Re: Will General Motors leave Detroit - and what will happen to the city?
Gunner Asch
>Responding to Karsten Kruse:
>
>[...]
>> Also, killing people because they are ,,Leftists'' is clearly illegal,
>> unconstitutional and therefore unpatriotic. The people will simply not
>> stand for your wish to erect a Idiocracy.
>
>
>Er, they stood for the GOP stealing the Whitehouse from the elected
>President on 2000,
So they changed the law and allowed presidents to get more than the 2
terms limit by law? Odd...I didnt see Bubba running again. Did you?
Then Bush could have run again??????? Dayam...!!!!
> and they tolerated the GOP fixing the '04 election
>with blatently rigged computers,
Odd...since it was the Left that got their hands spanked for computer
fraud in both 2000 and 2004.
"Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with
minimum food or water,in austere conditions, day and night. The only thing
clean on him is his weapon. He doesn't worry about what workout to do---
his rucksack weighs what it weighs, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing him.
The True Believer doesn't care 'how hard it is'; he knows he either wins or he dies.
He doesn't go home at 1700; he is home. He knows only the 'Cause.' Now, who wants to quit?"
NCOIC of the Special Forces Assessment and Selection Course in a welcome speech to new SF candidates
F. George McDuffee
And exactly how does any of this address the current and
increasingly serious socio-economic problems?
Red or blue, a d**kweed is a d**kweed, a f**kwit is a f**kwit,
and scam artist is a scam artist.
What fraud has been prevented?
What injury has been redressed?
What hungry child has been fed?
What ill/injured person has had medical care provided?
What job has been created?
What are some practical suggestions for (A) addressing the
current problems, and (B) preventing these from reoccurring?
Indeed, in most cases a specific objective problem has not even
been identified.
RCM is about solving problems and getting results, not pi**ing
and moaning.
Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?
Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).
krp
Chrysler in the U.S. and the MASSIVE expansion of plants in other countries
by both. Shipping almost 300,000 jobs off shore.
GOOD PLAN GUYS!
Buerste
"krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:mk9Ql.1720$wR5...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
The UAW priced themselves right out of the market.
dca...@krl.org
associates.us> wrote:
> RCM is about solving problems and getting results, not pi**ing
> and moaning.
>
> Unka' George [George McDuffee]
Damn. And I thought it was about metalworking.
Dan
Larry Jaques
On Mon, 18 May 2009 08:30:42 -0400, the infamous "Buerste"
<Bue...@att.com> scrawled the following:
The California Teachers Union have done the same thing with teachers.
they rank highest in wages/bennies while the students rank second to
the lowest in achievement. (Of course, the -many- millions of non-
English-speaking illegals can't help their stats any.)
* OPINION * MAY 18, 2009
Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich
Americans know how to use the moving van to escape high taxes.
By ARTHUR LAFFER and STEPHEN MOORE
--snip--
Those who disapprove of tax competition complain that lower state
taxes only create a zero-sum competition where states "race to the
bottom" and cut services to the poor as taxes fall to zero. They say
that tax cutting inevitably means lower quality schools and police
protection as lower tax rates mean starvation of public services.
They're wrong, and New Hampshire is our favorite illustration. The
Live Free or Die State has no income or sales tax, yet it has
high-quality schools and excellent public services. Students in New
Hampshire public schools achieve the fourth-highest test scores in the
nation -- even though the state spends about $1,000 a year less per
resident on state and local government than the average state and,
incredibly, $5,000 less per person than New York. And on the other
side of the ledger, California in 2007 had the highest-paid classroom
teachers in the nation, and yet the Golden State had the second-lowest
test scores.
--snip--
--
No matter how cynical you are, it is impossible to keep up.
--Lily Tomlin
krp
"Buerste" <Bue...@att.com> wrote in message
news:RxcQl.33495$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
I think it is FUNNY as shit that 90% of Chrysler's production will be
going to Canada and Mehhhhiko! HASTA LA VISTA BAYYYYBEEE!
ray
"krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
That's what you get when you put in a Community Organizer to run the
auto industry. Sadly, that's what you get when you put in a Community
Organizer to run the country. Sigh......
--
Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.
John Smith
"ray" <xxxr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:gut83...@news1.newsguy.com...
?????
All this started on January 20th?
Moron!
Gunner Asch
wrote:
Of course.
>Im a Moron!
Of course!
Gunner
>
"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"
Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno
Michael A. Terrell
Too many millwrights on the payrolls. :(
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!
krp
>> >> What I find amusing with the "bailouts" etc is the plant closings by
>> >> GM
>> >> and Chrysler in the U.S. and the MASSIVE expansion of plants in other
>> >> countries by both. Shipping almost 300,000 jobs off shore.
>> >>
>> >> GOOD PLAN GUYS!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > The UAW priced themselves right out of the market.
>>
>> I think it is FUNNY as shit that 90% of Chrysler's production will be
>> going to Canada and Mehhhhiko! HASTA LA VISTA BAYYYYBEEE!
>
> That's what you get when you put in a Community Organizer to run the
> auto industry. Sadly, that's what you get when you put in a Community
> Organizer to run the country. Sigh......
Amazing the rate at which American jobs are being shipped overseas. GE
wants all that GREEN technology business. 99% of the production will be in
the THIRD WORLD! GE wants to push for dropping the embargo because they
heard the average wage in Cuba is only $7 a MONTH!
krp
"John Smith" <bobsyo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:EOqQl.2193$5F2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Started? NO! Accelerated? YES!!!!
Dan
Jan 20, 2001 maybe. OR Jan 20, 1993. Or Jan 20, 1989. Or...
Well, you get the picture. Been going on a long time, as an organized
political philosophy since at least Reagan's reign.
Dan
John Smith
>>
>> "krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:mk9Ql.1720$wR5...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>> > What I find amusing with the "bailouts" etc is the plant closings by GM
>> > and Chrysler in the U.S. and the MASSIVE expansion of plants in other
>> > countries by both. Shipping almost 300,000 jobs off shore.
>> >
>> > GOOD PLAN GUYS!
>> >
>> >
>>
>> The UAW priced themselves right out of the market.
Damn, those workers; how DARE they want more than 50 cents a day!
THE MANAGEMENT fucked up ............ for DECADES!
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>> Buerste wrote:
They surly did. Most of the rank and file in the plants make $50-80 an
hour.
krp
...
>>> > What I find amusing with the "bailouts" etc is the plant closings by
>>> > GM
>>> > and Chrysler in the U.S. and the MASSIVE expansion of plants in other
>>> > countries by both. Shipping almost 300,000 jobs off shore.
>>> >
>>> > GOOD PLAN GUYS!
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> The UAW priced themselves right out of the market.
> Damn, those workers; how DARE they want more than 50 cents a day!
Yeah right. Too bad Johnny that when you come for Christmas and the
folks bake a 28 pound Turkey - and you INSIST that YOU get to eat it all, at
some point the folks won't be able to keep on affording to provide you with
a whole turkey just to yourself. A good living wage and reasonable
retirement is one thing. But PIGGING OUT and demanding more and more of the
meat is another, ESPECIALLY when the folks don't HAVE IT! Something YOU just
CANNOT understand or process Johnny.
> THE MANAGEMENT fucked up ............ for DECADES!
No shit! Thanks for telling us something that most folks KNEW back in
the 60's, As much as it is HOLLYWOOD - watch the movie "Tucker The Man and
his Dream." There are little nuggets in there of how the BIG THREE screwed
over the "Independents." How GM in specific worked to sabotage the cars.
Blocking their access to steel. Supplies for foundries. Machine equipment.
Not to mention blackmail of suppliers like tire companies. Brake
manufacturers. Glass companies. Making SURE that Nash paid 4X for glass what
GM did.
No doubt that the American cars of the 60's and to the 80's were PURE
SHIT! The trouble can be seen in the fact that NONE of the people heading
the car companies were CAR people, they were mostly ACCOUNTANTS. MBA's.
Henry Ford Sr. was a CAR guy. But then he got old. When the BEAN COUNTERS
took over we started getting shitty cars. When Henry Ford started there
weren't even any gas stations. He built the cars anyway. People bought them.
The gas stations appeared. The car companies TOTALLY LOST that kind of
vision. They STILL don't have it.
What's the BIG ANSWER they have? BATTERY powered cars or hybrids.
Thinking in a box. Look at ALL the problems we have with transportation, NOT
just greenhouse gases. Look at the cost of accidents. Injuries. What about
thinking of electric vehicles where the power source is embedded in the
roads? Where the vehicle is computer controlled. Perhaps we wouldn't even
need to OWN a car at all. Just dial up for one, it come to your door, you
get in, tell it where you want to go and off it goes. You don't have to
steer it, brake it just sit and let it take you where you want to go. No
battery pollution. No fossil fuels. No getting honked off at the crazy
drivers. You an TEXT, watch a movie, whatever you want. Close the window
screens for privacy and you and the wife can make a baby on the drive to
Disneyworld. ONE idea, Johnny.
Docky Wocky
"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical
Islam..."
____________________
We call them liberal Democrats these days.
Ed Huntress
"Docky Wocky" <mrc...@lst.net> wrote in message
news:3fUQl.2126$wR5...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
The main problem with this quote is that Lenin never said it, leaving us
with the ineluctable conclusion that the "useful idiots" are people like
Gunner and you, gullible ignoramuses who believe anything that they're
predisposed to believe by their ideological True Belief.
Bruce Thornton of Cal State, who is the originator of the quote above,
should have stuck to his specialty, which is sexuality among the ancient
Greeks. His history is a little flaky once he leaves his familiar territory
of Greek sex.
--
Ed Huntress
cavelamb
Zinger!
Ed Huntress
"cavelamb" <cave...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:VIqdnchRQJZgsonX...@earthlink.com...
Right-wing mythology is a never-ending font of amusement.
