Why does the Amtrak train still look like a 1950's body style design ?

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Old Amtrak trains are at least PAID FOR. Kinda like the track its running on.

This is your logic: I have an old car that's paid for. I can't make money on it because not enough people ride in it. So I'm going to invest in a NEW car. Take on more debt. I'm already in debt up to my eyeballs but lets take on more. But not just a new car, a new car that requires a special kind of road. I have to build the road and pay for the car to put on it. That's insane.

This isn't simple like just going out to buy a new car to replace an old one. You have to lay down the infrastructure to run this new train on. That doesn't exist.

I can see why this country is in the financial ruin that it's in.

Bill Clinton left us in good shape, then Bush, Jr. declared two unnecessary wars and his administration ended with a huge recession.

Why is it necessary for you to lie to try to make a point?

LOL

I think it is cute that you can laugh at yourself.

 

[beagle9]

Old Amtrak trains are at least PAID FOR. Kinda like the track its running on.

This is your logic: I have an old car that's paid for. I can't make money on it because not enough people ride in it. So I'm going to invest in a NEW car. Take on more debt. I'm already in debt up to my eyeballs but lets take on more. But not just a new car, a new car that requires a special kind of road. I have to build the road and pay for the car to put on it. That's insane.

This isn't simple like just going out to buy a new car to replace an old one. You have to lay down the infrastructure to run this new train on. That doesn't exist.

I can see why this country is in the financial ruin that it's in.

Yes, paid for and awful. I suppose you think our bridges are safe, too.
Government subsidizes airlines and other industry.

No. The US government does not subsidize the major US airlines.

. I bet it will if it was to get into serious trouble, just like it did for the auto industry. And guess what ? We as taxpayers won't have a whole lot of say in it. Ain't that the standard procedure, because you know the taxpayers are just greedy people who won't fund or offer anything new unless forced right ?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Old Amtrak trains are at least PAID FOR. Kinda like the track its running on.

This is your logic: I have an old car that's paid for. I can't make money on it because not enough people ride in it. So I'm going to invest in a NEW car. Take on more debt. I'm already in debt up to my eyeballs but lets take on more. But not just a new car, a new car that requires a special kind of road. I have to build the road and pay for the car to put on it. That's insane.

This isn't simple like just going out to buy a new car to replace an old one. You have to lay down the infrastructure to run this new train on. That doesn't exist.

I can see why this country is in the financial ruin that it's in.

Yes, paid for and awful. I suppose you think our bridges are safe, too.
Government subsidizes airlines and other industry.

No. The US government does not subsidize the major US airlines.

. I bet it will if it was to get into serious trouble, just like it did for the auto industry. And guess what ? We as taxpayers won't have a whole lot of say in it. Ain't that the standard procedure, because you know the taxpayers are just greedy people who won't fund or offer anything new unless forced right ?

Is there a point to this? The fact is that the US government does not subsidize airlines as was claimed.

 

[Political Junky]

Old Amtrak trains are at least PAID FOR. Kinda like the track its running on.

This is your logic: I have an old car that's paid for. I can't make money on it because not enough people ride in it. So I'm going to invest in a NEW car. Take on more debt. I'm already in debt up to my eyeballs but lets take on more. But not just a new car, a new car that requires a special kind of road. I have to build the road and pay for the car to put on it. That's insane.

This isn't simple like just going out to buy a new car to replace an old one. You have to lay down the infrastructure to run this new train on. That doesn't exist.

I can see why this country is in the financial ruin that it's in.

Yes, paid for and awful. I suppose you think our bridges are safe, too.
Government subsidizes airlines and other industry.

No. The US government does not subsidize the major US airlines.

. I bet it will if it was to get into serious trouble, just like it did for the auto industry. And guess what ? We as taxpayers won't have a whole lot of say in it. Ain't that the standard procedure, because you know the taxpayers are just greedy people who won't fund or offer anything new unless forced right ?

Is there a point to this? The fact is that the US government does not subsidize airlines as was claimed.

