Spain to be new Euro-Vegas

Threads: 373
Posts: 11413

Joined: Nov 11, 2009

February 17th, 2011 at 8:46:45 PM permalink

If you believe in omens, "barajas" is Spanish for playing cards. Beats me how the airport got that name.

But I voted for Manchester.

Donald Trump is a fucking criminal

ItsCalledSoccer

ItsCalledSoccer

Threads: 42
Posts: 735

Joined: Aug 30, 2010

February 18th, 2011 at 6:52:35 AM permalink

I voted for Barca ... Mediterranean coast, close to France ... would have a chance to be kind of Monaco-y.

pacomartin

Threads: 649
Posts: 7895

Joined: Jan 14, 2010

February 18th, 2011 at 8:52:07 AM permalink

On 27 Jan 2011, the Minister of Public Works and Transport José Blanco, the President of the Generalitat de Catalunya Artur Mas, and the French Transport Secretary Thierry Mariani, officially innaugurated the first high velocity trip from Barcelona, Spain to Paris, France. With speeds up to over 300 kilometers per hour, the Ave train can get you from Barcelona to Paris in 7 hours and 25 minutes. It's another 2:36 minutes to Madrid.

The train speed should be dramatically improved by next year as the last 100 miles inside Spain from Barcelona to Figueras is replaced with high speed rail.

It may be a consideration if people from Paris can easily ride the train and gamble for 12 hours before returning.

thecesspit

Threads: 53
Posts: 5936

Joined: Apr 19, 2010

February 18th, 2011 at 12:27:57 PM permalink

My next big trip to Europe, I'm going to have to interrail it... 8 hours from Barca to Paris... awesome.

"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829

pacomartin

Threads: 649
Posts: 7895

Joined: Jan 14, 2010

February 18th, 2011 at 12:46:15 PM permalink

Quote: thecesspit
My next big trip to Europe, I'm going to have to interrail it... 8 hours from Barca to Paris... awesome.

The missing gap in high speed service between Barcelona and Figueres still takes 1:45. High speed rail should be finished in about 20 months. After that there will be high speed rail from London to Malaga on the Costa del Sol. I understand that they are negotiating with railroads about the Chunnel so that more nonstop train services are offered besides Paris, Disneyland, and Brussels.

The decision to not build any more runways at the London airport is pretty significant. The train will become an increasingly important lifeline. It will be critical to build HS2.

thecesspit

Threads: 53
Posts: 5936

Joined: Apr 19, 2010

February 18th, 2011 at 12:50:01 PM permalink

I can cope with slower train journeys as well, I've been on North American rail as well... :) I enjoy travelling by train, and if I have a big enough seat and table space the journey is truly as important as the destination. I also prefer train journeys as most stations are in the centre of the city, not on the outskirts and then involve more taxi's/light rail into the city centre.

"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829

mkl654321

Threads: 65
Posts: 3412

Joined: Aug 8, 2010

February 19th, 2011 at 10:41:54 AM permalink

Quote: pacomartin
On 27 Jan 2011, the Minister of Public Works and Transport José Blanco, the President of the Generalitat de Catalunya Artur Mas, and the French Transport Secretary Thierry Mariani, officially innaugurated the first high velocity trip from Barcelona, Spain to Paris, France. With speeds up to over 300 kilometers per hour, the Ave train can get you from Barcelona to Paris in 7 hours and 25 minutes. It's another 2:36 minutes to Madrid.

Funny, that just doesn't seem all that fast to me. It's about 500 miles from Paris to Barcelona. I can drive the 600 miles between SFO and Vegas in 9 1/2 hours, for example. Plus, the actual journey would take several hours longer than just the point-to-point rail time: you'd have to get to the train station, arrive in enough time (my guess would be at least an hour early), secure transportation at your destination, etc. etc. etc.

The sad fact is, on any journey that can be completed in less than a day, a car is often the better choice, and it's often also the fastest. This is even true with most shorter plane flights. The difference between a plane/train journey and a trip in a private car is that with the former, when you arrive at your destination, you haven't really gotten where you want to go--you've gotten to the airport or train station.

I once measured the point-to-point time for that drive to Vegas (SFO-LAS) versus flying and taking the train. In each case, I reckoned with the time for ground transportation at each end--the starting point was my front door, and the finishing point was the porte cochere of my destination hotel. The car trip took 9 1/2 hours, the plane trip, 7, the rail trip, 23.

Of course, in Europe, where the gas taxes are insane, due to the governments' active campaigns to stop people from driving, the train might have more appeal for that reason alone. But I'll bet it ain't cheap--if Europeans are used to travel being expensive, they'll swallow high train fares without a murmur.

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw

pacomartin

Threads: 649
Posts: 7895

Joined: Jan 14, 2010

February 19th, 2011 at 11:48:26 AM permalink

Paris to Barcelona is listed as 517 miles flight distance. Driving distance is well over 600 miles (listed at 9:30 drive time in google).