--
Ed Huntress
Docky Wocky
John Smith
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:jj87155glsu9qqkh8...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 May 2009 04:38:22 GMT, "John Smith" <bobsyo...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Buerste wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:mk9Ql.1720$wR5...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>>>> > What I find amusing with the "bailouts" etc is the plant closings by
>>>> > GM
>>>> > and Chrysler in the U.S. and the MASSIVE expansion of plants in other
>>>> > countries by both. Shipping almost 300,000 jobs off shore.
>>>> >
>>>> > GOOD PLAN GUYS!
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> The UAW priced themselves right out of the market.
>>
>>Damn, those workers; how DARE they want more than 50 cents a day!
>>
>>THE MANAGEMENT fucked up ............ for DECADES!
>>
> They surly did. Most of the rank and file in the plants make $50-80 an
> hour.
>
> Gunner
yea ............. right .........
you must be getting your "facts" from "False News".
Ed Huntress
> Actually, Lenin said, "???????? ??????."
>
>
There are 55 bound volumes of his writings that you can examine in a variety
of scholarly libraries. <g>
--
Ed Huntress
Dan
> On Wed, 20 May 2009 04:38:22 GMT, "John Smith" <bobsyo...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Buerste wrote:
>>>> "krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:mk9Ql.1720$wR5...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>>>>> What I find amusing with the "bailouts" etc is the plant closings by GM
>>>>> and Chrysler in the U.S. and the MASSIVE expansion of plants in other
>>>>> countries by both. Shipping almost 300,000 jobs off shore.
>>>>>
>>>>> GOOD PLAN GUYS!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The UAW priced themselves right out of the market.
>> Damn, those workers; how DARE they want more than 50 cents a day!
>>
>> THE MANAGEMENT fucked up ............ for DECADES!
>>
> They surly did. Most of the rank and file in the plants make $50-80 an
> hour.
Hahahahahahahahaha...
>Wipes eyes< Whew!
Thanks, I needed a laugh like that.
One can always count on Runner to make a silly deadpan statement that
brings tears to the eyes of those paying attention!
Dan
krp
"Dan" <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0z5Rl.58475$9w4....@newsfe08.iad...
> Gunner Asch wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 May 2009 04:38:22 GMT, "John Smith" <bobsyo...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Buerste wrote:
>>>>> "krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:mk9Ql.1720$wR5...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>>>>>> What I find amusing with the "bailouts" etc is the plant closings by
>>>>>> GM
>>>>>> and Chrysler in the U.S. and the MASSIVE expansion of plants in other
>>>>>> countries by both. Shipping almost 300,000 jobs off shore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GOOD PLAN GUYS!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> The UAW priced themselves right out of the market.
>>> Damn, those workers; how DARE they want more than 50 cents a day!
>>>
>>> THE MANAGEMENT fucked up ............ for DECADES!
>> They surly did. Most of the rank and file in the plants make $50-80 an
>> hour.
>
> Hahahahahahahahaha...
Don't laugh. You have to count in all the bennies and that's not far off.
Dan
MANAGEMENT) is NOT a rational cost of the present labor force.
Dan
F. George McDuffee
On Fri, 22 May 2009 05:53:23 -0700, Dan <dnad...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>> Don't laugh. You have to count in all the bennies and that's not far off.
>>
>I'm sorry, the bennies for workers long retired (but unfunded by
>MANAGEMENT) is NOT a rational cost of the present labor force.
>
>Dan
=========
Indeed it is not.
These medical/retirement benefits are not largess by the company,
but are deferred wages, to be paid now rather than at the time
these were earned.
In retrospect, the union should have demanded the cash up front,
and the members could have spent or invested as they chose. As
it is now they have to a large extent been stiffed.
These deferred wages are just another portion of the huge secured
and unsecured corporate debt accumulated by venal/incompetent
management over the years, including everything from actual bonds
to "deferred maintenance."
In case you missed the article, it now appears that the
automotive retirement/pension fund shortfall [including Delphi,
American Axle, and other vendors] is over 77 billion.
-----
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009905210697
Auto pension trouble on horizon?
$77-billion shortfall could spell trouble for younger retirees'
benefits
BY SUSAN TOMPOR � FREE PRESS PERSONAL FINANCE COLUMNIST � May 21,
2009
Detroit got handed one more ugly number Wednesday to slap us into
the reality that we must rethink our futures. Sheet metal no
longer can craft a cushy retirement. Nor can rubber, tires or
seat cushions, apparently.
Advertisement
The entire auto industry -- which would include the Detroit
Three, as well as other auto manufacturers and auto suppliers
that offer defined-benefit pension plans -- is looking at a
combined $77 billion in underfunded pension liabilities, based on
the estimates of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.
We do not want to alarm anyone. So make no mistake, the rug is
not being pulled out from under most auto retirees. Many older
retirees at General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC face no change
in their pension payout.
But it is essential for others to know that about 45% of those
underfunded pension benefits -- or about $35 billion -- would not
be guaranteed in the event that all those plans in the auto
industry would have to be terminated.
<snip>
----------
This is where the people that took early retirement get it in the
shorts...
Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?
Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).
Michael A. Terrell
krp wrote:
>
> What's the BIG ANSWER they have? BATTERY powered cars or hybrids.
> Thinking in a box. Look at ALL the problems we have with transportation, NOT
> just greenhouse gases. Look at the cost of accidents. Injuries. What about
> thinking of electric vehicles where the power source is embedded in the
> roads?
Go back to your textbooks. Buried loop power has extremely low
efficiency and the amount of power for hot rails would be extremely
dangerous.
> Where the vehicle is computer controlled. Perhaps we wouldn't even
> need to OWN a car at all. Just dial up for one, it come to your door, you
> get in, tell it where you want to go and off it goes. You don't have to
> steer it, brake it just sit and let it take you where you want to go. No
> battery pollution. No fossil fuels. No getting honked off at the crazy
> drivers. You an TEXT, watch a movie, whatever you want. Close the window
> screens for privacy and you and the wife can make a baby on the drive to
> Disneyworld. ONE idea, Johnny.
krp
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:AY6dnRMHIvapv4vX...@earthlink.com...
>> What's the BIG ANSWER they have? BATTERY powered cars or hybrids.
>> Thinking in a box. Look at ALL the problems we have with transportation,
>> NOT
>> just greenhouse gases. Look at the cost of accidents. Injuries. What
>> about
>> thinking of electric vehicles where the power source is embedded in the
>> roads?
> Go back to your textbooks. Buried loop power has extremely low
> efficiency and the amount of power for hot rails would be extremely
> dangerous.
Technology has come a long way. Much of electrical power today in most
cities is delivered by BURRIED CABLE. Certainly slots would be workable.The
old street cars and trolley buses with overhead cables were extremely
efficient. Of course I find amusing that EVERY time that "light rail" is
discussed or built it is basicly 19th century technology with a designer
exterior. There are discussions of improving the rail system (Amtrak) but
here again the thinking is always esentially 19th century technology. The
projects never quite seem to deal with the built in hazards of "at grade"
rail travel. Weather being one factor, but obstructions are another. They
keep talking "HIGH SPEED" rail. 200+ MPH. How many accidents are there at
crossings in Americas each year? Where some goofy bastard just HAS to race
the train to the crossing? How many people IGNORE the barriers and the
warning signals??? How many people STOP on the tracks because they are
impatieint? Not to mention the critters we have here that wander onto
tracks. How do you do 200 MPH through 10 foot high snow drifts? How fast
does a train go through 10 feet of water when there is a flood? We either
solve these problems or go back to horses.Whether we like it or not the day
of the private automobile is fading. We need something new. Public
transportation is only ONE answer.
Europe uses high speed rail. Electric. But they still have serious
problems. Maybe if we looked at 21st century technology as opposed to 19th
century crap we'd do better.
krp
>
>>>>>>>> What I find amusing with the "bailouts" etc is the plant closings
>>>>>>>> by GM
>>>>>>>> and Chrysler in the U.S. and the MASSIVE expansion of plants in
>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>> countries by both. Shipping almost 300,000 jobs off shore.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> GOOD PLAN GUYS!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The UAW priced themselves right out of the market.
>>>>> Damn, those workers; how DARE they want more than 50 cents a day!
>>>>>
>>>>> THE MANAGEMENT fucked up ............ for DECADES!
>>>> They surly did. Most of the rank and file in the plants make $50-80 an
>>>> hour.
>>>
>>> Hahahahahahahahaha...
>>
>> Don't laugh. You have to count in all the bennies and that's not far off.
> I'm sorry, the bennies for workers long retired (but unfunded by
> MANAGEMENT) is NOT a rational cost of the present labor force.
But those bennies ARE funded by GM, Chrysler and Ford. That is ONE of
the reasons American cars cost so much more than foreign cars.
Dan
But they are not a CURRENT cost billable to present day labor - they are
the result of off-book loans made by unscrupulous management.
The "rank and file in the plants" are NOT making "$50-80 an hour" b any
rational accounting method, though some unscrupulous political types are
using such pseudoaccounting methods to make their partisan emotional
appeals designed to divide and conquer (I never said they weren't quite
clever).
Dan
krp
> krp wrote:
>>
>> "Dan" <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:_FmRl.50994$Rf7....@newsfe21.iad...
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What I find amusing with the "bailouts" etc is the plant closings
>>>>>>>>>> by GM
>>>>>>>>>> and Chrysler in the U.S. and the MASSIVE expansion of plants in
>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>> countries by both. Shipping almost 300,000 jobs off shore.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> GOOD PLAN GUYS!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The UAW priced themselves right out of the market.
>>>>>>> Damn, those workers; how DARE they want more than 50 cents a day!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THE MANAGEMENT fucked up ............ for DECADES!
>>>>>> They surly did. Most of the rank and file in the plants make $50-80
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> hour.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hahahahahahahahaha...
>>>>
>>>> Don't laugh. You have to count in all the bennies and that's not far
>>>> off.
