Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [carfree_cities] Re: McLanes vs. Train Lanes

Expand Messages
  • CEB
    Hi, I think that an esoteric discussion is fine and useful on this list BUT that jargon and acronyms should be avoided and references listed as a matter of
    Message 1 of 24 , Mar 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,

      I think that an esoteric discussion is fine and useful on this list BUT that jargon and acronyms should be avoided and references listed as a matter of course.

      Todd
      ______________________________________________________________
      > Od: Simon Baddeley <s.j.baddeley@...>
      > Komu: "carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com" <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
      > Datum: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:54:26 +0000
      > Předmět: Re: [carfree_cities] Re: McLanes vs. Train Lanes
      >
      >
      >
      > This exchange which I suspect is very significant also seems very esoteric.
      > Could someone share the larger picture - explaining why these details are
      > important. For me a train tends to be train, whereas given that carfree
      > cities are highly dependent on rail for intra and intercity transit I guess
      > I should be much more rail literate than I feel lurking on this conversation
      > which is filling up with acronyms by the hour (:))
      >
      > Simon B
      >
      >
      > On 1/3/05 1:46 pm, "Greg Steele" <thegisguru@...> wrote:
      >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "emccaughrin"
      > > <emccaughrin@y...> wrote:
      > >>
      > >> --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "J.H. Crawford"
      > >> <mailbox@c...> wrote:
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>> The first PCC car was non-standard, too. Once they had built
      > >>> thousands of them, it WAS the standard.
      > >>
      > >> Because the design didn't require changes to existing
      > >> infrastructure. Nobody would have used it if it required making
      > >> changes to rail guage.
      > >>
      > >>>
      > >>> Now, once they take another 40 or 50 tons off, they'll only be
      > >>> twice as heavy as an airliner carrying the same number of
      > >>> people. ;-)
      > >>
      > >> And more than twice as comfortable.
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>>>
      > >>>> And on what basis do you claim European and Japanese trainsets
      > >>>> are unreliable?
      > >>>
      > >>> Constant equipment failures on Duct Railways, and especially on
      > >>> the new trams from Siemens and some older onces from Holec.
      > >>
      > >> So the next time a transit agency needs to purchase rolling stock,
      > >> they'll know what to avoid. That's the nice thing about having a
      > >> large global competitive market.
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>>>
      > >>>> http://www.railjournal.com/2001-02/japan.html
      > >>>
      > >>> This is not fully balanced; there is still a large side force
      > >>> (i.e., derailing force) on the bogies.
      > >>
      > >> Well, once you figure out how to make a train go around curves
      > >> without undergoing centripetal acceleration, we'll nominate you for
      > >> the Nobel Prize.
      > >
      > > It is possible for a "train" to corner fast, see:
      > >
      > > http://www.sixflags.com/parks/greatadventure/Rides/nitro.html
      > >
      > > A coaster is designed to give thrills, a
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
      > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
      > Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • J.H. Crawford
      Re: Interstate Rail ... I think this discussion really belongs somewhere else, and on somebody s time besides mine. I think the idea has enough merit to be
      Message 2 of 24 , Mar 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Re: Interstate Rail

        Simon says:

        >This exchange which I suspect is very significant also seems very esoteric.
        >Could someone share the larger picture - explaining why these details are
        >important. For me a train tends to be train, whereas given that carfree
        >cities are highly dependent on rail for intra and intercity transit I guess
        >I should be much more rail literate than I feel lurking on this conversation
        >which is filling up with acronyms by the hour (:))

        I think this discussion really belongs somewhere else, and
        on somebody's time besides mine.

        I think the idea has enough merit to be worth a million-dollar
        preliminary feasibility study by Gibbs & Hill--anybody wnat to
        do the fundraising? Or know somebody at G&H who cuold be
        convinced that it's in their own best interests to look into
        this pro-bono?

        Otherwise, I'd like to drop this discussion.

        Regards,



        -- ### --

        J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
        mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.