How much do taxpayers support airlines?

Several weeks ago I asked a simple question that generated a complex answer: How much tax do you pay for a plane ticket? The purpose was to illustrate how mandatory taxes and fees are used to fund the nation’s commercial aviation infrastructure. But even Americans who don’t fly support U.S. airlines.

The issue of government subsidies became red-hot in recent months as American, Delta and United aligned under the Partnership for Open & Fair Skies and asked the White House to oppose expansion into U.S. markets by three Gulf carriers — Emirates,Etihad and Qatar. Proponents for the U.S. Big Three claim aviation agreements “are being used in ways that are contrary to free market competition and U.S. interests” because the Gulf airlines are state owned.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Old Amtrak trains are at least PAID FOR. Kinda like the track its running on.

This is your logic: I have an old car that's paid for. I can't make money on it because not enough people ride in it. So I'm going to invest in a NEW car. Take on more debt. I'm already in debt up to my eyeballs but lets take on more. But not just a new car, a new car that requires a special kind of road. I have to build the road and pay for the car to put on it. That's insane.

This isn't simple like just going out to buy a new car to replace an old one. You have to lay down the infrastructure to run this new train on. That doesn't exist.

I can see why this country is in the financial ruin that it's in.

Yes, paid for and awful. I suppose you think our bridges are safe, too.
Government subsidizes airlines and other industry.

No. The US government does not subsidize the major US airlines.

. I bet it will if it was to get into serious trouble, just like it did for the auto industry. And guess what ? We as taxpayers won't have a whole lot of say in it. Ain't that the standard procedure, because you know the taxpayers are just greedy people who won't fund or offer anything new unless forced right ?

Is there a point to this? The fact is that the US government does not subsidize airlines as was claimed.

How much do taxpayers support airlines?

Several weeks ago I asked a simple question that generated a complex answer: How much tax do you pay for a plane ticket? The purpose was to illustrate how mandatory taxes and fees are used to fund the nation’s commercial aviation infrastructure. But even Americans who don’t fly support U.S. airlines.

The issue of government subsidies became red-hot in recent months as American, Delta and United aligned under the Partnership for Open & Fair Skies and asked the White House to oppose expansion into U.S. markets by three Gulf carriers — Emirates,Etihad and Qatar. Proponents for the U.S. Big Three claim aviation agreements “are being used in ways that are contrary to free market competition and U.S. interests” because the Gulf airlines are state owned.

I can see you didn't read the article. Congrats on embarrassing yourself yet again.

 

[candycorn]

It is permissible for Americans to develop greater technology than the French and Japanese, no? You develop stronger engines and you can put more freight on the train. With the upticks in online shopping and the like more packages than ever are going to be shipped from port cities...the demand will be there.

You know nothing about physics. Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself!

Freight doesn't travel on trains?

 

[TooTall]

The Right won't allow modern high speed rail.

Only idiot liberals can come up with a reason to build high-speed rail that will never make money and just suck tax dollars right out of your wallet.

. You sure it won't make money ? How do you know ? If it is fast and sleek enough, you would ride it out of curiosity now wouldn't you ? I know I would.

Studies have been done. The numbers simply do not work.

. All depending on the studies, and who conducted those studies right ?

1. The Federal Government Owns and Operates Amtrak
2. Amtrak Loses Hundreds of Millions of Dollars a Year
3. American Taxpayers Subsidize a Service They Don’t Use
4. Very Small Percentage of the Population Use a Government Service We All Pay For
5. Amtrak Has Already Been Subsidized to the Tune of a Whopping $45 billion

For more bullet points and the details go to this link.

Lie Campaign: 11 Things The Media Won't Tell You About Amtrak - Breitbart

 

[candycorn]

he he he You guys act like this is something new.

Brick Red Texas puts their little piggy snout into the federal trough whenever it can:

Thus the Metrorail (Houston) was built without any federal funding until November 2011 when a $900 million grant was approved for expansions

And that is on top of the additional sales tax metro levies to all citizens that ride the bus/rail system or not.

