work on that. Politics definitely favors the shore line, but I could see commerce favoring the inland. Far more people live on that corridor. |
|
|
| (1153368) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Apr 27 19:21:44 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Apr 27 17:16:46 2012. 100 mph since when? Nowhere on Metro-North allows 100 mphI meant to write 90. That's what I get for staying up too late. You're not going to get away with evading Providence or the entire state of Rhode Island either, in terms of both politics and geography and even business. Hartford is more important to New York. Providence is more important to Boston. But they have the MBTA too. Or, you could do both and still avoid the Shore. No, it's the same distance, give or take five miles depending on the route. It's 190m and 205m, actually. (bird fly) He wasn't telling the truth; the fastest conceived speed on the Shore Line was three hours NYP-BOS or a 75-mph average speed Claytor envisioned relocating 50 miles of track in CT and RI. Of his plans for the line, only the electrification became true. (and in a lesser way, Acela) |
|
|
| (1153369) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Apr 27 19:28:10 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 15:29:52 2012. from a simple glance it looks like Newark could be as well if they expand the station over the roadway on the SE side.There is a draw bridge just east of the station. But currently most trains stop there anyway so it doesn't matter much. Are there any runs from NYC that terminate in Philly anymore, or are they all thru runs? No more Clockers. But there are more Keystones than before. |
|
|
| (1153372) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Apr 27 19:38:56 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 15:11:13 2012. They do list connecting NEC trains on the Empire line timetable although in many cases, you're stuck at Penn station for more than a hour. Even when the Empire terminated at GCT, you could book through tickets and ride the Amtrak shuttle bus. |
|
|
| (1153439) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Apr 28 00:39:29 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Apr 27 04:56:54 2012. But if you have it, it will change the way of business.*Definitely true*. When travel between cities is fast, frequent and hassle free, you can have more instances of cross-commuting. Just one example: A business might nowadays send a choice few of their staff down to DC and put them up in a hotel for to attend a weeklong conference. With decent HSR, all of the employees can take turns hopping down there on the days there are things they *really* want to attend. The other days, instead of having those choice few employees attend marginally useful talks at the conference to "get their money's worth" they can be at the office doing their main job. |
|
|
| (1153440) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Apr 28 00:43:18 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Apr 27 13:12:32 2012. You know you're doing something right when your high speed rail has so many trains the timetable is best expressed in an NYCTA guide-a-ride format. |
|
|
| (1153444) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sat Apr 28 01:04:31 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Apr 28 00:39:29 2012. *Definitely true*. When travel between cities is fast, frequent and hassle free, you can have more instances of cross-commuting.As I've stated before, improving these links reduces the opportunity costs to travelling whether one is a freelancer doing design work in multiple cities or a day tripper looking for a quick trip to somewhere else. As I've jokingly said before, with CAHSR, what would end up being two separate trips to the state ends up being one because the 3:30 train ride between SF and LA reduces my opportunity costs to taking a day trip to see the other respective city. So yes, those Clippers fans can follow their team to Oakland or Sacto and come back home on the same night. Those Dodgers fans can follow their team to AT&T Park without having to blow money on a hotel. And yes, business people can have intra-state meetings and come back home. While aircraft is faster, there just isn't the flexibility in scheduling and changing flights with airlines that exists with rail travel, and you get the bonus of being able to sleep, something that you can't do while driving... |
|
|
| (1153447) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Apr 28 01:18:50 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Apr 27 04:56:54 2012. OK, you're giving credence to a communist country that terrorizes its citizens. Credibility over . . . |
|
|
| (1153448) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Apr 28 01:19:33 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 00:56:00 2012. You can't disregard buses. Not even in European cities. |
|
|
| (1153454) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Apr 28 01:46:13 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Apr 28 01:18:50 2012. I know you mean another country but JAPAN was always and is such one as well. I don't think the US was ever very far behind anyway. Pas glop.^&UI@#$ %$E^%R&^*&(*OUIPO |
|
|
| (1153457) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Apr 28 01:59:46 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Apr 28 00:39:29 2012. Which kind of sucks for employees, who used to enjoy company/suppliers payed dinners and "entertainment" while these kind of budget would never be reflected in fares or anything related to what riders would actually pay. |
