BackshopI know what a Northrup F5 was, I just didn't know what Grumman had to do with it.
Answer: nothing. I can only plead that I spent too much time on the Island. (Carefully leaving stupidity out of it.) Yes, I know better.
It was developed from the T38 Talon two seat jet trainer.
No it wasn't; both aircraft were developed in parallel from the N-156.
The F20 never sold because General Dynamics had just come out with the F16, a much better plane that was relatively cheap...
The key being why it was 'relatively cheap' (and it was certainly not likely 'cheaper' to operate or maintain). I still think there is a place for a small lightweight aircraft with the F-5's (or F-20's) characteristics ... objectively. But I can't exactly plead that military procurement is, or even should be, wholly objective.
243129So how about we get back to the original subject?
I concur. How quickly will Amtrak get a true sub-three-hour timing reliably with the Avelia Liberty sets?
It had better be quick, even considering the long 20-year broken promise...
243129 n012944 Backshop The old "when you're losing an argument badly, reply with insults" ploy. I've seen it before. That seems to be Joe's go to around here. And here we have another who feels the need to insert himself.
n012944 Backshop The old "when you're losing an argument badly, reply with insults" ploy. I've seen it before. That seems to be Joe's go to around here.
Backshop The old "when you're losing an argument badly, reply with insults" ploy. I've seen it before.
The old "when you're losing an argument badly, reply with insults" ploy. I've seen it before.
That seems to be Joe's go to around here.
And here we have another who feels the need to insert himself.
And once again Joe tries to pretend he owns the forum and just like the dictator he has multiple times quoted in admiration, he decides who has the right to comment/participate. Just because your knowledge base doesn't extend to history or current events, don't expect people to not challenge your ignorance.
charlie hebdoAnd once again Joe tries to pretend he owns the forum and just like the dictator he has multiple times quoted in admiration, he decides who has the right to comment/participate. Just because your knowledge base doesn't extend to history or current events, don't expect people to not challenge your ignorance.
Asking folks to get back post on topic denotes forum ownership?
Your prepubescent whining/sulking can be minimized by inserting some fiber into your diet.
Face facts. Few people pay any serious attention to your nasty, repetitive, ignorant posts. And nobody at Amtrak or the other places you sent your simplistic, repetitive prescriptions gave anything beyond lip service. Boring.
charlie hebdo Face facts. Few people pay any serious attention to your nasty, repetitive, ignorant posts. And nobody at Amtrak or the other places you sent your simplistic, repetitive prescriptions gave anything beyond lip service. Boring.
I can tell that you have ingested any fiber yet. Stop back when you have something on topic to offer.
Please stay on topic. No personal insults. Thank you.
Angela Pusztai-Pasternak, Production Editor, Trains Magazine
Thanks, Ang. Please keep watching.
Yes, I do insert myself, and stand up against keyboard warriors.
An "expensive model collector"
n012944Yes, I do insert myself, and stand up against keyboard warriors.
No keyboard warrior here. I am reactive.
I state facts from experience which are open to discussion.
You play nice, I play nice.
Joe, what in particular were the problems with the TurboTrains when you ran them?
Overmod Joe, what in particular were the problems with the TurboTrains when you ran them?
Not sure where to start. TheTurboTrain was all glitz, as are today's ACELAs, and did not best the regular service running times by much and that was due to making less stops also like today's ACELAs. From the outset the TurboTrain was beset with mechanical issues which required United Aircraft personnel to be onboard evey trip. Tilt issues were frequent to the point that the TurboTrain was restricted to regular passenger train speeds. Very seldom did we ever have all engines providing traction power. Third rail operation was hit and miss and most times the gas turbines would be started and the Park Avenue tunnels would be filled with smoke. They, like today's attempts at HSR, were complete failures.
Not sure "exactly" what the topic is (seems to be HSR, the next generation of Acela, and tilting trains) but (if so) I wonder why amtrak didn't go with this: https://www.railway-technology.com/projects/pendolino-train/
I've ridden these trains a few times in Italy over the last decade and they seem pretty fast on non HSR track (at least the lines I've ridden). As they keep building them, and other countries buy them, I wonder how they compare to the Acela II trains. Both seem to be made by Alstom. This tilting technology has been around for decades now.
JOHN PRIVARA Not sure "exactly" what the topic is (seems to be HSR, the next generation of Acela, and tilting trains) but (if so) I wonder why amtrak didn't go with this: https://www.railway-technology.com/projects/pendolino-train/ I've ridden these trains a few times in Italy over the last decade and they seem pretty fast on non HSR track (at least the lines I've ridden). As they keep building them, and other countries buy them, I wonder how they compare to the Acela II trains. Both seem to be made by Alstom. This tilting technology has been around for decades now.
All that money for little gain?