>>
>>> I'm sorry, the bennies for workers long retired (but unfunded by
>>> MANAGEMENT) is NOT a rational cost of the present labor force.
>>
>> But those bennies ARE funded by GM, Chrysler and Ford. That is ONE of
>> the reasons American cars cost so much more than foreign cars.
>>
>
> But they are not a CURRENT cost billable to present day labor - they are
> the result of off-book loans made by unscrupulous management.
Nope that's right. THEY ARE A TOTALLY FREE LUNCH. All that shit JUST APPEARS
from nowhere and NOBODY at all pays for it. IT'S FREE!!!! IT'S MAGIC!
<giggle>
F. George McDuffee
On Fri, 22 May 2009 19:57:23 GMT, "krp" <kr...@verizon.net>
wrote:
>Nope that's right. THEY ARE A TOTALLY FREE LUNCH. All that shit JUST APPEARS
>from nowhere and NOBODY at all pays for it. IT'S FREE!!!! IT'S MAGIC!
>
>
><giggle>
=============
Actually these benefits were paid for years ago BY DEFERRED WAGES
of the hourly employees, some dating back to the 1960s. Pensions
and retiree medical were paid for by the deferred wages, with
accrued interest, from those days.
The rationale was that there was some tax benefit to both the
corporations, and the employees [i.e. the deferred wages and
accrued interest were tax free].
The company was supposed to "invest" the deferred wages, to earn
the high interest the corporations were paying for their other
loans, which was to be a plus for the employees, and the company
did not have to pay out any cash money at the time, but much
later. From the company perspective, in addition to the tax
breaks, the delay in pay-out was golden when NPV/DCF [net present
value/discounted cash flow] accounting was used, as the payout
was far in the future [c. 30 years].
It now appears that this will be an even better deal for the
corporations, in that with bankruptcy and likely insolvency of
the pension funds, they will *NEVER* pay any of the deferred
wages, no interest, and the taxpayers will pay partial pensions
w/o medical coverage via the PBGC to the retirees. The retirees
who have paid into the pension/medical funds for years will lose
much of their promised old-age benefits.
Be reminded that the "deferred compensation" and retirement plans
of past and present directors and officers are separate from the
blue collar and white collar employee plans, and are fully funded
by "trust funds" that cannot be touched by the normal bankruptcy
process.
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>>>
>>>THE MANAGEMENT fucked up ............ for DECADES!
>>>
>> They surly did. Most of the rank and file in the plants make $50-80 an
>> hour.
>>
>> Gunner
>
>yea ............. right .........
>you must be getting your "facts" from "False News".
UAW Workers Actually Cost the Big Three Automakers $70 an Hour
Heritage Foundation ^ | December 8, 2008 | James Sherk
The United Auto Workers (UAW) wants Congress to bail out General Motors,
Ford, and Chrysler to prevent their undergoing restructuring in
bankruptcy proceedings. In bankruptcy, a judge could order union
contracts to be renegotiated to reflect competitive realities. Many
analysts have objected that hourly autoworkers at the Big Three are some
of the most highly paid workers in America, costing the Big Three over
$70 an hour in wages and current and future benefits. All taxpayers
should not be taxed to preserve the affluence of a few.
Some observers argue that UAW members do not actually earn this much.[1]
They argue this figure includes the cost of benefits paid to current
retirees as well as wages and benefits paid to current workers and that
the actual hourly earnings of current UAW members are much lower. This
is a mistaken interpretation of the financial data released by the
Detroit automakers.
Cash Compensation
Chart 1 shows the average hourly compensation for UAW workers and the
average compensation for all private sector workers. These figures are
based upon calculations by the Detroit automakers themselves as
published in SEC filings, their annual reports, and other materials.
According to briefing materials prepared by General Motors, "The total
of both cash compensation and benefits provided to GM hourly workers in
2006 amounted to approximately $73.26 per active hour worked."
UAW workers are highly paid, but not all this compensation comes as cash
wages. Breaking the $73.26 figure down, General Motors reports that it
pays base wages of roughly $30 an hour. At the end of December 2006, the
average vehicle assembler at GM earned $28.02 an hour; the average
machine repair electrician earned $32.43.[2]
Other provisions raise cash earnings above this base pay. For example,
workers at Ford earn 10 percent premium payments for taking midnight
shifts and double time for overtime hours worked on Sundays.[3]
Autoworkers put in substantial overtime hours at higher rates, raising
earnings above their base pay. GM reported that its average hourly
employee worked 315 overtime hours in 2006. Including all monetary
payments--base wages, shift premiums, overtime pay, as well as vacation
and holiday pay--GM reported an average hourly pay of $39.68 an hour in
2006.[4] About 54 percent of the average UAW employee at GM's earnings
came in cash in 2006.
Earned Benefits
The remaining $33.58 an hour of hourly labor costs that GM reports--46
percent of total compensation--was paid as benefits. These benefits
include[5]:
Hospital, surgical, and prescription drug benefits; Dental and vision
benefits; Group life insurance; Disability benefits; Supplemental
Unemployment Benefits (SUB); Pension payments to workers pensions
accounts to be paid out at retirement; Unemployment compensation; and
Payroll taxes (employer's share). These benefits cost the Detroit
automakers significant amounts of money. Critics contend that these
benefit figures include the cost of providing retirement and health
benefits to currently retired workers, not just benefits for current
workers. Since there are more retired than active employees this makes
it appear that GM employees earn far more than they actually do.
This contention contradicts the plain meaning of what the automakers
have reported in SEC filings and in their public statements and would be
contrary to generally accepted accounting principles.
Under the accounting rules established by the Financial Accounting
Standards Board, the Detroit automakers must report their liability for
future benefits as they accrue.[6] The hourly benefits figure includes
payments into defined benefit pension plans to provide future pensions
to current workers. It also includes the estimated costs of future
retirement health benefits that current workers earn today.
Chrysler, for example, reports paying $20.14 an hour in health costs for
its hourly employees. That figure includes the estimated cost of their
health benefits in retirement, calculated according to Financial
Accounting Standard 106.[7] The government does not allow Chrysler to
promise to pay tens of thousands of dollars in health benefits in the
future without reporting that cost on its balance sheets today.
Excludes Legacy Costs
The hourly benefit figures the Detroit automakers report covers the cost
of current and future benefits earned by actively working employees. It
does not include the cost of paying health benefits and pensions to
current retirees.
Before they requested a bailout, the Big Three automakers specifically
explained that their labor cost figures do not include the cost of past
work. General Motors states in its filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission that:
GM maintains hourly and salaried benefit plans that provide
postretirement medical, dental, vision, and life insurance to most U.S.
and Canadian retirees and eligible dependents. The cost of such benefits
is recognized in the consolidated financial statements during the period
employees provide service to GM.[8]
In other words, GM records the expense for retiree benefits when workers
earn the benefits, not years later when they collect their benefits. In
less technical language, Ford explains that their total average hourly
labor costs include:
(1) All the dollars paid to employees, (2) the cost of contractual
benefits for employees, and (3) the cost of statutory payments, such as
Social Security and Workers' Compensation--all calculated on the basis
of hours worked by employees.[9]
Average hourly costs include the costs of wages and benefits (current
and future) to employees divided by the number of hours worked by those
same employees. It does not include the benefits paid to retirees.[10]
This is in accord with standard accounting principles that require the
Big Three to report their costs as they occur. Labor costs are the costs
to the Detroit automakers of employing its current workers, not paying
former workers for services performed decades ago.
Retirement Benefits Alone Cost $31 an Hour
The argument that retiree pension and health benefits inflate the hourly
labor costs of the Detroit automakers cannot withstand basic scrutiny.
For instance, General Motors UAW retirement plan paid $4.9 billion to
291,000 retirees and surviving spouses in 2006.[11] That works out to
$31.04 an hour when apportioned among active workers.[12] That figure
accounts for virtually all GM's benefit costs--before accounting for
health care costs, disability benefits, supplemental unemployment
benefits, or any of the other benefits GM provides. GM pays too much in
retirement benefits to have labor costs of only $70 an hour if that
figure included benefits to current retirees.
Labor Costs Similar Despite Retiree Differences
The Detroit automakers pay similar wages at each company despite having
very different numbers of retirees to provide for. Table 1 shows the
average hourly labor costs for the Big Three and the ratio of retirees
to active workers at each company. General Motors has far more retirees
per active worker than Ford or Chrysler. For each active worker at GM,
there were 3.8 retirees or dependants in 2006. At Chrysler this ratio
was half as much: two retirees for each worker. At Ford there were only
1.6 retirees per worker. If the hourly labor costs included retiree
benefits, hourly wages at GM would be much higher than at either Ford or
Chrysler.
John Smith
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
> On Wed, 20 May 2009 18:13:40 GMT, "John Smith" <bobsyo...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>THE MANAGEMENT fucked up ............ for DECADES!
>>>>
>>> They surly did. Most of the rank and file in the plants make $50-80 an
>>> hour.
>>>
>>> Gunner
>>
>>yea ............. right .........
>>you must be getting your "facts" from "False News".
>
> UAW Workers Actually Cost the Big Three Automakers $70 an Hour
> Heritage Foundation ^ | December 8, 2008 | James Sherk
Yea ............ right ................ a right wing mouthpiece that
pretends to be a think tank - and EVERYTHING it said, in support of Bush
policies and Iraq, being shown wrong .............................. and
we're supposed to believe them????????
Getting some other asshole to agree with your asshole does not constitute
valid information ............ it's just the same smelly shit - from a
different source.
F. George McDuffee
On Sat, 23 May 2009 11:11:21 -0700, Gunner Asch
<gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>>>>THE MANAGEMENT fucked up ............ for DECADES!
>>>>
>>> They surly did. Most of the rank and file in the plants make $50-80 an
>>> hour.
>>>
>>> Gunner
>>
>>yea ............. right .........
>>you must be getting your "facts" from "False News".