So the train trip is currently only 2 hours faster, most of which is eaten up with transfers from the station. The train only takes 5:40 from Paris to Figueres, inside the Spanish border, but the last segment takes 1:45. When that segment is replaced with high speed rail in the next 20 months, only the very fastest driver will be able to beat the train. European trains usually have a top speed of 180 mph. Obviously the number of intermediate stops is important.

Gasoline and tolls are insanely expensive in Europe, so that if you are a single person driving is almost always more expensive to go by car. Also both cities have extensive urban areas that are difficult to negotiate.

London to Barcelona is 707 flight miles, so a jet will probably always be faster, even with transfer time to the airport. However, at some point it may be prohibitively expensive to fly relatively short distances.

Usually trains will lose out to airplanes timewise for about 400 miles or more. In the USA most of the routes they discuss for modern trains (LA to SFO, or LA to LAS, DC to BOS, Orlando to TPA, Orlando to Miami, Dallas to Houston, Seattle to Portland, etc. ) are less than 400 miles.

Spain is trying to get all 47 of it's mainland provincial capitals to be within a 3 hour train ride of Madrid so that a day trip is possible. But no mainland provincial capital is more than 300 air miles from Madrid. Domestic flying (except to islands) should be minimal. If it proves impossible to get all the provincial capitals that close, they will still try to get one high speed rail to each of the 13 mainland "regions".

JerryLogan

Threads: 26
Posts: 1344

Joined: Jun 28, 2010

February 19th, 2011 at 11:58:52 AM permalink

Quote: mkl654321
Funny, that just doesn't seem all that fast to me. It's about 500 miles from Paris to Barcelona. I can drive the 600 miles between SFO and Vegas in 9 1/2 hours, for example. Plus, the actual journey would take several hours longer than just the point-to-point rail time: you'd have to get to the train station, arrive in enough time (my guess would be at least an hour early), secure transportation at your destination, etc. etc. etc.

The sad fact is, on any journey that can be completed in less than a day, a car is often the better choice, and it's often also the fastest. This is even true with most shorter plane flights. The difference between a plane/train journey and a trip in a private car is that with the former, when you arrive at your destination, you haven't really gotten where you want to go--you've gotten to the airport or train station.

I once measured the point-to-point time for that drive to Vegas (SFO-LAS) versus flying and taking the train. In each case, I reckoned with the time for ground transportation at each end--the starting point was my front door, and the finishing point was the porte cochere of my destination hotel. The car trip took 9 1/2 hours, the plane trip, 7, the rail trip, 23.

Of course, in Europe, where the gas taxes are insane, due to the governments' active campaigns to stop people from driving, the train might have more appeal for that reason alone. But I'll bet it ain't cheap--if Europeans are used to travel being expensive, they'll swallow high train fares without a murmur.

FACT CHECK:

1) It's 567 miles from SFO to LV, not 600 as asserted.
2) 99% of Mazda 3 drivers are young girls and older people who have faced more than one beat-down in their lives. That weak car is not made for either comfortable or sustained high-speed driving, and indeed, anyone in their 50's would easily suffer back pain, swollen hemorrhoids, or both on such a journey. Even a real car with an in-shape driver would be hard pressed to make that trip in 10 hours, and that's without encountering any traffic from start to finish.
3) PETROL (not GAS--anyone wishing to be known as world-savvy would know that) taxes in Europe are not insane compared to the historical tax structures on that continent. Please read your web pages with understanding before trying to impress the forum.

mkl654321

Threads: 65
Posts: 3412

Joined: Aug 8, 2010

February 19th, 2011 at 12:36:20 PM permalink

Quote: JerryLogan
FACT CHECK:

1) It's 567 miles from SFO to LV, not 600 as asserted.
2) 99% of Mazda 3 drivers are young girls and older people who have faced more than one beat-down in their lives. That weak car is not made for either comfortable or sustained high-speed driving, and indeed, anyone in their 50's would easily suffer back pain, swollen hemorrhoids, or both on such a journey. Even a real car with an in-shape driver would be hard pressed to make that trip in 10 hours, and that's without encountering any traffic from start to finish.
3) PETROL (not GAS--anyone wishing to be known as world-savvy would know that) taxes in Europe are not insane compared to the historical tax structures on that continent. Please read your web pages with understanding before trying to impress the forum.

1. There are several ways to go from SFO to Vegas. But who gives a crap exactly how many miles it is? (For what it's worth, though, Jerry is farther off than I was.)
2. That's stupid even for JerryLogan. Aside from the jerky, idiotic comments about a car he's never even driven, he's saying that you can't make a trip of 567 miles in ten hours? Even an "old man" could get there in that amount of time. (Of course, Jerry actually IS an "old man" by anyone's standards, as he's let it slip a couple of times that he's been married for forty years. Maybe that's why he hates old men, or calls people that are decades younger than him "old".)
3. Petrol and gas are synonyms. Jerry needs to look that term up.

Arguing for the sake of arguing makes you look like a fool, Jerry.