|
|
| (1153458) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Apr 28 02:37:07 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sat Apr 28 01:04:31 2012. Not to mention that LAX really doesn't need to be jammed up with these short hop flights. There's a rail line that could be connected to LAX, but it would definitely have to be elevated and expanded. Who owns the line? It goes through Inglewood. I wonder if it'd be worth running some non-stop shuttles between LAUPT and LAX |
|
|
| (1153459) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Apr 28 02:42:16 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Apr 27 19:38:56 2012. Hmm...but this is combining an Acela and a regional. I'm sure the system could handle it though...could be worth trying if the capacity for the trains is there |
|
|
| (1153460) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Apr 28 02:47:36 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Apr 27 19:03:37 2012. Oh well, that makes my idea pointless... |
|
|
| (1153461) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Apr 28 02:48:45 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Apr 27 19:28:10 2012. I'm well aware of the draw bridge. Obviously they'd have to build a new bridge. Is the issue there congestion or is it something else? If it's congestion, expanding the station and the ROW for some distance should help. |
|
|
| (1153462) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Apr 28 02:54:47 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sat Apr 28 01:04:31 2012. Funny you mention Dodger fans coming to AT&T Park. Thirty some years ago I took some kids to Candlestick and right along our row of seats were a quartet of guys who had used PSA to come up, have dinner by the airport and fly home that evening. Kinda like when I took the Pennsy to Philly from NYC to go see Muddy Waters @ the Electric Factory(?) then caught an 11 something train back home. |
|
|
| (1153463) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Apr 28 02:56:17 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Apr 27 19:21:44 2012. If you were to cut out certain portions of that line and make them a bit more direct it could certainly work. Still, I'm a big proponent of expanding to the inland route next. |
|
|
| (1153464) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Apr 28 03:04:22 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Apr 28 01:19:33 2012. Really though, how many people take the express bus to the city in the different cities all over the country versus how many would take a train if it existed? |
|
|
| (1153475) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sat Apr 28 07:01:56 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Apr 28 02:37:07 2012. Who owns the line?IIRC, LACMTA does... I wonder if it'd be worth running some non-stop shuttles between LAUPT and LAX Part of the ROW between the airport and Crenshaw Blvd is going to become a Stadtbahn so you may be too late as construction is going to start soon... |
|
|
| (1153483) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Sat Apr 28 09:35:15 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Apr 28 01:18:50 2012. Is China communist? I think it is more state capitalism carried to the extreme. |
|
|
| (1153539) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Apr 28 13:10:42 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Apr 28 00:43:18 2012. I used to joke "HSR in Japan is more frequent than the G train" but come to think of it, it's more frequent than the E train out of Jamaica Center! |
|
|
| (1153551) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Apr 28 13:42:58 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by merrick1 on Sat Apr 28 09:35:15 2012. ?? Communism and so-called "state capitalism" are one and the same. Ever read the Communist Manifesto? Have a look at the fifth "plank" of communism:Having foreign firms over there, under their rules, is the same as having state-owned production since one of the big rules of doing business over there is that you're forced to hand over your trade secrets to the government. |
|
|
| (1153615) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Apr 28 17:22:49 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sat Apr 28 07:01:56 2012. Aha, yup, that'll knock my plan out of the water. Or are they intending on leaving the ROW where it is? If that's the case, you could still build over it since a through rail connection to LAUPT would have to be elevated. |
|
|
| (1153623) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Sat Apr 28 17:34:57 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Apr 28 13:42:58 2012. Yes I have read the Communist Manifesto.Most communists I know would make a distinction between real communism with control of the means of production by the workers and state capitalism with control of the means of production by the government. The only difference between the Long Island Rail Road today and the Long Island Rail Road of 1950 is that the state rather than the Pennsylvania Railroad owns the stock. That is state capitalism rather than communism or socialism. |
|
|
| (1153729) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Apr 29 15:04:32 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Apr 28 02:48:45 2012. The congestion is obviously between NWK and NYP being two tracked. It's the bridge and the track layout expecting all trains to stop there. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
