[Buzz123]

The reason Amtrak is Amtrak is that it was a failure when in private hands, so the government took over. Of course no one in government ever ran a business sooo...

[TessaN]

wow alright, thanks a lot!

[dynimagelv]

Originally Posted by CamaroGuy

Amtrak needs to be privatised. Let the British, Germans, or Japanese come in and run it I say.

what amazes me is that, way back in the 40's and 50's we had the best passenger rail system in the world and we let the federalies "F" it up...because Eisenhower had his fingers in the Aviation business so they let rail die and subsidized the airlines...and look where that got us......

[doolish1]

We need high speed rail badly. Desert Xpress type rail if it actually goes somewhere useful that hooks into commuter rail, light rail, bus, and of course other high speed could seriously put the airlines out of business on under 500 mile trips. High Speed Rail means no super invasive security and showing up 2 hours early just to catch a ride.

[dynimagelv]

fat chance of that happening.....a private company wants to develope a highspeed line to vegas from LA....they announced it...3 days later scarrt Harry Reid announces that HE is backing a line that will run from VICTOR F'n VILLE [that'l bring a lotta business] and the private backer that was NOT gonna panhandle Federal money baCKED OUT....way to go harry

b.t.w. I manage the rooms reservations office in a hotel here in town....NO ONE in our office can fremember that last time they booked a room for someone from VICTOR F'n VILLE

[Robustus]

Originally Posted by dynimagelv

what amazes me is that, way back in the 40's and 50's we had the best passenger rail system in the world and we let the federalies "F" it up...because Eisenhower had his fingers in the Aviation business so they let rail die and subsidized the airlines...and look where that got us......

You know airplanes are better, right? Last I checked, "highspeed" trains travel two-hundred-something miles per hour, and there's not much theoretical room to get them meaningfully higher in a production capacity. Planes cruise well over twice as fast, and travel in a straight line (wrt to the Earth's curved surface).

I do hate air-travel (too cramped), but I'm too cheap to pay for first class, and that's my choice. I'm traveling right now, and just bought a ticket from CT back to Vegas, 5.5hr direct flight, for $119. Rail could never touch that value.

There are some nice shorter-route applications that would fit rail nicely, but rail's demise at the hands of aviation is ultimately an issue of technical superiority, not political back-scratching (which may have accelerated the process, but nothing more).

[doolish1]

That's why I said under 500 miles. I would love to avoid the airport security and not get there hours in advance. Also the rail seats have much more room and all come with your own plug for your technology. For trips to the SF, LA, PHX, and SLC areas it would dominate airlines.

[baily23]

Originally Posted by Buzz123

Of course no one in government ever ran a business sooo...

Preach On. That is the Truth