On Feb 7, 2008 10:10 PM, <jon@dakota-truck.net> wrote:
>
> "Andy Levy" <andy.levy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 7, 2008 6:51 PM, <jon@dakota-truck.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> "Andy Levy" <andy.levy@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> > If he could hop on a train, it'd be better all around. But even for
> >> > those shorter trips, we need faster trains to make them viable in most
> >> > peoples' eyes, because the average speed is still much lower than the
> >> > interstate.
> >>
> >> Its too bad, really. Trains have a rather intangible romantic
> >> quality about them.
>
> > Yep, and it's also far more relaxing than having to deal with the
> > idiots & weather on the Thruway.
>
>
> I can imagine. (I have to imagine since I've never traveled by
> rail unfortunately, though I would like to try it someday.)
The only rail travel I've ever done has been subways and the commuter
trains into/out of NYC from Croton-on-Hudson. So I'm kind of assuming
that it'd better for cross-state trips; we've had some rather
interesting trips w/ Tyler over the past year due to the confines of
our cars.
> That's a bummer, especially since it sounds like the freight side
> is a tiny fraction of the cost of road travel, its too bad that
> doesn't translate to the passenger side. I wonder if there would be
> any efficacy to coupling some passenger cars to the freight trains?
> The problem with rail lines not allowing passenger service on their
> fright tracks may be the major hangup there?
I see Amtrak and freight on the same tracks around here. The Amtrak
trains are at most 6 passenger cars. If they could fill more cars, the
pricing would probably come down. It can't cost that much more to move
10 vs. 200 people in the same number of cars.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 02 2008 - 02:10:10 EST