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw

JerryLogan

Threads: 26
Posts: 1344

Joined: Jun 28, 2010

February 19th, 2011 at 1:01:15 PM permalink

Quote: mkl654321
1. There are several ways to go from SFO to Vegas. But who gives a crap exactly how many miles it is? (For what it's worth, though, Jerry is farther off than I was.)
2. That's stupid even for JerryLogan. Aside from the jerky, idiotic comments about a car he's never even driven, he's saying that you can't make a trip of 567 miles in ten hours? Even an "old man" could get there in that amount of time. (Of course, Jerry actually IS an "old man" by anyone's standards, as he's let it slip a couple of times that he's been married for forty years. Maybe that's why he hates old men, or calls people that are decades younger than him "old".)
3. Petrol and gas are synonyms. Jerry needs to look that term up.

Arguing for the sake of arguing makes you look like a fool, Jerry.

I understand mkl's deflections. While he prides himself on getting every little fact and word either absolutely right or asserted in the most probable way as to pull the wool over unsuspecting eyes, that doesn't apply whenever one of his posts are laced with inconsistency.

thecesspit

Threads: 53
Posts: 5936

Joined: Apr 19, 2010

February 19th, 2011 at 1:08:58 PM permalink

Quote: mkl654321
Funny, that just doesn't seem all that fast to me. It's about 500 miles from Paris to Barcelona. I can drive the 600 miles between SFO and Vegas in 9 1/2 hours, for example. Plus, the actual journey would take several hours longer than just the point-to-point rail time: you'd have to get to the train station, arrive in enough time (my guess would be at least an hour early), secure transportation at your destination, etc. etc. etc.

Your guess is wrong on British Railways. About 10 minutes before departure is more than enough time. 1 hour means 59 minutes standing around waiting for a train.

Quote:
The sad fact is, on any journey that can be completed in less than a day, a car is often the better choice, and it's often also the fastest. This is even true with most shorter plane flights. The difference between a plane/train journey and a trip in a private car is that with the former, when you arrive at your destination, you haven't really gotten where you want to go--you've gotten to the airport or train station.

Many times, the train is cheaper, faster and more convenient. less pissing around in city centres, much more relaxing and if your a business type, you can do all your work on the train. Plus the scenery is normally brilliant. The Easy Coast line from Sheffield to Edinburgh is worth every pound I've paid to travel it.

Plus when I arrive, I don't need to pay for parking.

Quote:

I once measured the point-to-point time for that drive to Vegas (SFO-LAS) versus flying and taking the train. In each case, I reckoned with the time for ground transportation at each end--the starting point was my front door, and the finishing point was the porte cochere of my destination hotel. The car trip took 9 1/2 hours, the plane trip, 7, the rail trip, 23.

That's because high speed and rail are oxymoron's in the US... for many reasons. (I realise on the right coast that's not so true). The LV/SF link would be about 6 hours using a rail link much like the East Coast mainline (which is slower as it stop far more than a link in the US would need to).

"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829

teddys

teddys

Threads: 150
Posts: 5527

Joined: Nov 14, 2009

February 19th, 2011 at 4:55:08 PM permalink

Rail works in Europe, because the cities are so close together, the infrastructure is good, and the government subsidizes it heavily. (When I lived in Italy, the train fares were dirt cheap).

It would work in the U.S. in certain select areas (NE, CA, OR/WA, Chicago, maybe FL) if we can get our act together. We should get in perfect in the NE first, though, and we certainly haven't done a good enough job there to justify putting it elsewhere.

"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4

pacomartin

Threads: 649
Posts: 7895

Joined: Jan 14, 2010

February 19th, 2011 at 5:01:57 PM permalink

Quote: thecesspit
Your guess is wrong on British Railways. About 10 minutes before departure is more than enough time. 1 hour means 59 minutes standing around waiting for a train.
The LV/SF link would be about 6 hours using a rail link much like the East Coast mainline (which is slower as it stop far more than a link in the US would need to).

The AMTRAK problems on the East Coast are more severe than the number of stops. Amtrak ordered 18, and later 20, trains without testing a prototype extensively on the Northeast Corridor's harsh tracks. The trains are 4" too wide to safely run on the curves at top speed, as they might bump each other. The Connecticut portion only runs 20 minutes faster than they did in 1956.

Breakdowns are far more frequent than specified, by a factor of 20. In reality, the trains only reach top speed on a short 18 miles of track. Personally, the modern Acela trains are so much more expensive than the old trains for very little benefit, that they are hardly worth the money.

==============================
The Los Angeles to Las Vegas air corridor is the busiest one in the nation for less than 300 miles (except for ones in Hawaii that cross ocean). The massive shortage of air capacity in Southern California should push the system to overload when the recession ends.

Right now, only one world airport is running over 70 Million passengers per year, and that is Atlanta. Beijing will probably be the second. But when LAX and Heathrow get to that level, the system will need to be reworked. LAX is forbidden by court agreement to have more than 75 MAP. In order to stay viable, they may simply have to forbid flights from LAX to Vegas. Orange County Airport, Burbank, Long Beach, and San Diego will all be operating at capacity. Only Ontario airport will still be building terminals. Road capacity will be maxed out. Vegas will not remain viable without a train..

mkl654321

Threads: 65
Posts: 3412

Joined: Aug 8, 2010

February 19th, 2011 at 5:16:17 PM permalink

Quote: pacomartin
Road capacity will be maxed out. Vegas will not remain viable without a train..