>
>UAW Workers Actually Cost the Big Three Automakers $70 an Hour
>Heritage Foundation ^ | December 8, 2008 | James Sherk
<snip>
====
If the UAW did not exist it would have to be invented.
For the groups information, what UAW or other locals were
certified at:
Bear Stearns
Lehman Brothers
AIG
Countrywide
WaMu
LTCM
Enron
WorldCom
HealthSouth
Maddoff
Pacific Gas and Electric
Global Crossing
Calpine
Kmart
Conseco
Thornberg
IndyMac
Refco
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>
>"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
>news:rveg15p50u3ok7aci...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 20 May 2009 18:13:40 GMT, "John Smith" <bobsyo...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>THE MANAGEMENT fucked up ............ for DECADES!
>>>>>
>>>> They surly did. Most of the rank and file in the plants make $50-80 an
>>>> hour.
>>>>
>>>> Gunner
>>>
>>>yea ............. right .........
>>>you must be getting your "facts" from "False News".
>>
>> UAW Workers Actually Cost the Big Three Automakers $70 an Hour
>> Heritage Foundation ^ | December 8, 2008 | James Sherk
>
>Yea ............ right ................ a right wing mouthpiece that
>pretends to be a think tank - and EVERYTHING it said, in support of Bush
>policies and Iraq, being shown wrong .............................. and
>we're supposed to believe them????????
>
>Getting some other asshole to agree with your asshole does not constitute
>valid information ............ it's just the same smelly shit - from a
>different source.
>
Far leftwing extremist denial of the truth is noted with fascination.
A quick review of the subject notes many many disclaimers of that
wage..but there is NO mention of retirement and other benifits included
in the wage data..and the disclaimers are obviously pro union, anti
industry shill pieces.
Gunner
Dan
You just go ahead <<moves away slowly, calling the local mental health
clinic unobtrusively on a cell phone>> and enjoy your fantasy world.
Dan
Michael A. Terrell
Public transportation works great where people are crammed into tiny
apartments in high rise buildings, like sardines. In other areas it
doesn't make sense.
> Europe uses high speed rail. Electric. But they still have serious
> problems.
No kidding. Try electric rail wit 100 times the traffic, to haul
everyone everywhere.
> Maybe if we looked at 21st century technology as opposed to 19th
> century crap we'd do better.
If its so simple design it, patent it and sell the design for
billions.
krp
> Public transportation works great where people are crammed into tiny
> apartments in high rise buildings, like sardines. In other areas it
> doesn't make sense.
Absolute BULLSHIT! TOTAL bulslhit. During WW-2 with gas rationing etc,
MOST people got to work or went shopping via PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION and it
worked damn well. It was cheap and efficient. After WW-2 the big 3 and the
oil companies PAID OFF Congress to KILL public transportation, especially
the "street cars" and electric trolley buses. And yet for all your BULLSHIT
above it still works in Chicago and New York NOT for prople who live in the
Loop (downtown) but for people coming in from the burbs. IF GM had had its
way and the elevated trains and subways had been closed, both of those
cities would be a NIGHTMARE today. Hell, both cities could use 5 times the
capacity they have.
>> Europe uses high speed rail. Electric. But they still have serious
>> problems.
> No kidding. Try electric rail wit 100 times the traffic, to haul
> everyone everywhere.
Can be done easily IF we think the problems using 21set century
technology instead of 19th century technology.
>> Maybe if we looked at 21st century technology as opposed to 19th
>> century crap we'd do better.
> If its so simple design it, patent it and sell the design for billions.
Trouble IS that it ALREADY HAS been designed. It is that politicians
have been listening to the DORKS at General Motors who want to KILL the
competition that public transportation represents, they ALWAYS HAVE. GM in
specific, with the oil companies waged a HOLY WAR against public
transportation after WW-2. They managed to get a CORRUPT political system to
go along with killing public transportation so they could sell more cars.
First they went after light rail (street cars) because they were the REAL
competition. You could move people for a TINY TINY TINY fraction of the cost
of automobiles. To they and the electric trolley buses HAD to go. They just
couldn't kill them in Chicago and New York and a few other cities. So GM
could sell its fume spewing diesel buses and cars. They killed off, as an
example, the street cars and trolley buses in Milwaukee. Not because they
weren't profitable, they were the ONLY part of the companies that WERE
profitable. Within 5 years of the company in Milwaukee being FORCED to give
up the electric transportation it had to be sold to the county. It is now
rarely used and HEAVILY subsidized by the taxpayer. Milwaukee is only an
EXAMPLE I am using. There are hundreds more. For the CTA in Chicago the
subways and the elevated are profitable, the buses - not very much.
New designs are available. Subways with more than one level on them. Not
only carrying passengers but freight. Replacing the ANCIENT railroads with
modern underground systems that can handle high speeds. 200 or even 300 MPH.
Not being blocked by snow or flooding. No problems with critters or some
dumb asshole parked on the tracks. Making the system competitive with
airplane travel and safer. You just have to get out of thinking of the 19th
century technology. Think of it as an underground 747.
krp
I'm not the one arguing that the benefits don't count. I am just making
fun of those who actually BELIEVE that shit.
Lew Hartswick
> Absolute BULLSHIT! TOTAL bulslhit. During WW-2 with gas rationing
> etc, MOST people got to work or went shopping via PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
> and it worked damn well.
That is a prime example of "bulshit" (sic) if I ever heard it.
I was alive in WWII and well remember the problems of
transportation in the "wilds of central Pa". There is
absolutely no chance of public transportation ever being
able to accommodate the great majority of the country.
People like krp have no idea of reality.
...lew...
dca...@krl.org
> Technology has come a long way. Much of electrical power today in most
> cities is delivered by BURRIED CABLE.
Wrong. Except for short sections of buried cable, most electricity is
transmitted by overhead cable with the conductors well separated. The
reason is that air is a much better dielectric than soil and
separating the cables reduces the dielectric losses. Even so much of
the power is lost in tranmission. If we went to underground cables
transmitting AC, most of the power would be lost. I do not remember
the exact numbers, but believe that half of the power is lost when AC
power is transmitted undergound for about 30 miles.
Dan
Martin H. Eastburn
Many towns - and metroplexes have power underground. I have it at this
house - HV 2 phase over 1000 feet long and I tap off one with a transformer
and from it the 220 down the pole 20' underground to the house.
I'm sure putting a nominal insulated wire in the air vs. ground and
there are valid facts. But one doesn't put normal insulated wire into
the ground. It has diameter and strength.
Look at the big cities. See power lines down all streets ? NOPE.
Martin
Michael A. Terrell
` You better order a couple more gross of tin foil hats, loser.
> New designs are available. Subways with more than one level on them. Not
> only carrying passengers but freight. Replacing the ANCIENT railroads with
> modern underground systems that can handle high speeds. 200 or even 300 MPH.
> Not being blocked by snow or flooding. No problems with critters or some
> dumb asshole parked on the tracks. Making the system competitive with
> airplane travel and safer. You just have to get out of thinking of the 19th
> century technology. Think of it as an underground 747.
So, you think you can keep water out of thousands of miles of
tunnels? What a marron!
Gunner Asch
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> New designs are available. Subways with more than one level on them. Not
>> only carrying passengers but freight. Replacing the ANCIENT railroads with
>> modern underground systems that can handle high speeds. 200 or even 300 MPH.
>> Not being blocked by snow or flooding. No problems with critters or some
>> dumb asshole parked on the tracks. Making the system competitive with
>> airplane travel and safer. You just have to get out of thinking of the 19th
>> century technology. Think of it as an underground 747.
>
>
> So, you think you can keep water out of thousands of miles of
>tunnels? What a marron!
Ask the City of Los Angeles about subways....ROFLMAO!!
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-transit30jun30,1,3726430.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
krp
>> New designs are available. Subways with more than one level on them.
>> Not
>> only carrying passengers but freight. Replacing the ANCIENT railroads
>> with
>> modern underground systems that can handle high speeds. 200 or even 300
>> MPH.
>> Not being blocked by snow or flooding. No problems with critters or some
>> dumb asshole parked on the tracks. Making the system competitive with
>> airplane travel and safer. You just have to get out of thinking of the
>> 19th
>> century technology. Think of it as an underground 747.
> So, you think you can keep water out of thousands of miles of
> tunnels? What a marron!
They seem able to do that in the tunnels under the English Channel,
don't they? Do you know how many tunnels go under bodies of water? How many
in New York City ALONE?
krp
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
> On Sun, 24 May 2009 23:22:43 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>> New designs are available. Subways with more than one level on them.
>>> Not
>>> only carrying passengers but freight. Replacing the ANCIENT railroads
>>> with
>>> modern underground systems that can handle high speeds. 200 or even 300
>>> MPH.
>>> Not being blocked by snow or flooding. No problems with critters or some
>>> dumb asshole parked on the tracks. Making the system competitive with
>>> airplane travel and safer. You just have to get out of thinking of the
>>> 19th
>>> century technology. Think of it as an underground 747.
>>
>>
>> So, you think you can keep water out of thousands of miles of
>>tunnels? What a marron!
>
>
> Ask the City of Los Angeles about subways....ROFLMAO!!
I am not sure of the wisdom of building a subway on ground with several
MAJOR faults and almost constant earthquakes. Not even sure of building
roads there. Maybe an elevated system. But California is a very "Special"
place. They certainly do do things differently in the land of fruits and
nuts.
dca...@krl.org
wrote:
> I think this is bunk. All you have to do is insulate. And they do that.
> Many towns - and metroplexes have power underground. I have it at this
> house - HV 2 phase over 1000 feet long and I tap off one with a transformer
> and from it the 220 down the pole 20' underground to the house.
>
> I'm sure putting a nominal insulated wire in the air vs. ground and
> there are valid facts. But one doesn't put normal insulated wire into
> the ground. It has diameter and strength.
