response 1 of 57:

Mar 15 08:38 UTC 1998

Actually,I was not specifically talking of connecting the North Maerica to
Siberia but to the whole of Asia and beyond to Africa an Europe.Imagine a long
distance train from the Cape of Good Hope to Cape Horn(the tip of South
America through Asia and North America or London to New York through Russia
.It could provide impressive and interesting possiblities to travellers and
tourists alike.I dont know the staus of the ambitious project to connect west
asia with europe.Even India could be linked to Sri Lanka but politics and
economics(short-term) hyave not helped the region.Bye folks and Good Day.

response 3 of 57:

Mar 16 05:10 UTC 1998

The problem with a train from Cape Horn to the Cape of Good Hope is that it
would be horrendously expensive and would take a very long time.  That's the
sort of trip that airplanes do very well.  Building the rail line might be
interesting from the standpoint of being able to say you'd done it, but I
doubt you'd have more than a few passengers.

response 5 of 57:

Mar 16 13:46 UTC 1998

I feel that the US could do something to better its rail transport.It would
reduce the burden on its highways.I find it strange that more Americans prefer
carsto trains as the mode of transportation.Trains can be faster,cleaner,safer
and most important reduce the pressure of you having to drive and let some
one else drive.The other thing that Steve mentioned about traffic being less
between the two capes,I wasnt expecting more than one or two passengers to
make it through the entire trip but you could still have lots of passengers
from ,say Brazil to ,say Mexico.The train would go all the way though.In fact
in India we have a train from India's southern most tip in the mainland to
the national capital(i.e from Kanniyakumari to New delhi).But kanniyakumari
itself is a very small town.But the train passes through several important
cities and the train is running reasonably well patronized.Guys can ask me
in this forum about anything to do with Indian Railways.Happy railing.

response 7 of 57:

Mar 16 16:54 UTC 1998

There is so little left to the American train system that it is hardly usable.
Ann Arbor-Toledo line, 100 km distance, stopped running passenger trains in
1950.  To take the train you now have to take a bus to Detroit (100 km east),
get from the bus to the train station somehow (walk? and hope not to be killed
on th way?), wait a few hours (there are only three buses a day, and one
train, plus the train company has one bus but it is often full), and take a
train to Toledo, which arrives around 1 a. m.  To continue east, you wait
until 4 a. m.  The 800 mile (1300 km?) trip from Ann Arbor to Boston, which
is a 16 hour drive by car, is (or was, probably worse now) 24 by train.
Airplanes finished off what cars started.
        Ann Arbor-Chicago is about 300 miles, 5 hours by car or train.  Car
is much cheeaper if you own one because highways are subsidized by general
taxes and trains are not very full and therefore the tickets are expensive.
A train on an improved track could go up to 150 miles/hour = 2 hours if there
were no stops.  People fly that distance now and take two hours to drive to
the airport, leave their car parked there, buy a ticket, and fly, and then
another hour or so getting into town from the airport.  If the train tracks
were upgraded, there would be lots of passengers switching from plane to
train.

response 9 of 57:

Mar 16 23:33 UTC 1998

The route between Boston and Washington D. C. is heavily travelled, and
probably helps keep other Amtrak fares subsidized.  You would have to be crazy
to want to drive in New York City.

response 11 of 57:

Mar 17 22:49 UTC 1998

I've ridden double decker trains in the Chicago area too.  I can think of a
number of reasons why they wouldn't be more widely used.  They require more
clearance above the tracks than most trains.  That probably makes them
impractical in tunnels that weren't designed for them.  They're more top
heavy, meaning they can't go around corners as fast.  They would also be less
aerodynamic, although I don't know how that balances out with creating shorter
trains, which are prosumably somewhat lighter.

response 13 of 57:

Mar 18 03:22 UTC 1998

  Amtrak has Superliner cars which are double decked, but they are only used
on certain routes which are highly scenic. I don't know if they use
Superliners on the Cardinal (Chi-NYC via Cincinnati and Charleston) because
of the Big Bend Tunnel. I have stood on top of the tunnel, but I don't know
what the clearances are.

response 15 of 57:

Mar 18 18:02 UTC 1998

How is the new People Mover working out, and how does it work?
Does it pay for itself?

response 17 of 57:

Mar 19 12:50 UTC 1998

The main advantage I see in a double decker train is its ability to carry more
passengers.I also second the view that the sight is better from the upper
deck.In India,unfortunately we had double deck trains which had the height
of ordinary single deck trains.The resuilt was the ceiling was much lower.We
also had a lot of narrow gauge rail here(0.77mts).But under the ambitious
uni-gauge system all the tracks are being made broad gauge.Hail the iron
horse.I feel it will one day outdo the road and air as the prime means of
transportation.Its pretty eco-friendly(running on electricity).

response 19 of 57:

Mar 20 03:46 UTC 1998

Actually,Keesan ,you know the rail has the capability to match the plane in
its speed and taking into account the time required to check-into a plane and
driving to the airport(in most cities the airport is atleast 20kms from the
main town),I feel that the power of the rail is yet to be exploited to its
fullest.Besides enough research has not gone into making trains go faster
although only Japan and France seem to be doing a lot in this field.I hear
that trams are staging a comeback in many European cities.Thats good news.

response 21 of 57:

Mar 20 21:09 UTC 1998

But Ann Arbor to Boston, 800 miles at 150 mph by train, would be about 6 hours
with a few short stops.  If I try to go by plane, I have to walk to the
Michigan Union (no longer stops at the Embassy Hotel), ride 1 1/2 hours to
all the other hotels, spend an hour at the airport, two in the plane, and then
at least one at the other end, or more than 6 hours.  the train station is
much closer for me than the Union, and is connected directly with the subway
at the other ened, no need to take a bus first.  To California I agree, but
you get to see a lot more from the train.

response 23 of 57:

Mar 21 01:46 UTC 1998

I am speaking public transportation.  Taxis are expensive and a waste of
resources.  Ann Arbor to Boston you have to take a train to Detroit (or a
bus), then wait for a bus to Toledo, then a 4 am train to Boston, it used to
be 24 hours, have not checked recently.  There was no way fo a visitor coming
by train via Toledo to get here between the time the train arrived about 5
am (from the east), and the bus at 9 a. m. to Detroit, arriving at 10, and
I forget how long he had to wait for the bus or train from Detroit, but it
would have been only three hours by slow bike.  I tried to connect with the
van pool but their computer was down and then they never called.  This country
has atrocious public transportation.
        There was talk a while back about upgrading the train tracks DT-CHI
so that rains could go that fast.
        Would you rather spend 6 hours on a train or 1 in a car, 1 at an
airport, and 2 on a plane?  I would choose the train any day, you can read
a book, look out the side window, or talk to people, or walk around.