I don't see how that follows--the existing infrastructure handles the existing visitor volume. Unless there's another building frenzy in Vegas, there should be enough traffic to keep the existing casinos alive--assuming they get their heads out of the sand.

In any event, the train, if built, would only be able to carry a tiny fraction of the present visitors to Vegas--a total of a few thousand a day.

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw

JerryLogan

Threads: 26
Posts: 1344

Joined: Jun 28, 2010

February 19th, 2011 at 5:23:44 PM permalink

Quote: mkl654321
I don't see how that follows--the existing infrastructure handles the existing visitor volume. Unless there's another building frenzy in Vegas, there should be enough traffic to keep the existing casinos alive--assuming they get their heads out of the sand.

In any event, the train, if built, would only be able to carry a tiny fraction of the present visitors to Vegas--a total of a few thousand a day.

If you've been to LV as often as you've made up that you go, you'd have recognized gridlock traffic whether it's in a downturn or not.

Try again.

mkl654321

Threads: 65
Posts: 3412

Joined: Aug 8, 2010

February 19th, 2011 at 5:34:17 PM permalink

Quote: JerryLogan
If you've been to LV as often as you've made up that you go, you'd have recognized gridlock traffic whether it's in a downturn or not.

Try again.

If you had ever been near a truck in your life (you haven't), or if you could read (you can't), you would understand that what was being discussed was getting people TO Las Vegas, not the traffic in the city itself ("gridlock"). The existing highways, airplanes, etc. obviously do get people there.

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw

Nareed

Threads: 373
Posts: 11413

Joined: Nov 11, 2009

February 19th, 2011 at 5:40:44 PM permalink

Quote: pacomartin
The Connecticut portion only runs 20 minutes faster than they did in 1956.

I was about to post something derisive about the progress in trains, but then I realized commercial airplanes aren't any faster today than they were in the 50s. Isn't that sad?

Donald Trump is a fucking criminal

JerryLogan

Threads: 26
Posts: 1344

Joined: Jun 28, 2010

February 19th, 2011 at 5:48:35 PM permalink

Quote: mkl654321
If you had ever been near a truck in your life (you haven't), or if you could read (you can't), you would understand that what was being discussed was getting people TO Las Vegas, not the traffic in the city itself ("gridlock"). The existing highways, airplanes, etc. obviously do get people there.

Duh! Einstein awakens! Now maybe next time you won't ignore that other than traffic GOING to a destination, there's traffic When you get to a destination.

mkl654321

Threads: 65
Posts: 3412

Joined: Aug 8, 2010

February 19th, 2011 at 6:02:39 PM permalink

Quote: Nareed
I was about to post something derisive about the progress in trains, but then I realized commercial airplanes aren't any faster today than they were in the 50s. Isn't that sad?

In the 50s, most commercial air transportation was via four-engine piston aircraft such as the DC-6, DC-7, and Constellation, with a cruising speed of roughly 350 MPH. The Boeing 707 debuted in 1958, with a cruising speed of 575 MPH. That shortened transatlantic trips to 4+ hours, and eliminated the need for intermediate fuel stops; piston aircraft often had to refuel at Gander, Newfoundland on the westbound leg, because of headwinds. The journey from the US coast to coast was shortened to 4-6 hours instead of all day. That seems to have been sufficient for commercial demand, as airliner technology did create faster aircraft--the Concorde, the SST--but there wasn't all that much demand for getting from Los Angeles to New York, or New York to Paris, in two hours instead of four or five. The existing aircraft are fast enough for most people's purposes.

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw

pacomartin

Threads: 649
Posts: 7895

Joined: Jan 14, 2010

February 19th, 2011 at 6:10:59 PM permalink

The number one destination for passengers from LAX is the Las Vegas airport (236 statute miles). As LAX gets closer and closer to the court mandated limit of 75 million passengers they will have to make cuts somewhere. People must fly across the ocean and across the continent, so you can't cut there.

With La Guardia and Reagan National they have a maximum flight distance of 1500 miles. No flights can go further than that non stop from these two airports (Denver is grandfathered in for LaGuardia). To fly longer non-stop you must use the alternative airports of JFK, Newark, or IAD (Dulles Washington).

It makes sense that LAX will have to institute a minimum distance to fly into that airport. For example: Flights must be at least as long as 250 miles. That way capacity will be reserved for the long haul flights. It is 308 miles to San Jose airport.

All that air traffic will have to go somewhere. Another airport is unlikely as all the other ones in SoCal will be at capacity. It will have to go on the roads in cars or buses if a train is unavailable.

mkl654321

Threads: 65
Posts: 3412

Joined: Aug 8, 2010

February 19th, 2011 at 8:52:55 PM permalink

Quote: pacomartin
The number one destination for passengers from LAX is the Las Vegas airport (236 statute miles). As LAX gets closer and closer to the court mandated limit of 75 million passengers they will have to make cuts somewhere. People must fly across the ocean and across the continent, so you can't cut there.