>
> Look at the big cities. See power lines down all streets ? NOPE.
>
> Martin
>
that the insulation also traps the heat generated by the I^2R losses
in the line. Some underground transmission lines are liquid cooled.
Your 1000 foot long distribution cable is not what most people
consider a transmission line. The high voltage on it is maybe 11.5
kv. Transmission lines are usually 40 kv or more. Try looking at
some sources on the internet. One is
http://www.aep.com/about/i765project/docs/UGvsOVHDPaper.pdf
I have not found any easily read document that states the percentage
loss for underground cables, but have not looked very hard.
Dan
Martin H. Eastburn
a bit hotter than 11kv as it drives thousands of houses and businesses
from the substation 2 miles away.
I know about the million volt lines in New Jersey - don't think they
worked well. They lit up the night sky and burned the grass off the ground.
I think the experiment failed.
This was the site of a lumber mill 10 years ago or so. The mill ran
off the two phase both saws, conveyors, and the like. That is all gone now.
Martin
Dan
And, of course, you can point out where "those" people made any such
statements...
Dan
krp
Have you read the posts here? We've had two guys argue that the bennies
the workers get (and got) do NOT count in calculating wages. They don't want
to compare benefits packages as part of compensation.
Michael A. Terrell
So, tell us, what parts of the US are completely free of earthquakes?
Michael A. Terrell
Do you know what they cost to construct? How deep they had to go?
What they had to cut through? Try building them in Florida, under sand,
on a thin limestone shell over the aquifer. Ask the construction
companies who have lost construction equipment, when it dropped into a
sinkhole created when they punctured the limestone. Or the ones who
have to drive concrete pilings to sold rock, below the aquifer to build
bridges, or large buildings. New York City sits on huge amounts of
solid rock. That is the only thing that made it feasible to build.
They discovered some caves under the site of a local Wal-Mart when they
started construction. They spent close to a year pouring concrete into
the holes they opened, before they could finish pouring the floors.
How long will it take to build your tunnel from new York to LA? How will
you handle switching tunnels, to route to different cities at 300 MPH?
Do you understand ANYTHING about fluid dynamics of air in an tunnel?
How to deal with the shockwave of compressed air at the front, and the
vacuum that follows it? Do you know anything about Physics, at all?
krp
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:TrWdnfr7dsUBPYHX...@earthlink.com...
None are "COMPLETELY FREE" however 7.5 and up are not in that many
places. Primarily the Pacific coast. Los Angeles, San Francisco are places
that subways are probably NOT great ideas.
However From Nevada east there is little risk. Of course I could ask to name
some place TOTALLY safe from an asteroid hit. IF you want to talk around
with your head up your ass, be my guest. I'll sit in the bleachers and be
amused.
krp
>> > So, you think you can keep water out of thousands of miles of
>> > tunnels? What a marron!
>>
>> They seem able to do that in the tunnels under the English Channel,
>> don't they? Do you know how many tunnels go under bodies of water? How
>> many
>> in New York City ALONE?
> Do you know what they cost to construct? How deep they had to go?
> What they had to cut through? Try building them in Florida, under sand,
> on a thin limestone shell over the aquifer. Ask the construction
> companies who have lost construction equipment, when it dropped into a
> sinkhole created when they punctured the limestone. Or the ones who
> have to drive concrete pilings to sold rock, below the aquifer to build
> bridges, or large buildings. New York City sits on huge amounts of
> solid rock. That is the only thing that made it feasible to build.
> They discovered some caves under the site of a local Wal-Mart when they
> started construction. They spent close to a year pouring concrete into
> the holes they opened, before they could finish pouring the floors.
Philadelphia? Chicago? Cost? Yeah it was expensive. Now ask if it is
paying for itself. Do you know what it cost to build the original railroads?
Are you infantile enough to think that anything happens for free????????????
Please give us the address where this alleged FREE LUNCH can be found.
Florida would probably NOT be a great location for a subway. I was thinking
more east-west things. If I were looking at things, I'd probably go with an
above grade system in Florida. Not as fast - but adequate. Once you get a
ways north of Orlando the conditions improve for a subway system.
> How long will it take to build your tunnel from new York to LA?
Abuout the same time as it took to lay railroad track. Years.
> How will you handle switching tunnels, to route to different cities at
> 300 MPH?
Oh I wouldn't do that. I'd learn from airlines and employ a HUB and
SPOKE concept. I'd steal lots from the design of the "chunnel" with an
eastbound tunnel and a westbound, with a maintenence and escape tunnel in
between.
> Do you understand ANYTHING about fluid dynamics of air in an tunnel?
> How to deal with the shockwave of compressed air at the front, and the
> vacuum that follows it? Do you know anything about Physics, at all?
Golly - EMERGENCY - EMERGENCY - They need to CLOSE the Chunnel and ALL
subways IMMEDIATELY! DANGER WILL ROBINSON - DANGER!
Michael A. Terrell
You are the one with your head up your ass.
Michael A. Terrell
TSTL
M.Butzin
Had a earth quake in Terrell Texas Southwest of Dallas and Southeast of Fort Worth. you would not a under ground system in sunny Florida, Like France they use a tunnel system in the mountains and dedicated Ground level tracks in open country bridges cross over or rail goes over but NOTHING crosses at grade over the average railroad crossing in the USA. You could use a "combined system" Above ground where there are no stops, below ground and tunnels through mountains in regions as needed. We are having more rail systems installed here in Houston. Some of the lines will go directly to both airports from downtown. There will be a line that runs to the downtown medical center the turns and runs out to the other major medical centers.
Now here in Texas the state saw fit to let the contractors who built homes to cut the streets down into the earth so when it rains the water flows into the roadway. If a rail system were to connect let's say West to Austin (The Capitol, East to Houston and North to Dallas) the area around Houston would have to be elevated but 30 miles out of Houston it could go back to terrain features as long as non of the crossing were "At Grade". this would keep farm animals and people from having access to the path of the train. There would be areas along the path that would need to be elevated above ground because of under ground pipelines. The distance between these cities are all about the same 300 to 400 miles by interstate, with large populations that frequently fly now or drive daily, twice a week. The Path is almost a perfect triangle the state has large expanses of land between lanes so that construction would not interfere with traffic flow on the freeway. The topography would give builders challenges with grades and declines curves bends etc and if anything were to need repair access to the actual rail lines would be open and easy. Stations along the path could be provided by the size of the city Etc. A couple cities along the I-35 corridor from Austin to Dallas has expanded and will require stops. Now the path from Dallas to Houston south it is mostly barren one city Huntsville has the Department of Corrections so there will be attorneys making the trip from both Dallas and Houston, even Austin. Presently there are almost forty flights a day just between Dallas and Houston, Southwest Airlines has the most. If you were to put six stops leaving Houston going to Dallas, you would soon be flooded with requests for more and six stops to Austin this should be really eight. These three trains would be full each way and you would take hundreds of cars off the freeways each hour. The you could connect this to a speed train that crosses the country and either goes to Denver or St.Louis, same deal dedicated rail line, stops determined by city size. Same thing for cities like Detroit, St.Louis, Atlanta. Miami, Orlando, Jacksonville to Atlanta, Winston~Salem, Norfolk into Wash D.C. Chicago, Buffalo, NYC. Build triangle with tips touching other lines that one could transfer to cross the country by region OR Build a straight line to one stop cities Denver to Dallas, or Denver to Chicago, Houston to Jacksonville FLA. This current trip takes four days from Houston to Jacksonville because most of the tracks are for cargo use only and some sections have not been improved in forty years.
When I went to Europe we travelled by train in France, Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic.
I took the Amtrak from Houston TX to Winona MN, we hit two trucks and one car, dinner service was great and so was breakfast, but we spent almost 19 hours sitting waiting for the wrecks to clear. This is why fenced dedicated tracks are needed. There are a lot of passengers that travel from New Orleans to Chicago or Detroit, there could be lots more one family I spoke with make the trip twice a summer.
Our mini rail to the medical center is great to ride the only problem is when bad storms come through Houston we loose power and you have to switch to busses. When I lived in New Orleans I used the street cars instead of driving.
Houston is the Oil Capitol and when I came back gas was less than twenty five cents a gallon. now it's back to $1.99~$1.65 a gallon.
MB
MB
krp
Because I don't agree with you, and YOU - Mister Jesus are NEVER wrong.
krp
"M.Butzin" <marc...@att1NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:FasTl.20262$8_3....@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
MB> Had a earth quake in Terrell Texas Southwest of Dallas and Southeast of
Fort Worth. you would not a under ground system in sunny Florida, Like
France they use a tunnel system in the mountains and MB> dedicated Ground
level tracks in open country bridges cross over or rail goes over but
NOTHING crosses at grade over the average railroad crossing in the USA. You
could use a "combined system" MB> Above ground where there are no stops,
below ground and tunnels through mountains in regions as needed. We are
having more rail systems installed here in Houston. Some of the lines will
go directly MB> to both airports from downtown. There will be a line that
runs to the downtown medical center the turns and runs out to the other
major medical centers.
Of course I was specific in speaking of a New York - Chicago - Los
Angeles - San Francisco route. I did NOT suggest an underground train for
Florida. I'd also not suggest it for the Pacific coast, a elevated system
makes more sense. Light rail has some utility..
MB> When I went to Europe we travelled by train in France, Germany, Poland
and the Czech Republic.
I also took the trains in Europe. The Intercity trains are marvelous.
Paris to Frankfurt is a great ride.
MB> I took the Amtrak from Houston TX to Winona MN, we hit two trucks and
one car, dinner service was great and so was breakfast, but we spent almost
19 hours sitting waiting for the wrecks to MB> clear. This is why fenced
dedicated tracks are needed. There are a lot of passengers that travel from
New Orleans to Chicago or Detroit, there could be lots more one family I
spoke with make the trip MB twice a summer.