More people ride Amtrak than the city's metro rail.

 

[TooTall]

Old Amtrak trains are at least PAID FOR. Kinda like the track its running on.

This is your logic: I have an old car that's paid for. I can't make money on it because not enough people ride in it. So I'm going to invest in a NEW car. Take on more debt. I'm already in debt up to my eyeballs but lets take on more. But not just a new car, a new car that requires a special kind of road. I have to build the road and pay for the car to put on it. That's insane.

This isn't simple like just going out to buy a new car to replace an old one. You have to lay down the infrastructure to run this new train on. That doesn't exist.

I can see why this country is in the financial ruin that it's in.

Bill Clinton left us in good shape, then Bush, Jr. declared two unnecessary wars and his administration ended with a huge recession.

Do you thin Bush should have vetoed the AUMF bill overwhelmingly passed by both houses of Congress because you think it was unnecessary?

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF),Pub. L.107-40, codified at 115 Stat.224 and passed as S.J.Res.23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizes the use of United States Armed Force sagainst those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001.


On September 14, 2001Senate Joint Resolution 23passed in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals in the Senate were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting (SenatorsLarry Craig, R–ID, andJesse Helms, R–NC).


On September 14, 2001 the House passed House Joint Resolution 64. The totals in the House of Representatives were 420 ayes, 1 nay and 10 not voting. The sole nay vote was by Barbara Lee, D-CA.

 

[Political Junky]

Old Amtrak trains are at least PAID FOR. Kinda like the track its running on.

This is your logic: I have an old car that's paid for. I can't make money on it because not enough people ride in it. So I'm going to invest in a NEW car. Take on more debt. I'm already in debt up to my eyeballs but lets take on more. But not just a new car, a new car that requires a special kind of road. I have to build the road and pay for the car to put on it. That's insane.

This isn't simple like just going out to buy a new car to replace an old one. You have to lay down the infrastructure to run this new train on. That doesn't exist.

I can see why this country is in the financial ruin that it's in.

Bill Clinton left us in good shape, then Bush, Jr. declared two unnecessary wars and his administration ended with a huge recession.

Do you thin Bush should have vetoed the AUMF bill overwhelmingly passed by both houses of Congress because you think it was unnecessary?

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF),Pub. L.107-40, codified at 115 Stat.224 and passed as S.J.Res.23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizes the use of United States Armed Force sagainst those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001.


On September 14, 2001Senate Joint Resolution 23passed in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals in the Senate were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting (SenatorsLarry Craig, R–ID, andJesse Helms, R–NC).


On September 14, 2001 the House passed House Joint Resolution 64. The totals in the House of Representatives were 420 ayes, 1 nay and 10 not voting. The sole nay vote was by Barbara Lee, D-CA.

Perhaps if the Bush Administration hadn't lied to the world about Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction.

 

[Jarlaxle]

It is permissible for Americans to develop greater technology than the French and Japanese, no? You develop stronger engines and you can put more freight on the train. With the upticks in online shopping and the like more packages than ever are going to be shipped from port cities...the demand will be there.

You know nothing about physics. Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself!

Freight doesn't travel on trains?

I will give you one hundred trillion dollars if you can show where I posted that. Aaaaaaaand...GO TO IT!

 

[candycorn]

It is permissible for Americans to develop greater technology than the French and Japanese, no? You develop stronger engines and you can put more freight on the train. With the upticks in online shopping and the like more packages than ever are going to be shipped from port cities...the demand will be there.

You know nothing about physics. Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself!

Freight doesn't travel on trains?

I will give you one hundred trillion dollars if you can show where I posted that. Aaaaaaaand...GO TO IT!

And I'll give you two hundred trillion dollars if you can show where I said you did. Aaaaaaand...GO TO IT!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Do you or do you not grasp the yawning chasm that separates the weight of a passenger train and that of a freight train?