With La Guardia and Reagan National they have a maximum flight distance of 1500 miles. No flights can go further than that non stop from these two airports (Denver is grandfathered in for LaGuardia). To fly longer non-stop you must use the alternative airports of JFK, Newark, or IAD (Dulles Washington).
.

The restrictions at LaGuardia and Reagan have more to do with runway lengths and nearby tall buildings than anything else--it's actually not possible for a fully loaded 747 to take off from either of those airports, for example.

Given that the flight from the LA basin to LAS is short, and small aircraft like the B737 are fine for this kind of flight (in fact, designed for it), I would imagine that the Vegas flights could easily depart from Burbank, Ontario, or other regional Los Angeles basin airports. I for one would much rather depart from, say Long Beach than LAX anyway.

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw

JerryLogan

Threads: 26
Posts: 1344

Joined: Jun 28, 2010

February 19th, 2011 at 10:59:33 PM permalink

"That seems to have been sufficient for commercial demand, as airliner technology did create faster aircraft--the Concorde, the SST--but there wasn't all that much demand for getting from Los Angeles to New York, or New York to Paris, in two hours instead of four or five. The existing aircraft are fast enough for most people's purposes."

The word-for-word cut & paste was fine up until he felt obligated to interject with his usual unsupportable assertions. Name one flyer who wouldn't rather it take 2 hours to go across the pond than 4 or 5. Then name one flyer who believes existing aircraft are fast enough for their purposes.

You see mkl, facts win out over fiction and logic wins out over illogic 100% of the time. The reasons the Concorde fizzled was because they were getting old, they were not fuel efficient, R&D money went into the development of more comfortable and fuel efficient models, and one of them crashed. It had nothing to do with it was just too fast for the traveler's taste.

You should have looked the whole enchilada up instead of relying on bloviating assertions once again.
Try again.

mkl654321

Threads: 65
Posts: 3412

Joined: Aug 8, 2010

February 19th, 2011 at 11:10:07 PM permalink

Quote: JerryLogan
"That seems to have been sufficient for commercial demand, as airliner technology did create faster aircraft--the Concorde, the SST--but there wasn't all that much demand for getting from Los Angeles to New York, or New York to Paris, in two hours instead of four or five. The existing aircraft are fast enough for most people's purposes."

The word-for-word cut & paste was fine up until he felt obligated to interject with his usual unsupportable assertions. Name one flyer who wouldn't rather it take 2 hours to go across the pond than 4 or 5. Then name one flyer who believes existing aircraft are fast enough for their purposes.

You see mkl, facts win out over fiction and logic wins out over illogic 100% of the time. The reasons the Concorde fizzled was because they were getting old, they were not fuel efficient, R&D money went into the development of more comfortable and fuel efficient models, and one of them crashed. It had nothing to do with it was just too fast for the traveler's taste.

You should have looked the whole enchilada up instead of relying on bloviating assertions once again.
Try again.

I didn't copy anything from anywhere else, but go ahead and be a Jerryhole and say that I did. You'll be full of shit, but go ahead anyway; that never has stopped you before. I have to admit, though, that all your posts are definite originals, as in, you couldn't be copying from anyone else--no one else has the unique combination of stupidity and Jerryhole behavior that you do.

Some people did ride the Concorde. I said that there WASN'T ALL THAT MUCH DEMAND. Which there wasn't. Otherwise, a lot more of the things would've been built.

And since I have to spell it out for your tiny brain, Concorde flights were far more expensive than regular transatlantic flights. Very few people considered the two hours saved worth an extra $1000+. I didn't bother to spell that out before because I thought only intelligent people would be reading it. I forgot, you're back.

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw

JerryLogan

Threads: 26
Posts: 1344

Joined: Jun 28, 2010

February 19th, 2011 at 11:26:47 PM permalink

Quote: mkl654321
I didn't copy anything from anywhere else, but go ahead and be a Jerryhole and say that I did. You'll be full of shit, but go ahead anyway; that never has stopped you before. I have to admit, though, that all your posts are definite originals, as in, you couldn't be copying from anyone else--no one else has the unique combination of stupidity and Jerryhole behavior that you do.

Some people did ride the Concorde. I said that there WASN'T ALL THAT MUCH DEMAND. Which there wasn't. Otherwise, a lot more of the things would've been built.

And since I have to spell it out for your tiny brain, Concorde flights were far more expensive than regular transatlantic flights. Very few people considered the two hours saved worth an extra $1000+. I didn't bother to spell that out before because I thought only intelligent people would be reading it. I forgot, you're back.

I see your problem here, it's in "thinking" you know things. After the usual copy & paste denial of course.

Concorde occupancy levels were nearly always at 100%, and given your level of living I wouldn't expect you to understand that a $1000 surcharge for reducing time is chump change for most businesses and people of means.

You also need to read up on the aircraft a little more before bloviating more assertions. More Concordes weren't built becausae the consortium dissolved and the aircraft were not making money.