Fenced tracks help BUT the major problem is at crossings. Some clowns
just CANNOT resist the idea of RACING the train to the crossing. It is a
dying compulsion. You have to PLAY at decoding the numbers because the
actual statistics are not directly made public. However in ONE report it
speaks of a decline in rail crossing accidents by 12% or roughly 500 fewer
cases. This would suggest the number must be in the 4,000 range of incidents
per year in America, a bit better than 10 a DAY. I did not spend the time to
trfack the number of deaths. That's trains hitting cars at crossings where
the trains are averaging 35 MPH. What would it be like if those trains were
running 150 MPH?
Michael A. Terrell
yawn......................
Michael A. Terrell
Some of the tracks are in horrible shape. If dimbulb's idea of
underground 300 MPH trains was built, they would have huge logistics
problems. The areas you need them to run to, and through are already
built up. it doesn't make sense to tear out a huge section of a town to
build an underground rail system.
You would need at least three sets of rails to allow for any
maintenance, and the closer the stops are to each other, the slower they
would have to go. You can't accelerate a train like you do a sports
car.
I am not saying trains aren't a good idea, but it isn't as simple as
dimbulb suggests. A lot of engineering, geological studies, political
issues, and obtaining the right of way. the early railroads were
possible, because they were built on 99% open, federal land. The rail
roads were given the land, along with some on each side for them to
develop.
I have said for years that a lot more cargo needs to go by train
car. That would reduce the traffic on our main roads and highways, and
reduce fuel used for transportation of non perishable goods.
>
> When I went to Europe we travelled by train in France, Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic.
>
> I took the Amtrak from Houston TX to Winona MN, we hit two trucks and one car, dinner service was great and so was breakfast, but we spent almost 19 hours sitting waiting for the wrecks to clear. This is why fenced dedicated tracks are needed. There are a lot of passengers that travel from New Orleans to Chicago or Detroit, there could be lots more one family I spoke with make the trip twice a summer.
>
> Our mini rail to the medical center is great to ride the only problem is when bad storms come through Houston we loose power and you have to switch to busses. When I lived in New Orleans I used the street cars instead of driving.
>
> Houston is the Oil Capitol and when I came back gas was less than twenty five cents a gallon. now it's back to $1.99~$1.65 a gallon.
>
> MB
>
> MB
F. George McDuffee
Follow-up article in Detroit Free Press re subject.
Be sure and read comments.
http://www.freep.com/article/20090528/COL06/905280506/?imw=Y
also see
http://www.freep.com/article/20090528/BUSINESS01/90528018/Suppliers+Visteon++Metaldyne+file+for+bankruptcy+protection
Suppliers Visteon, Metaldyne file for bankruptcy protection
FWIW -- Visteon is Ford's version of Delphi.
If you have GM bonds see
http://www.freep.com/article/20090528/BUSINESS01/90528037/GM+sweetens+pot+for+bondholders+in+deal
Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?
Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).
krp
> Some of the tracks are in horrible shape. If dimbulb's idea of
> underground 300 MPH trains was built, they would have huge logistics
> problems. The areas you need them to run to, and through are already
> built up. it doesn't make sense to tear out a huge section of a town to
> build an underground rail system.
WHY would they HAVE to do that?
> You would need at least three sets of rails to allow for any
> maintenance, and the closer the stops are to each other, the slower they
> would have to go. You can't accelerate a train like you do a sports
> car.
Of course you need 3, just like the Chunnel. In YOUR world that makes it
impossible????
> I am not saying trains aren't a good idea, but it isn't as simple as
> dimbulb suggests. A lot of engineering, geological studies, political
> issues, and obtaining the right of way. the early railroads were
> possible, because they were built on 99% open, federal land. The rail
> roads were given the land, along with some on each side for them to
> develop.
Well you can always INVEST obstacles to make anything impossible.
> I have said for years that a lot more cargo needs to go by train
> car. That would reduce the traffic on our main roads and highways, and
> reduce fuel used for transportation of non perishable goods.
Wasn't that part of what I suggested? With a train the size of a 747 you
could have both cargo and passengers. AND arrange the configuration as
needed. The nice part of the train concept is that if you sell all the seats
or need to carry extra cargo - you just attach another car. Not that easy to
create another plane. The concept works because it is so FLEXIBLE.
Bruce in Bangkok
One question comes to mind.
There was a reasonably effective railroad network in the United States
in the post WW II period. Then the railroads went bankrupt.
What has changed that makes a new railroad network more commercially
viable then the previous one?
If the concept is so flexible why did it go bankrupt?
Why do you propose a vastly more expensive rail network as a solution
to an already failed system?
Cheers,
Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)
Winston
> One question comes to mind.
>
> There was a reasonably effective railroad network in the United States
> in the post WW II period. Then the railroads went bankrupt.
>
> What has changed that makes a new railroad network more commercially
> viable then the previous one?
>
> If the concept is so flexible why did it go bankrupt?
>
> Why do you propose a vastly more expensive rail network as a solution
> to an already failed system?
http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm
http://conservationreport.com/2008/08/20/public-transportation-streetcars-making-a-comeback-in-american-cities-but-they-shouldn%E2%80%99t-have-left-in-the-first-place/
--Winston
--
Don't *faff*, dear.
Bruce L. Bergman
<add...@bads.invalid> wrote:
>On Thu, 28 May 2009 18:12:51 GMT, "krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:wNSdnYpIMcgtGIPX...@earthlink.com...
>>
>>> Some of the tracks are in horrible shape. If dimbulb's idea of
>>> underground 300 MPH trains was built, they would have huge logistics
>>> problems. The areas you need them to run to, and through are already
>>> built up. it doesn't make sense to tear out a huge section of a town to
>>> build an underground rail system.
>>
>> WHY would they HAVE to do that?
>>
>>> You would need at least three sets of rails to allow for any
>>> maintenance, and the closer the stops are to each other, the slower they
>>> would have to go. You can't accelerate a train like you do a sports
>>> car.
>>
>> Of course you need 3, just like the Chunnel. In YOUR world that makes it
>>impossible????
They ignore that you can go around many towns - or simply expand the
existing Rail Rights Of Way horizontally.
>>> I am not saying trains aren't a good idea, but it isn't as simple as
>>> dimbulb suggests. A lot of engineering, geological studies, political
>>> issues, and obtaining the right of way. the early railroads were
>>> possible, because they were built on 99% open, federal land. The rail
>>> roads were given the land, along with some on each side for them to
>>> develop.
>>
>> Well you can always INVEST obstacles to make anything impossible.
>>
>>> I have said for years that a lot more cargo needs to go by train
>>> car. That would reduce the traffic on our main roads and highways, and
>>> reduce fuel used for transportation of non perishable goods.
>>
>> Wasn't that part of what I suggested? With a train the size of a 747 you
>>could have both cargo and passengers. AND arrange the configuration as
>>needed. The nice part of the train concept is that if you sell all the seats
>>or need to carry extra cargo - you just attach another car. Not that easy to
>>create another plane. The concept works because it is so FLEXIBLE.
>
>One question comes to mind.
>
>There was a reasonably effective railroad network in the United States
>in the post WW II period. Then the railroads went bankrupt.
The railroads were the only viable game in town pre-WWII. Trucks
and buses were too unreliable and slow, compared to rail.
Vehicle technology was not there, cars and trucks broke - a LOT.
Trucks still were running gasoline engines and manual braking (or
crude first-gen boosters), which could not handle the weight.
Tire technology was in it's infancy, stuill using cotton canvas for
the belt plies. If you got 10,000 miles on a set of car tires you
would be amazed, and with trucks it was more like 3,000 and they were
either bald or blown out. Some trucks were just getting the solid
tires off.
The highways were not yet developed to where they could compete -
many long steep grades and twisty switchbacks, since they followed the
contour of the land - no mass earthmoving could be done yet.
>What has changed that makes a new railroad network more commercially
>viable then the previous one?
>
>If the concept is so flexible why did it go bankrupt?
>
>Why do you propose a vastly more expensive rail network as a solution
>to an already failed system?
Because the existing passenger rail system failed from outside
influences. The taxpayers buy the land for the roads and subsidize
the construction and maintenance of the highway system, the Railroads
have to buy the land (a lot of it was through eminent domain and
franchise, but somebody has to pay the lawyers) and build and maintain
their own systems.
And competing interests - Passenger service has to maintain a rigid
and rapid schedule to meet connections, but freight also has delivery
commitments and deadlines, albeit moving at about half the speed - but
there are severe pealties for the freight being late, where
passenf]gers they could blow off... Unless all the major arterials
are double-tracked or triple-tracked, you always have a freight
waiting on a passenger train, or vice versa. And the Reailroad has to
pay for the extra tracks, rebuilding all the bridges, punching through
new tunnels, etc.
The inter-urban streetcar / light rail was killed off by the transit
operators in search of a faster buck - Why maintain the rails when
buses use the subsidized 'free' roads? And when the major investors
that bought up the inter-urbans only to milk them dry and shut them
down were the companies that built new buses, made the tires and
refined and sold diesel fuel...
The fix was in and it was an open secret, but nobody cared till it
was too late.
--<< Bruce >>--
Dan
Just reread the thread above. Nary a mention of not calculating benefits.
Care to try again and point out exactly who made such statements?
Dan
Docky Wocky
Premier Obama seems unusually anti-American being that he has shot the folks
who are probably most responsible for his electoral victory right out of
their saddles..
It makes me wonder if the fools have actually begun to recognize that he, in
the short time of less than 6 months has said, "Thanks for your votes," then
proceeded to do his damndest to put them out of work, saddle them with the
greatest debt ever known by human kind, and dropped most of them down
several notches in social standing.
Yet, the fools look at him like he's the living god.
But, it really ought to be fun to watch when the pitchforked mobs go for his
ass.
Dan
You listen to some interesting AM radio...
Dan
John Smith
Naaaa...... he gets these transmitted, directly, into his head.
Docky Wocky
"You listen to some interesting AM radio..."
