What Type Of People Ride Amtrak

[Green Maned Lion]

Yeah, but given the forces involved, I think any notable impact would cause a leak, and any leak would mean everyone is dead.

 

[micmac99]

Sure, believe me I love the idea of trains and hope they eventually flourish again.

Dude, take a serious look around. Railroads, and rail transit, are clearly entering a new Golden Age, and the evidence is everywhere if you care to really look. You might start with gasoline prices, the airlines, and urban congestion, and finish with trucking rates. Rail is flourishing right under your nose.

I should hope rail is making a comeback. I am an Amtrak fan going back to my first California Zephyr trip from Oakland to Chicago in 1984. Found out in Denver that Vanessa Williams was dethroned as Miss America. Man, did I have a crush on her at the age of 14!!!

I stated on another thread that I will be taking my first Amtrak trip since almost right before 9/11 next week (the Texas Eagle). It will be so good to set foot on a mighty Superliner again. It has been too long. I have been on Amfleets, too, in the Bay Area (early '90s on a San Joaquin) and in Atlanta.

I now live in Phoenix, Arizona - a market that Amtrak had to abandon a few years ago because Union Pacific (I think) decommissioned the main line through Phoenix or something like that and Amtrak didn't have the money to purchase the line outright. I have to take Greyhound to Tucson to pick up the Texas Eagle (I have no way to get to Maricopa and Tucson's more interesting anyway). In the years since growing up in the Bay Area, the state of California has done a tremendous job with its Amtrak California system. Almost overnight an already halfway decent level of Amtrak service became a national model. I wish Arizona would have the sense to do the same, at least from Phoenix - Tucson.

Commercial aviation has always gotten a sweetheart deal from the government at the expense of Amtrak. Amtrak has for too long been the ugly stepsister of American transportation. 9/11 showed us, and now $4/gallon gas is showing us, that we MUST have a fully functioning nationwide passenger rail system. People need choices when they travel, and all of the above responses clearly prove that.

 

[micmac99]

If I just want to get from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible, I'll fly. I hate flying. Otherwise, I'll take a train. For all leisure travel, I think a train or car is necessary. I've taken a few trips overseas - via planes, of course - and it really bothered me. I'm put in an aluminum tube, shaken for a dozen hours, and thrown off the tube, to be told I'm looking at Big Ben, Mauna Loa, or some other site far from my home. For all I know, they dropped me off in Iceland, Timbuktu, or right back where I started from. Frankly, when I fly it takes me several days (if ever) to even feel like I'm really THERE. For me, it defeats the point of getting there quickly.
When traveling by train or car, you actually get the feeling that you're traveling somewhere. It may take longer, but it makes the whole experience more worthwhile - not just the train portion, but the whole trip.

I don't have the same negative feeling toward flying that you and a few other people around here talk about (I actually like it...especially now that I have status, sit in first class, and get waited on hand and foot with unlimited free booze...oops, did I say that out loud? :lol: ), but I definitely agree with your statement that it takes several days to really feel like I'm "there." There is something cool about knowing that 12 hours (and three connections) earlier I was 6,000 miles away from where I was, but once that wears off, it's almost a surreal feeling that makes it hard to really appreciate where you are--like it's fake or that you're in some holodeck or Disney animatronic scene. Traveling on the ground really makes you understand that you are FAR from home!

I used to fly a LOT in college after I transferred from UC Davis to the University of Arizona. Even with the shuttle van from Tucson to Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix, and even with a stop in Las Vegas, it still felt like I was getting back to Oakland very, very fast. I don't think at the time (around '92 or so) it was practical to do Amtrak from Tucson to Oakland because of the scheduling and the routing through Los Angeles Union Station (might be a lot easier now under Amtrak California) so I took Greyhound. It was NICE to actually see how long it REALLY took and how far I was from home.

BTW, last time I flew was (I think) Thanksgiving 2000 from Atlanta to Phoenix (I was living in Atlanta and my son and ex were in Tucson at the time). Have not been near a commercial airliner since for various reasons and not so sure in the post 9/11 world I'm chomping at the bit to go back.

 

[blueman271]

Yeah, but given the forces involved, I think any notable impact would cause a leak, and any leak would mean everyone is dead

Actually leaks are not that bad, flooding is the greatest danger to the ship. In Sub School we are taught that we will find leaks, but flooding will find us.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Yeah, but given the forces involved, I think any notable impact would cause a leak, and any leak would mean everyone is dead.

I don't think there has been any accident involving a US Navy submarine in your lifetime where everyone on the submarine died. The only US nuclear submarines that have been lost ever are the Thresher and the Scorpion, and neither of those seems to have involved a collision with anything else.

There have been cases where submarines have collided with things and people have generally survived. (Which maybe is parallel to how there have been times when there have been passengers on Amtrak trains that have collided with automobiles, and those train passengers have sometimes even been known to survive the experience.)