 

[candycorn]

Do you or do you not grasp the yawning chasm that separates the weight of a passenger train and that of a freight train?

Yawning chasm as in the space between your ears?

Yes, freight can weigh considerably more. Congratulations. A firm grasp of the obvious you have although you are living proof that humans can be very dense.

And your point is what exactly....that there are challenges to what I stated? Congratulations again. At one time before the conservative movement/stupor, this nation was good at overcoming challenges.

Congrats a third time, you embody the obstacle to progress as well. Good to see the political clout you guys had sinking with the GOP demise.

Can't happen soon enough

 

[Jarlaxle]

No, you clearly DON'T understand the consequences of the extra weight. That being: the much-heavier freight trains need stronger railbeds, bridges, etc...and simply cannot go as fast. A passenger train might take a section of track at 80MPH...where a freight on the same stretch might have to take it at 50 or slower to avoid damaging the track, or even risking a derail. The weight also requires more fuel...to double the speed, you need to-at least-quadruple the power. (Also, freight trains are much less streamlined than passenger trains.) Running high-speed freight trains would require tearing up and replacing every foot of rail they run on! (There are over 100,000 miles of rail that would have to be replaced.)

Here is something to ponder: how much space would a 2-mile-long freight train need to stop from 140MPH? Remember: doubling the speed will roughly quadruple the stopping distance.

 

[TooTall]

Old Amtrak trains are at least PAID FOR. Kinda like the track its running on.

This is your logic: I have an old car that's paid for. I can't make money on it because not enough people ride in it. So I'm going to invest in a NEW car. Take on more debt. I'm already in debt up to my eyeballs but lets take on more. But not just a new car, a new car that requires a special kind of road. I have to build the road and pay for the car to put on it. That's insane.

This isn't simple like just going out to buy a new car to replace an old one. You have to lay down the infrastructure to run this new train on. That doesn't exist.

I can see why this country is in the financial ruin that it's in.

Bill Clinton left us in good shape, then Bush, Jr. declared two unnecessary wars and his administration ended with a huge recession.

Do you thin Bush should have vetoed the AUMF bill overwhelmingly passed by both houses of Congress because you think it was unnecessary?

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF),Pub. L.107-40, codified at 115 Stat.224 and passed as S.J.Res.23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizes the use of United States Armed Force sagainst those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001.


On September 14, 2001Senate Joint Resolution 23passed in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals in the Senate were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting (SenatorsLarry Craig, R–ID, andJesse Helms, R–NC).


On September 14, 2001 the House passed House Joint Resolution 64. The totals in the House of Representatives were 420 ayes, 1 nay and 10 not voting. The sole nay vote was by Barbara Lee, D-CA.

Perhaps if the Bush Administration hadn't lied to the world about Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Bush was only repeating what these two 'LIARS' were saying:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

 

[Political Junky]

Old Amtrak trains are at least PAID FOR. Kinda like the track its running on.

This is your logic: I have an old car that's paid for. I can't make money on it because not enough people ride in it. So I'm going to invest in a NEW car. Take on more debt. I'm already in debt up to my eyeballs but lets take on more. But not just a new car, a new car that requires a special kind of road. I have to build the road and pay for the car to put on it. That's insane.

This isn't simple like just going out to buy a new car to replace an old one. You have to lay down the infrastructure to run this new train on. That doesn't exist.

I can see why this country is in the financial ruin that it's in.

Bill Clinton left us in good shape, then Bush, Jr. declared two unnecessary wars and his administration ended with a huge recession.

Do you thin Bush should have vetoed the AUMF bill overwhelmingly passed by both houses of Congress because you think it was unnecessary?

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF),Pub. L.107-40, codified at 115 Stat.224 and passed as S.J.Res.23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizes the use of United States Armed Force sagainst those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001.


On September 14, 2001Senate Joint Resolution 23passed in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals in the Senate were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting (SenatorsLarry Craig, R–ID, andJesse Helms, R–NC).