______________________
Nope. Don't have one.
I guess you want to shut down whomever irks you over there.
Trouble is, you boys are so indoctrinated you are incapable of independent
thought.
Pity.
cs_po...@hotmail.com
> I do not remember
> the exact numbers, but believe that half of the power is lost when AC
> power is transmitted undergound for about 30 miles.
So don't use AC.
At some point the conversion equipment becomes cheaper than the AC
losses.
Bruce L. Bergman
<dca...@krl.org> wrote:
>On May 25, 3:13锟絘m, "Martin H. Eastburn" <lionsl...@consolidated.net>
>wrote:
>> I think this is bunk. 锟紸ll you have to do is insulate. 锟紸nd they do that.
>> Many towns - and metroplexes have power underground. 锟絀 have it at this
>> house - HV 2 phase over 1000 feet long and I tap off one with a transformer
>> and from it the 220 down the pole 20' underground to the house.
>>
>> I'm sure putting a nominal insulated wire in the air vs. ground and
>> there are valid facts. 锟紹ut one doesn't put normal insulated wire into
>> the ground. 锟絀t has diameter and strength.
>>
>> Look at the big cities. 锟絊ee power lines down all streets ? 锟絅OPE.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>One problem with insulating underground power transmission lines is
>that the insulation also traps the heat generated by the I^2R losses
>in the line. Some underground transmission lines are liquid cooled.
>
>Your 1000 foot long distribution cable is not what most people
>consider a transmission line. The high voltage on it is maybe 11.5
>kv. Transmission lines are usually 40 kv or more. Try looking at
>some sources on the internet. One is
>http://www.aep.com/about/i765project/docs/UGvsOVHDPaper.pdf
>
>I have not found any easily read document that states the percentage
>loss for underground cables, but have not looked very hard.
The loss is slightly higher on an undergrounded transmission line,
but not by much. Aerial lines have insulator tracking and flashover
losses, and resistive losses that heat up the wires, so they aren't
perfect either.
They aren't "just buried", when you get above 100KV they are three
seperate highly insulated cables running in a pressurized oil bath,
three seperate oil flooded conduits encasaed in concrete and spaced
about a foot apart, and the oil is circulated between the transmission
stations at the ends to carry the heat away.
Los Angeles DWP has several of these 133KV underground lines across
the city. (No, Mr. Terrorist, I'm not saying where - figure it out.)
And just as many older lines that are still on steel lattice towers -
unless someone wants to pony up the Big Bucks to bury them, they will
stay.
The problem is that the underground transmission cables have a much
shorter lifetime - roughly 20 to 30 years before they have to be
replaced, versus 75 years plus on an aerial line. And they are more
sensitive to continued overloading, as the excess heat deteriorates
the cables faster.
It was IIRC Auckland NZ where they deferred all the UG feeder cable
replacements coming into downtown City Center area far too long, and
they were all 35 - 40 years old (with an older design that was
supposed to be changed after 20 to 25) - and as the loads had grown,
all the cables were overloaded...
Finally one failed, and the utility shifted the loads to the
remaining cables, which doubled the overloads, and the rest of the
cables all unzipped in a rapid cascade.
Downtown Auckland was practically dark for a week (save for
emergency generators) till they rigged temporary aerial feeders, and
they were on severe power restrictions for months till the system was
rebuilt.
--<< Bruce >>--
dca...@krl.org
> The loss is slightly higher on an undergrounded transmission line,
> but not by much. Aerial lines have insulator tracking and flashover
> losses, and resistive losses that heat up the wires, so they aren't
> perfect either.
>
> --<< Bruce >>--
My understanding is that the losses on underground AC transmission
lines was enough that it was worth changing to DC for lines longer
than 25 miles. But have to admit I have not tried to keep up with
current technology. I think I remember this from some articles about
forty years ago.
Do you have any data on percentage loss per mile for AC aerial lines
and the same for AC underground? Do not go to a lot of trouble to
find data. I just am interested. Have no real reason to need the
data.
Dan
Bruce L. Bergman
<dca...@krl.org> wrote:
>On Jun 4, 6:37�am, Bruce L. Bergman <bruceNOSPAMberg...@gmail.com>
>
>> � The loss is slightly higher on an undergrounded transmission line,
>> but not by much. �Aerial lines have insulator tracking and flashover
>> losses, and resistive losses that heat up the wires, so they aren't
>> perfect either.
>
>lines was enough that it was worth changing to DC for lines longer
>than 25 miles. But have to admit I have not tried to keep up with
>current technology. I think I remember this from some articles about
>forty years ago.
>
>Do you have any data on percentage loss per mile for AC aerial lines
>and the same for AC underground? Do not go to a lot of trouble to
>find data. I just am interested. Have no real reason to need the
>data.
According to Wikipedia, the biggest problem is high reactive loads
on Underground AC lines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission
But if you convert to DC, then you have a very expensive converter
station at each end, and any tap points in the middle.
Works fine if you are going 1,500 miles plus between two different
regional power grids that are usually not syncronous (Pacific DC
Intertie) - Not too practical if the line being undergrounded is only
in the tens of miles between urban distributing stations.
--<< Bruce >>--
Michael A. Terrell
krp wrote:
>
> Technology has come a long way. Much of electrical power today in most
> cities is delivered by BURRIED CABLE.
Bullshit. they are still building power pylons for HV distribution.
> Certainly slots would be workable.
Bullshit. How do you do maintenance on them? Or get around a stalled
vehicle? Even city busses that used centenary lines arched, and
depended on inertia to roll past a short bad spot. The arching would
burn away more metal with each arc, till the conductor opened. Then it
had to be replaced. How often are you willing to shut down major roads
to replace the copper that has vaporized? Where are you going to get
enough copper to build it in the first place?
> The
> old street cars and trolley buses with overhead cables were extremely
> efficient. Of course I find amusing that EVERY time that "light rail" is
> discussed or built it is basicly 19th century technology with a designer
> exterior.
Yawn. How many ways can you build a train? You have tracks and
rolling stock. Everything else is just lipstick on the same old pig.
How many trains do you need to move 300 million people, twice a day?
> There are discussions of improving the rail system (Amtrak) but
> here again the thinking is always esentially 19th century technology. The
> projects never quite seem to deal with the built in hazards of "at grade"
> rail travel. Weather being one factor, but obstructions are another. They
> keep talking "HIGH SPEED" rail. 200+ MPH.
if you aren't talking nonstop cross country 200 MPH is foolish. It
takes energy to accelerate, every time you stop. Even if you can
reclaim some energy by regenerative braking, it takes a lot of track to
do so. Tell me, with the coefficient of friction is of steel train
wheels on steel track at 200 MPH.
> How many accidents are there at
> crossings in Americas each year? Where some goofy bastard just HAS to race
> the train to the crossing? How many people IGNORE the barriers and the
> warning signals???
Who's fault is it that they can even try to cross the tracks when a
train is coming?
> How many people STOP on the tracks because they are
> impatieint? Not to mention the critters we have here that wander onto
> tracks. How do you do 200 MPH through 10 foot high snow drifts? How fast
> does a train go through 10 feet of water when there is a flood? We either
> solve these problems or go back to horses.
Ever heard of Elevated railways? Overpasses at busy roads? How may
thousands of years to you want to go back in time? or would you just
rather wipe out humanity for a few animals on train tracks?
> Whether we like it or not the day
> of the private automobile is fading. We need something new. Public
> transportation is only ONE answer.
Yes, and its the wrong answer for a lot of people. We have busses in
a lot of US towns and cities. When gas prices went up, a lot of routes
were abandoned, by the people who had been lulled into depending on
them. That left the few taxis. the same taxis who's number were
limited to force the poor to ride the busses.
> Europe uses high speed rail. Electric. But they still have serious
> problems.
Europe is tiny, and populated by sheep.
> Maybe if we looked at 21st century technology as opposed to 19th
> century crap we'd do better.
Electric streetcars and trains were 19th, and 18th century
technology, yet you insist on bringing them back. 21 century
technology? Pray tell, what transportation breakthroughs have happened
since Jan first, 2001?
krp
>> Technology has come a long way. Much of electrical power today in
>> most
>> cities is delivered by BURRIED CABLE.
> Bullshit. they are still building power pylons for HV distribution.
The trend is to BURY the electric cables in residential areas. Has been
for 50 years.
>> Certainly slots would be workable.
> Bullshit. How do you do maintenance on them? Or get around a stalled
> vehicle? Even city busses that used centenary lines arched, and
> depended on inertia to roll past a short bad spot. The arching would
> burn away more metal with each arc, till the conductor opened. Then it
> had to be replaced. How often are you willing to shut down major roads
> to replace the copper that has vaporized? Where are you going to get
> enough copper to build it in the first place?
You deal with a "stalled" vehicle (almost impossible) by retracting the
connector and pushing it to the side of the road the SAME WAY you would a
stally GAS BURNER.
>> The old street cars and trolley buses with overhead cables were
>> extremely
>> efficient. Of course I find amusing that EVERY time that "light rail" is
>> discussed or built it is basicly 19th century technology with a designer
>> exterior.
> Yawn. How many ways can you build a train? You have tracks and
> rolling stock. Everything else is just lipstick on the same old pig.
> How many trains do you need to move 300 million people, twice a day?
Really? I think the electric trains of Europe are fundamentally
different and much more efficient than AMTRACK. MAG-LEV is the SAME OLD
PIG? How many AIRPLANES do we need???
>> There are discussions of improving the rail system (Amtrak) but
>> here again the thinking is always esentially 19th century technology. The
>> projects never quite seem to deal with the built in hazards of "at grade"
>> rail travel. Weather being one factor, but obstructions are another. They
>> keep talking "HIGH SPEED" rail. 200+ MPH.