The US's diesel electric submarine fleet in World War II is a pretty different story in terms of overall survival rate, though.

You also have to understand how thick and heavy the steel hull is. I may be misremembering the dimensions, but I think it's about two inches thick. A 2" x 2" x 1" or so chuck of submarine pressure hull is surprisingly heavy for its size relative to anything else I can ever remember handling of the same volume. I don't think you need anywhere near that thickness to meet FRA specs.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

What I know is more about submersibles than submarines. I also know something about water pressure because I used to saturation dive. I was just figuring that if the impact even slightly compromises the integrity of the hull, the sub will be 1/5th its original size very quickly.

 

[jobtraklite]

This obviously doesn't apply system wide, but on my train, the Illinois Zephry, the biggest demographic is Cub fans. The train gets you to Chicago in time for a day game; and the game is over in time for the 5:55PM return.

Even on a weekday in May, the train was full of Cubs fans.

 

[wayman]

Yeah, but given the forces involved, I think any notable impact would cause a leak, and any leak would mean everyone is dead.

I don't think there has been any accident involving a US Navy submarine in your lifetime where everyone on the submarine died. The only US nuclear submarines that have been lost ever are the Thresher and the Scorpion, and neither of those seems to have involved a collision with anything else.

There have been cases where submarines have collided with things and people have generally survived.

The most recent directly relevant example is the USS San Francisco which hit a seamount head-on at 33 knots (38 mph) in 2005. As seen in Star Trek, the main thing that happens is that anything not tied down goes flying forward in the cabin at high speed and people get thrown out of their chairs pretty violently. Sailors were injured, some badly, and one died, but nobody drowned and the sub was, by and large, structurally fine. Needs hull repairs up front, of course, but she'll sail again.

 

[PaulLev]

I'm a college professor, author, etc. and I ride Amtrak all the time in the Northeast corridor, and any chance I get, elsewhere. I prefer it to plane travel - but of course do take planes overseas, and to California from New York - and also to driving (which I also like, but not as much as trains).

 

[GG-1]

Aloha

To go almost anywhere i need to fly, the big clue I am somewhare else is the Air, There is nothligh like clear air and the sent of flowers, to lift spirits,

 

[blueman271]

Yeah, but given the forces involved, I think any notable impact would cause a leak, and any leak would mean everyone is dead.

I don't think there has been any accident involving a US Navy submarine in your lifetime where everyone on the submarine died. The only US nuclear submarines that have been lost ever are the Thresher and the Scorpion, and neither of those seems to have involved a collision with anything else.

There have been cases where submarines have collided with things and people have generally survived.

The most recent directly relevant example is the USS San Francisco which hit a seamount head-on at 33 knots (38 mph) in 2005. As seen in Star Trek, the main thing that happens is that anything not tied down goes flying forward in the cabin at high speed and people get thrown out of their chairs pretty violently. Sailors were injured, some badly, and one died, but nobody drowned and the sub was, by and large, structurally fine. Needs hull repairs up front, of course, but she'll sail again.

While this is off topic, and I don't mean to sound like a know-it-all, the San Fran was not very structurally sound. She lost her ability to blow her forward MBT's, her ability to use any systems requiring air until she recharged her aft air banks, and her barrier to sea pressure was a very flimsy door leading to the sonar dome access tunnel. Furthermore, after the collision she was slowed to 2 knots, and IMHO if she had been any deeper than the 525 ft she was at she would have been lost. 688 class submarines surface by driving the boat to the surface using a combination of planes and speed. At 525 feet only a percentage of the water in the ballast tanks can be blown out due to sea pressure, and it is my humble opinion that if she had even been only 100 feet deeper she would not have been able to achieve positive bouyancy and surface (because of her lack of speed and the fact that only the aft MBT's could be blown). I have no scientific basis or evidence for any of my conclussions, but i do work on these systems every day and know then fairly well.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

So you're saying we came close to losing that boat?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

What I know is more about submersibles than submarines. I also know something about water pressure because I used to saturation dive. I was just figuring that if the impact even slightly compromises the integrity of the hull, the sub will be 1/5th its original size very quickly.

There are some watertight doors in the typical submarine. (Indeed, some apparently believe that the Scorpion was lost when watertight doors were closed during battery charging; the procedures that had been developed for charging batteries in WWII just so happened to not have to worry much about ventilating the batteries, because you typically were providing ventilation for the diesel engines at the same time, since on a WWII sub the only way to charge the batteries was to run the diesel. On a nuclear sub, closing the watertight doors while submerged and charging the batteries apparently will allow dangerous hydrogen buildups.)

The sea pressure also keeps increasing as you go deeper. I suspect this means that if you are not near the maximum depth the hull can withstand, that margin can be applied as a reserve for surviving collisions below a certain speed.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

What I know is more about submersibles than submarines. I also know something about water pressure because I used to saturation dive. I was just figuring that if the impact even slightly compromises the integrity of the hull, the sub will be 1/5th its original size very quickly.