On September 14, 2001 the House passed House Joint Resolution 64. The totals in the House of Representatives were 420 ayes, 1 nay and 10 not voting. The sole nay vote was by Barbara Lee, D-CA.

Perhaps if the Bush Administration hadn't lied to the world about Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Bush was only repeating what these two 'LIARS' were saying:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

It was just the opposite, Kerry and Clinton trusted Bush's lies.

 

[candycorn]

No, you clearly DON'T understand the consequences of the extra weight. That being: the much-heavier freight trains need stronger railbeds, bridges, etc...and simply cannot go as fast. A passenger train might take a section of track at 80MPH...where a freight on the same stretch might have to take it at 50 or slower to avoid damaging the track, or even risking a derail. The weight also requires more fuel...to double the speed, you need to-at least-quadruple the power. (Also, freight trains are much less streamlined than passenger trains.) Running high-speed freight trains would require tearing up and replacing every foot of rail they run on! (There are over 100,000 miles of rail that would have to be replaced.)

Here is something to ponder: how much space would a 2-mile-long freight train need to stop from 140MPH? Remember: doubling the speed will roughly quadruple the stopping distance.

I imagine there was a Jaraxle standing by spouting the same things during the construction of the Erie Canal. You were probably giddy in Florida as we failed several times to launch rockets into space. You were probably cheering as people fell into the wet concrete at the site of the Hoover Dam. As I understand it, work ceased on the Panama Canal due to disease. Were you happy about that too?

I understand there are technological challenges. Apparently, if you're any indication, imagination is in short supply too.

What I don't understand is the resistance to what could be a magic bullet solution to moving our goods to the world's markets faster, moving their goods to Target's shelves sooner, reducing pollution, allowing e-commerce to clear the next obvious hurdle of time in transit to receive product, reducing stress on our interestates and bridges, etc...

That's fine. Resistance is all the conservatives can ever offer. At some point you have to stop shaking your head...don't you? As your political clout takes on more water...it becomes more and more comedic.

Can't happen soon enough.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The Right won't allow modern high speed rail.

There's nothing "modern" about trains when we already have interstate highways and airplanes. Governor Brown will drain California's treasury for a train that is not needed when California really needs is water.

Obviously, you've never been on a modern high speed train like ones used in Europe, China, and Japan.

So that's the reason you want high speed trains? So we can be more like other countries? That seems to be the Democrat's argument for everything they desire.

Yes, we liberals would like to have mass transit because we liberals know that businesses don't thrive from employees sitting in their cars in heavy traffic on freeways for 2-3 hours a day. But sitting on a train with WiFi provides an extra 1-2 hours a day of productivity.

Here's the newest train design coming to Japan. These incredibly liberal, government suckers are deciding that trains should fit more into the landscape, as they respect their environment a whole lot more than Republicans do theirs in the U.S.

This is being referred to as Seibu Railway's "invisible train": And oh yeah, it's very high speed.

It figures it looks like a big dildo




.

 

[beagle9]

The Right won't allow modern high speed rail.

Only idiot liberals can come up with a reason to build high-speed rail that will never make money and just suck tax dollars right out of your wallet.

. You sure it won't make money ? How do you know ? If it is fast and sleek enough, you would ride it out of curiosity now wouldn't you ? I know I would.

Studies have been done. The numbers simply do not work.

. All depending on the studies, and who conducted those studies right ?

1. The Federal Government Owns and Operates Amtrak
2. Amtrak Loses Hundreds of Millions of Dollars a Year
3. American Taxpayers Subsidize a Service They Don’t Use
4. Very Small Percentage of the Population Use a Government Service We All Pay For
5. Amtrak Has Already Been Subsidized to the Tune of a Whopping $45 billion

For more bullet points and the details go to this link.

Lie Campaign: 11 Things The Media Won't Tell You About Amtrak - Breitbart

. Instead of the private sector taking over space and space travel, why doesn't it bring it's head back out of the stars, and invest that money in transportation right here on earth ?