Try again.

mkl654321

Threads: 65
Posts: 3412

Joined: Aug 8, 2010

February 19th, 2011 at 11:48:39 PM permalink

Quote: JerryLogan
I see your problem here, it's in "thinking" you know things. After the usual copy & paste denial of course.

Concorde occupancy levels were nearly always at 100%, and given your level of living I wouldn't expect you to understand that a $1000 surcharge for reducing time is chump change for most businesses and people of means.

You also need to read up on the aircraft a little more before bloviating more assertions. More Concordes weren't built becausae the consortium dissolved and the aircraft were not making money.

Try again.

No, Jerryhole. Piss off. You aren't worth the bother.

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw

thecesspit

Threads: 53
Posts: 5936

Joined: Apr 19, 2010

February 20th, 2011 at 12:11:55 AM permalink

Concorde never made it's R&D money back. Well, BA made money on it, but they brough it for a song from the UK government. One crashed not due to any extra work, but because some debris got kicked up into the wings/engine and it went boom. It might have been made worse by making the fuel tanks lighter. The Tupolev-145 (?) or Conkordski was dangerous bird.

Which was a shame, as it's a truly awesome and beautiful machine. I grew up watching it fly over my house most days, and saw it take off several times. It took less than 4 hours to get to New York from Paris or Heathrow. Much faster than a conventional flight (seeing as it was going more than twice as fast for the majority of the flight.... almost half the time). You could land before you took off.

But boy was it tiny inside. If you wanted to go to the toilet, you better know which side your were going from before walking in the door....

"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829

Nareed

Threads: 373
Posts: 11413

Joined: Nov 11, 2009

February 20th, 2011 at 12:45:48 AM permalink

Quote: thecesspit
Which was a shame, as it's a truly awesome and beautiful machine. I grew up watching it fly over my house most days, and saw it take off several times.

It used to fly over Mex City once or twice a week for years. I saw it lots of times, when I attended school rather close to the airport I saw it take off once while at the airport. Those engines really roared!

It was, without a doubt, the most beautiful failure ever.

As I recall less than 20 were made. A few years before it rolled out, the builders estimated an initial, first generation run of 300 planes. If only! It suffered from rising fuel costs and too many flight restrictions. For example, it could only fly supersonic over the ocean, never over land due to the sonic boom. That's why there were never any 70+ minute Concorde flights from LA to NYC.

It's too bad no one has followed up. Boeing made noise about its sonic cruiser, which was supposed to fly just under the speed of sound (not much faster than actual commercial jets), but even that's fallen by the wayside. Every now and then you hear some rumblings about supersonic private jets, but nothing's been produced.

Quote:
But boy was it tiny inside. If you wanted to go to the toilet, you better know which side your were going from before walking in the door....

Yup. crummiest all-first class interior ever. Which would still put it above most coach flights anyway.

You'd think by now there would be a market for a bigger, faster, longer range supersonic airplane for transpacific flights. I wonder if any work is being done with supercruising engines for commercial flight. These are engines that can attain supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners, which makes them more economical. So far they've been used in a few fighters like the F-22.

Donald Trump is a fucking criminal

pacomartin

Threads: 649
Posts: 7895

Joined: Jan 14, 2010

February 20th, 2011 at 3:42:07 AM permalink

Quote: Nareed

You'd think by now there would be a market for a bigger, faster, longer range supersonic airplane for transpacific flights. I wonder if any work is being done with supercruising engines for commercial flight. These are engines that can attain supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners, which makes them more economical. So far they've been used in a few fighters like the F-22.

Initiatives are started every few years. Many people think that the supersonic business jet (SSBJ) will arrive first

Some unnamed Arab sheik supposedly is shelling out $1/2 billion for a custom private A380, so there should be some market for a SSBJ.

Nareed

Threads: 373
Posts: 11413

Joined: Nov 11, 2009

February 20th, 2011 at 6:45:23 AM permalink

Quote: pacomartin
Initiatives are started every few years. Many people think that the supersonic business jet (SSBJ) will arrive first

I'll believe it when I see it.

Or when someone announces an X-prize type award to the first business jet that can break Mach 1 on at least a transcontinental route.

Quote:
Some unnamed Arab sheik supposedly is shelling out $1/2 billion for a custom private A380, so there should be some market for a SSBJ.

Cool pics. Do you have a link to bigger version?

The A-380 came too late. Had someone built something like it int he 80's, we'd have seen flying casinos on transpacific flights.

Donald Trump is a fucking criminal

pacomartin

Threads: 649
Posts: 7895

Joined: Jan 14, 2010

February 20th, 2011 at 10:24:43 AM permalink

Design Q did the design for Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud.

I really like the magic carpet room.

Nareed

Threads: 373
Posts: 11413

Joined: Nov 11, 2009

February 20th, 2011 at 3:02:02 PM permalink

Quote: pacomartin
Design Q did the design for Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud.

Thanks!

Quote:
I really like the magic carpet room.

Me too. Every plane should have one. I always sit at a window and look out much of the flight.

Interjet has a nose camera on some flights, which they project on the tiny A-320 overhead screens for takeoff and landing. It's an awesome view. Too bad the screens are so small. Must be a European thing, I guess.