> if you aren't talking nonstop cross country 200 MPH is foolish. It
> takes energy to accelerate, every time you stop. Even if you can
> reclaim some energy by regenerative braking, it takes a lot of track to
> do so. Tell me, with the coefficient of friction is of steel train
> wheels on steel track at 200 MPH.
Boy that has so many FALSE assumptions in it is is crazy. First of all -
IF the new national passenger and cargo rail system were to be constructed.
Underground. You are NOT talking of stopping on every street corner. You
would have to operate somewhat as airplanes do now. HUB and SPOKE. From New
York to Los Angeles, MAYBE 4 stops. Two main east west lines, and then
spokes. Then speeds of MORE than 200 MPH are practical. You ASS/U/ME steel
wheels and track. There are MANY alternatives.
>> How many accidents are there at
>> crossings in Americas each year? Where some goofy bastard just HAS to
>> race
>> the train to the crossing? How many people IGNORE the barriers and the
>> warning signals???
> Who's fault is it that they can even try to cross the tracks when a
> train is coming?
Makes NO difference whose FAULT it is. The people are just as dead in
either alternative. Then it also tend to fukkk up scheduling for a day or
two.
>> How many people STOP on the tracks because they are
>> impatieint? Not to mention the critters we have here that wander onto
>> tracks. How do you do 200 MPH through 10 foot high snow drifts? How fast
>> does a train go through 10 feet of water when there is a flood? We
>> either
>> solve these problems or go back to horses.
> Ever heard of Elevated railways? Overpasses at busy roads? How may
> thousands of years to you want to go back in time? or would you just
> rather wipe out humanity for a few animals on train tracks?
Well that cures crossing accodents. What does it do for snow and floods?
Unless you plan on building a 3500 mile elevated system. THEN talk about
costs and maintenence when subjected to the elements.
>> Whether we like it or not the day of the private automobile is fading. We
>> need something new. Public
>> transportation is only ONE answer.
> Yes, and its the wrong answer for a lot of people. We have busses in
> a lot of US towns and cities. When gas prices went up, a lot of routes
> were abandoned, by the people who had been lulled into depending on
> them. That left the few taxis. the same taxis who's number were
> limited to force the poor to ride the busses.
We have only a TINY TINY TINY fraction of the number of buses that were
in those cities 50 years ago.Times change. Public Transportation will HAVE
to be the right answer for most of the people, we just cannot afford the
SAME ONLD SHIT forever.
>> Europe uses high speed rail. Electric. But they still have serious
>> problems.
> Europe is tiny, and populated by sheep.
Well their problems are they also have assholes who like to RACE the
trains. AT GRADE rail systems have always been problematic. But Europes
problems are FAR smaller than the problems the American rail systems have.
>> Maybe if we looked at 21st century technology as opposed to 19th
>> century crap we'd do better.
> Electric streetcars and trains were 19th, and 18th century
> technology, yet you insist on bringing them back. 21 century
> technology? Pray tell, what transportation breakthroughs have happened
> since Jan first, 2001?
Do you think the electric motor as stayed the same as it was in 1849?
The advances in electric motors since 2001 have been significant. Using
computers the "windings" of the armatures is MUCH more dense and hence
efficient. They can get considerably more power out of the electric motors
with a far lower electrical current demand. Also the armatures can be build
in a modular form today. Maybe if you weren't living in the past you'd know
that technology HAS moved on. That's why I invited folks to look at that NHK
documentary being shown on HD-Net now.
Michael A. Terrell
Gunner Asch wrote:
>
> On Sun, 24 May 2009 23:22:43 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >> New designs are available. Subways with more than one level on them. Not
> >> only carrying passengers but freight. Replacing the ANCIENT railroads with
> >> modern underground systems that can handle high speeds. 200 or even 300 MPH.
> >> Not being blocked by snow or flooding. No problems with critters or some
> >> dumb asshole parked on the tracks. Making the system competitive with
> >> airplane travel and safer. You just have to get out of thinking of the 19th
> >> century technology. Think of it as an underground 747.
> >
> >
> >tunnels? What a marron!
>
>
Typical political BS, of course. Shove it down their throats with
lies of the money it will save, but how many people can spend three or
four hours a day on a stinking bus, or train?
I drive a '97 Dodge Dakota. I spend about $30 a month on gasoline.
I can make four stops in about 75 minutes and be home. If I tried that
on a bus, it would be four seperate trips, and I'd better not try to get
any refrigerated or frozen food home and expect it to be safe to eat. I
plan the shortest route for what I have to do, then go to the grocery
while I'm on the way home. True, it only saves two miles each grocery
run, but that is over 100 miles saved per year.
M.Butzin
Usually two drunk red necks or a cunt who is too impatient to heed the warning signals now which are you? Europe doesn't have problems with mass transit, it has problems with people who are too dumb to use it properly. Sweden, Norway, Germany, Denmark, Finland don't stop their trains in the winter when it snows neither does Britian or France, Switzerland, Copehagen, Italy, Spain they even have bombers all have mass transits that run year around, even Mombasa that is affectied by have rains, Japan even deals with earth quakes, mud slides, Korea all run mass transit. What it takes is that it's not done the half assed Republican way, you have to study the topography study the weather patterns / issues and over build, build it so that cars / trucks won't be an issue, like Germany no grade crossings ( for the dipshits that's cars crossing the tracks). It's the gun toting redneck with a rebel flag and a shot gun who is most against mass transit. Why? because he can't carry his gun, dog, dead deer and beer he has to shower and wear clothing that doesn't have holes in them and be able to read big words!
The best trip I ever took in my life was a train trip from Houston TX to Winona MN, execpt for the two drunk rednecks who passed out on the tracks in their pickup. The train ended that problem, the cops called it stupidicide by train
krp
"M.Butzin" <marc...@NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:K6H%l.1295$Rb6...@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
MB> Sweden, Norway, Germany, Denmark, Finland don't stop their trains in
the winter when it snows neither does Britian or France, Switzerland,
Copehagen, Italy, Spain they even have bombers all have MB> mass transits
that run year around, even Mombasa that is affectied by have rains, Japan
even deals with earth quakes, mud slides, Korea all run mass transit.
But they DO stop the trains in Europe in winter with heavy snows. They
have to. Sometimes for days. Even with snow plow trains. Hell, that happens
air airports too. Boston locks down Logan airport at the first snowfall even
if it is just a TINY little dusting. It's a ritual there. You never want to
be in Boston's airport when it snows.
M.B
Maybe so in Boston, my in laws always came just before Thanksgiving and sometimes Christmas with three to four feet on the ground in Stockholm, without delays. Our airport system here runs on hope of good weather theirs runs with the knowledge that it's coming. Living up near the arctic circle the get blasted all the time.
MB
krp
"M.B" <marc...@NOSPAM.DOT.NET> wrote in message
news:Inc2m.1971$Wj7....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
==========
Marc, Boston Logan CLOSES with the lightest dusting of snow. Snow that
wouldn't even cause a 15 minute delay in Chicago throws Logan into PANIC. I
have been TRAPPED there 3 times or so.
Docky Wocky
Detroit, it is more likely General Motors, as well as Detroit, will be lucky
to be a distant memory within a few years.
krp
"Docky Wocky" <mrc...@lst.net> wrote in message
news:6Eu2m.57$P5...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> With the liberal Democrat's in charge of both General Motors and the city
> of Detroit, it is more likely General Motors, as well as Detroit, will be
> lucky to be a distant memory within a few years.
Despite the treasury pouring in another 35 BILLION dollars into GM it
STILL is losing money hand over fist. Michigan already has the highest
unemployment numbers in the nation. The cluster-fukk which is the Auto
industry is at crash and burn stage. Detroit and Michigan should be planning
for a few hundred thousand more unemployed. Say goodbye to the American
automobile. Without a miraculous change it American made cars will be as
numerous as American made TV sets.
M.B
GM, Ford,Christwhydoesn't thiscarwork. Chrysler all have huge plant across the border in Mexico from Laredo, TX. They have mile long trains pulling partially assembled cars across the border. Huge multi acre plants making wiring harnesses and sub assemblies that head up to the plants near Dallas~Ft Worth. Same thing up north in Canada, Cadillac had most of there sub assemblies made there and put together here in the states. To me that's what caused the poor results for the auto makers (crappy cars and trucks).
krp
MB> GM, Ford,Christwhydoesn't thiscarwork. Chrysler all have huge plant
across the border in Mexico from Laredo, TX. They have mile long trains
pulling partially assembled cars across the border. MB> Huge multi acre
plants making wiring harnesses and sub assemblies that head up to the plants
near Dallas~Ft Worth. Same thing up north in Canada, Cadillac had most of
there sub assemblies made MB> there and put together here in the states. To
me that's what caused the poor results for the auto makers (crappy cars and
trucks).
Chrysler has a big plant in Canada too. Have you heard Fritz Henderson
the new CEO of GM speak? With all the platitudes about changes, when you cut
through the bullshit, what he is saying is that; "We're going to make the
same *shit* we have been making for years and tell you it is new so you
idiots will buy it." GM is losing money hand over fist even with BILLIONS in
bailout money. GM is still run by accountants (bean counters) MBA's who have
not the slightest clue of what makes a car work. They can't tell a spark
plug from a trunk key. And, worse, they flatly don't give a shit.. To these
morons it is all about the "BOTTOM LINE." Not building good cars. It is
arranging the beans in order like dominos. Chrysler is unlikely to make it
far into 2010. Do NOT expect to see a 2011 Chrysler. The prospects for GM
are not much better. There MAY be a 2011 GM offering but don't expect to see
any 2012 GM cars. How much longer Ford will last is up in the air.
The Chrysler Sebring was voted as the least reliable care made. Given
the heady company that it competed in for worst car ever, being rated the
biggest piece of shit on the road is a distinction that nobody could match.
To be WORSE than the Chevy Vega and Ford Pinto is a stunning achievement.
Michigan is going to see hundreds of thousands more autoworkers on
unemployment roles. It already has the highest unemployment in America.