There are some watertight doors in the typical submarine. (Indeed, some apparently believe that the Scorpion was lost when watertight doors were closed during battery charging; the procedures that had been developed for charging batteries in WWII just so happened to not have to worry much about ventilating the batteries, because you typically were providing ventilation for the diesel engines at the same time, since on a WWII sub the only way to charge the batteries was to run the diesel. On a nuclear sub, closing the watertight doors while submerged and charging the batteries apparently will allow dangerous hydrogen buildups.)

The sea pressure also keeps increasing as you go deeper. I suspect this means that if you are not near the maximum depth the hull can withstand, that margin can be applied as a reserve for surviving collisions below a certain speed.

I was applying the concept that you can smash an egg from one front, but you can't crush it with equal pressure to all sides. But you can, obviously, if the shell is cracked.

 

[frj1983]

How exactly did we get from "What type of People Ride Amtrak?" to "Sub Collisions?" and how exactly can we get back to the topic? :blink:

Short people, tall people, adults, kids, people of all stripes ride Amtrak and their reasons for riding? Well, I like to ask them...and I find as many different reasons as people!

 

[PaulLev]

How exactly did we get from "What type of People Ride Amtrak?" to "Sub Collisions?" and how exactly can we get back to the topic? :blink:
Short people, tall people, adults, kids, people of all stripes ride Amtrak and their reasons for riding? Well, I like to ask them...and I find as many different reasons as people!

Ok, I'll add that I always take Amtrak in the Northeast corridor for business - my book signings, science fiction conventions, academic conferences - to get to Boston, Phila, Baltimore, and Washington (I'm in NYC). I do this for convenience and pleasure.

 

[Guest]

A photographer with Reuters put these 50 pix out there:

http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures/slide...yName=News#a=50

These look like a fair sampling of who rides Amtrak and the faces look a lot happier than most you see on an airplane. If the link evaporates it was titled, "Riding the Rails" with Joshua somebody or other the photographer.

 

[PaulLev]

A photographer with Reuters put these 50 pix out there:
http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures/slide...yName=News#a=50

These look like a fair sampling of who rides Amtrak and the faces look a lot happier than most you see on an airplane. If the link evaporates it was titled, "Riding the Rails" with Joshua somebody or other the photographer.

Joshua Lott is the photographer.

Great shots - about 20 - of life on the Lake Shore Limited (NYP up the Hudson River and then across to CHI).

 

[wayman]

Add another answer to the "what type of people ride Amtrak" question: an indecisive person who didn't get around to making any actual birthday plans with anyone (besides, it's Thursday, might as well wait for the weekend), and realized that morning that his birthday wish--especially since it won't be so easy in Las Vegas--was to ride Amtrak! (Well, to ride Amtrak and to stand in 30th St Station for a while just watching and listening to the split-flap departure board. He'll miss that too.)

So he took the trolley to 30th St, bought tickets to Ardmore and back, hopped on a Keystone with a couple canvas shopping bags, bought fresh rhubarb at the farmers' market and heavy whipping cream at the Trader Joe's, got some nice skyline photos on the way back to the city, and made a rhubarb parfait at home to celebrate.

And then made his 500th post to the AU forum! :lol:

 

[GG-1]

Add another answer to the "what type of people ride Amtrak" question: an indecisive person who didn't get around to making any actual birthday plans
And then made his 500th post to the AU forum! :lol:

Sounds like a good reason to me, heck, except for the plans part I am riding with friends on my next birthday.

Aloha

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Even celebrities ride Amtrak.

 

[GG-1]

Even celebrities ride Amtrak.

I hope you mean Us, we are celebrities

Aloha

 

[jebb]

I'm a young, married, home-owning grad student, and I still want to travel with what little money I have left over . I will be traveling by train for the first time long-distance next month and the main reason is that it's going to give me some hopefully relaxing time to get away, visit a friend, an aunt, and see a bit of the country for a LOT LESS than the cost of a flight to the same destination.

 

[PetalumaLoco]

Trains are magic. I was born in '49 and raised next to SP tracks and learned to fall asleep to passing freights. Never rode any except tourist short excursion runs like the Skunk Train until 1999 when the family did a self guided rail tour of France, Germany and Italy. I've always wanted to do a US x-country rail trip, and I no longer have a reason not to. I hate air travel. Airliners suck. I took this B-25 bomber ride a month ago and and found out that I love flyiing. But air travel is like others said impersonal, and in some instances degrading. My wife, with a titanium hip, does not appreciate getting patted down in airport security, she's a 62 yr old grandmother for crysake. I'm not getting any younger. I'm a recent cancer survivor, I guess you might say I have a bucket list of things to do. I'm going to ride from the west coast to the east coast and back, and dammit I'm going to enjoy myself.