I like the A-320 (good thing, too, since it's all I've flown over the past 5 years), it's a sensible medium- and short-haul plane. But I wish they'd hired an American firm for the overhead screens. Americans like their TV BIG as God intended it to be ;)

Donald Trump is a fucking criminal

mkl654321

Threads: 65
Posts: 3412

Joined: Aug 8, 2010

February 20th, 2011 at 3:37:52 PM permalink

Quote: pacomartin
I really like the magic carpet room.

But...but...if you had a magic carpet, why would you even need the plane?

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw

pacomartin

Threads: 649
Posts: 7895

Joined: Jan 14, 2010

February 20th, 2011 at 3:43:58 PM permalink

Quote: mkl654321
But...but...if you had a magic carpet, why would you even need the plane?

The magic carpet room uses a horizontal video screen and sensors to simulate having a glass bottom in the plane, so you can see what you are flying over.

Speaking of extravagant displays produced by Western companies for Arab consumption, have you ever seen the Burj Khalifi ceremonies last January? It's 13 minutes long, but well worth the time.

mkl654321

Threads: 65
Posts: 3412

Joined: Aug 8, 2010

February 20th, 2011 at 4:17:26 PM permalink

Quote: pacomartin
The magic carpet room uses a horizontal video screen and sensors to simulate having a glass bottom in the plane, so you can see what you are flying over.

Well, darn. SIMULATED magic carpet. Still sounds totally cool, though. And probably more comfortable than an actual magic carpet, without the 600 MPH wind in your face.

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw

Wizard
Administrator

Wizard

Threads: 1493
Posts: 26485

Joined: Oct 14, 2009

February 21st, 2011 at 9:20:16 PM permalink

Quote: mkl654321
I didn't copy anything from anywhere else, but go ahead and be a Jerryhole and say that I did. You'll be full of shit, but go ahead anyway; that never has stopped you before.

Personal insult -- seven day suspension.

"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)

Croupier

Croupier

Threads: 58
Posts: 1258

Joined: Nov 15, 2009

February 21st, 2011 at 9:32:35 PM permalink

Quote: Wizard
Personal insult -- seven day suspension.

I am so glad you are back boss man.

[This space is intentionally left blank]

pacomartin

Threads: 649
Posts: 7895

Joined: Jan 14, 2010

February 21st, 2011 at 10:35:21 PM permalink

Flying time from Paris Beauvais to Girona near Barcelona is 95 minutes. Even if the train gets under 6 hours it will probably be faster to fly even counting time to the airport and waiting for the flight. But many people will prefer the train anyway for various reasons (cost, comfort, safety, flexibility).

If they put Euro-Vegas in Hungary the train is much more difficult. It's a 12 hour train trip from Paris to Vienna, and then a fairly long bus trip to the casino.

Plus, a lot of people go to the beach in northeastern Spain.

Interview with CNBC for international division of Hard Rock dated Jul. 6 2009. They do state they already have a casino in Macau (which I was not aware that they were there).

boymimbo

boymimbo

Threads: 17
Posts: 5994

Joined: Nov 12, 2009

February 22nd, 2011 at 9:38:09 PM permalink

So, you can book a return train trip from Barcelona to Paris for $224 USD. Travel time is 7:41. Total distance is 1,037km or about 644 miles. Drive time is 9:27 according to Google maps and there are speed cameras in France to slow you down. At $7.50/Gallon for gas and a car that gets you 35 miles a gallon and all highway driving, you'd spend about 37 gallons of gas which would cost you $276, plus the cost of the car rental. Then there's tolls on the highway. So, no brainer - take the train -- you'll arrive relaxed and save more than a few bucks.

Flying obviously is fastest and cheapest (as low as $146 if you travel on the right dates). Nonstops are 2 hours long (so with the airport arrival time and wait, 3 hours). Add the train from CDG to downtown adds at least an hour, so you save alot of time by flying.

Driving is probably the worst option of getting around in Europe, and I would avoid it unless you are meandering or are going to somewhere not accessible by public transit.

---
Driving from San Francisco to Las Vegas is comparable with a 9 hour travel time over 556 miles but the plane is much much faster, even with security lines.

----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!

Nareed

Threads: 373
Posts: 11413

Joined: Nov 11, 2009

February 22nd, 2011 at 10:04:17 PM permalink

Quote: boymimbo
So, no brainer - take the train -- you'll arrive relaxed and save more than a few bucks.

What if you need a car at the other end? What are the rental rates? Insurance?

Donald Trump is a fucking criminal

thecesspit

Threads: 53
Posts: 5936

Joined: Apr 19, 2010

February 22nd, 2011 at 10:39:24 PM permalink

It's Europe... you don't need a car at the other end, you just find public transport.

(Okay that's not totally true, but 9 times out of 10, you can get around fine with buses, light rail and the occasional cab).

"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829

Nareed

Threads: 373
Posts: 11413

Joined: Nov 11, 2009

February 23rd, 2011 at 7:17:47 AM permalink

Quote: thecesspit
It's Europe... you don't need a car at the other end, you just find public transport.

(Okay that's not totally true, but 9 times out of 10, you can get around fine with buses, light rail and the occasional cab).

Not if you have to lug samples around, for example, or need to take out clients often, or will be moving up and down town a lot. I'd be willing to take out a client in a cab, but not in public transportation; it makes you look cheap.

Donald Trump is a fucking criminal

thecesspit

Threads: 53
Posts: 5936

Joined: Apr 19, 2010

February 23rd, 2011 at 10:43:52 AM permalink

Well, if your on business, that's a different matter indeed. However, driving around most city centres in Europe is a foolish business best left to the professional cab drivers.

"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829

Nareed

Threads: 373
Posts: 11413

Joined: Nov 11, 2009

February 23rd, 2011 at 10:57:49 AM permalink

The other day somene commented that I shouldn't drive to Morelia, because the bus costs 720 pesos, while tolls alone cost 800. True. But add about 600 pesos in gas and that's the extent of transportation expenses. round it down and it's just $115 USD to make the trip by car.

The bus costs 720 pesos. Cabs to and from the bus station on both ends come to 330 pesos, plus cabs around Morelia add up to around 400 pesos more. So the "cheaper" bus comes to 720+330+400 or 1,450 pesos. Rounded down it's about $120 USD.

The difference is so trivial I'd say use the method you like best. So, by car I can hop on the highway from my place in about 2 minutes. Compared to anywhere between 20 and 40 minutes just to get to the bus station. On the way back likewise I can get off the highway and home in 2 minutes, versus 40 to 60 minutes by cab from the bus station. Next the bus is limited to 95 kph (company policy in all bus lines). I'm not a speed demon, but I average 110 kph on the highway. Still, I may stop for a coke or to use the bathroom, so times can be the same.

Oh, my location so close to the highway also means I can leave 30 to 60 minutes later. So I get to sleep longer.

Finally if I drive I can smoke any time I feel like it. No smoking on the bus.

Guess which I preffer.

Donald Trump is a fucking criminal

pacomartin

Threads: 649
Posts: 7895

Joined: Jan 14, 2010

February 23rd, 2011 at 1:25:07 PM permalink

Quote: Nareed
The other day somene commented that I shouldn't drive to Morelia, because the bus costs 720 pesos, while tolls alone cost 800.

Car ownership rates (per capita):
842/1000 USA
563/1000 Canada
494/1000 France
479/1000 Spain
458/1000 UK
209/1000 Mexico

Nareed, you should mention that is a first class bus. Most people in the USA have never heard of a first class bus as they are almost non-existent here. You are certainly have an income in the top 20% (and more likely the top 5%) of Mexico as well, which allows you the luxury.

Certainly in Europe when you are travelling with a family most people take cars. By the time you pay 3-5 train fares and rent a car for local touring it is prohibitively expensive. You can drive your car directly onto the train on the southern coast of England, sit in your car while the train takes you under the Channel, and get off in Calais. The A26 is a 394 km (245 mile) long French motorway connecting Calais and Troyes. It is also known as the Autoroute des Anglais as it is the main route from the Dover-Calais ferries and the channel tunnel to most parts of France and often contains large numbers of British cars, particularly during the summer holiday season.

But the price of gasoline is much higher in Europe than it is in Mexico, and the old cities are difficult to negotiate by car. Parking is very expensive and the tolls are almost as high as they are in Mexico. The standard for top speed of high speed train travel is 300 km/hr (originally the Madrid - Barcelona run was to be 350 km/hr but they couldn't afford the signalling).

Nareed

Threads: 373
Posts: 11413

Joined: Nov 11, 2009

February 23rd, 2011 at 1:37:01 PM permalink

Quote: pacomartin
Nareed, you should mention that is a first class bus. Most people in the USA have never heard of a first class bus as they are almost non-existent here.

Ok. it's a first class bus, ETN, with three seats per row and two alleged rest rooms at back. I take that one when I must, because they use earphones rather than a PA system for showing movies. Mostly I try to sleep the whole way.

Quote:
You are certainly have an income in the top 20% (and more likely the top 5%) of Mexico as well, which allows you the luxury.

Actually I work for an employer who reimburses all travel expenses within reason. Better yet, I can request a check for travel expenses before I travel and "pay" it back with receipts of the expenses. And I made an arrangement to have all gas paid before I took the job. Looking abck on it, and if I'd known how much I'd use the car for the job, I would have asked for insurance and repairs, too...

Quote:
But the price of gasoline is much higher in Europe than it is in Mexico, and the old cities are difficult to negotiate by car. Parking is very expensive and the tolls are almost as high as they are in Mexico.

Tolls are insane in Mexico. I think $65 USD for a 300 kilometer trip is, literally, highway robbery. Not to mention there are a lot of toll stops. I'd do a half hour less if I dind't have to stop so often. I forget the exact price of gas, but it's higher now than it's been historically. Right now we're probably cheaper than the US, but when oil prices go down, gas prices here don't follow suit.

Donald Trump is a fucking criminal

pacomartin