Every American who owns a car owns one that is capable of well over any speed at which it will ever be driven. The most basic car will get you to the destination at the same speed and almost the same comfort as the luxury model but as long as the consumer is willing to pay for the frills, you offer it.
243129 JOHN PRIVARA Not sure "exactly" what the topic is (seems to be HSR, the next generation of Acela, and tilting trains) but (if so) I wonder why amtrak didn't go with this: https://www.railway-technology.com/projects/pendolino-train/ I've ridden these trains a few times in Italy over the last decade and they seem pretty fast on non HSR track (at least the lines I've ridden). As they keep building them, and other countries buy them, I wonder how they compare to the Acela II trains. Both seem to be made by Alstom. This tilting technology has been around for decades now. All that money for little gain?
Still driving that Model T? Although trying to own and operate one in today's world is an extreme luxury from a cost standpoint and torture from a 'on the road' standpoint.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Not sure if Joe is responding to John Privara's point about Pendolinos directly, or to the original issue about the Avelia Liberties, when he talks about 'all that money for little gain', but we can discuss what a Pendolino modified to satisfy American legal requirements might cost, and then take up again what the time savings due to maximum implementation of 'negative cant deficiency' on that particular design could be on the existing NEC.
I'd prefer to leave discussions of reliability on the older 'hydraulic' Pendolinos out of this, as any current design that could be made compliant here would use the 'newer' tilt mechanisms. It is possible that design for more restricted European conditions might allow some additional degree of tilt over what, for example, Acela was intended to provide ... but likely at the cost of usable interior space and capacity per foot of consist.
The car argument as presented is specious - might as well compare a Chrysler letter 300 to a Gallardo, technologically, in a world with a strict 70mph speed limit and mandatory reckless driving over 80. Can you use the extra performance you paid the $200,000 or more to get?
I'll grant you that if we built tollways or whatever with a 220mph limit, there's some perceivable benefit to the Lambo, but consider the cost and other implications. The situation is exactly the same for the degree of improvement necessary either for the existing NEC or any 'second spine'. I don't have figures on the specific dollar amount to increase clearances on the NEC to allow for full safe tilt implementation at all points it would be valuable -- but with that information we can easily calculate the time savings from proper tilt and decide if the effort is worthwhile as a 'national priority'.
Backshop Every American who owns a car owns one that is capable of well over any speed at which it will ever be driven. The most basic car will get you to the destination at the same speed and almost the same comfort as the luxury model but as long as the consumer is willing to pay for the frills, you offer it.
"Specious". Look that up in your Funk and Wagnalls.
243129 Backshop Every American who owns a car owns one that is capable of well over any speed at which it will ever be driven. The most basic car will get you to the destination at the same speed and almost the same comfort as the luxury model but as long as the consumer is willing to pay for the frills, you offer it. "Specious". Look that up in your Funk and Wagnalls.
1. All American cars will go well over any posted speed limit.
2.A barebones model will get you there at the same speed as the more luxurious model.
3. Companies offer more luxurious models because some consumers will pay for the upgrades.
Joe shows us he used a Thesaurus. But his poor educational base reveals itself again, like Trump's does every day.
The analogy to which you object was pretty decent, IMO. Not perfect, but close. So in your infinite wisdom, can you itemize the specific points where Backshop went astray as a favor to us ignorant louts?
Charlie, I was wondering about his increased vocabulary myself, until I saw that Overmod used the word in his reply above.
BackshopCharlie, I was wondering about his increased vocabulary myself, until I saw that Overmod used the word in his reply above.
My criticism of the analogy was addressed at the 'Model T' connotations, not at what backshop was saying (which I don't object to).
Joe's original point was (and basically still is) that Amtrak actually needed much less ultimate speed capability than the nominal Avelia Liberty provided, and the proper backshop analogy would reference the general speed capacity and not just that modern automobiles are capable of much higher speeds than their drivers require, let alone what roads either safely or legally permit.
This is significant, in my opinion, because the original analogy ran as follows:
whereas the actual argument is different. Every American certainly doesn't own a car that is capable of 220mph, and I suspect most drivers would complain if required to pay the added cost for their car to safely do so. That is part of the argument that Joe was making; another significant part of the argument, as established by backstop, is that conventional cars (at no more than nominal increased cost) can often reach 125mph with relative safety.
The 'specious' part is to equate the desire for the lower-cost (and I'm still working up numbers to establish the 'how much') option with a Model T, which even with Frontenac assistance is really 'going like sixty' at 60mph. A better analogy for 'antiques' would be older cars capable of 125 continuous mph -- bearing in mind that the 'step' between about 120mph and 125mph is as steep for many older automobiles as it proves for steam locomotives -- and I invite you to consider which of these carry the intended hopelessly-outdated cachet that was intended.
To be fair here, the 'revised' points are slightly different in emphasis:
1. All American cars will go well over any posted speed limit. 2.A barebones model will get you there at the same speed as the more luxurious model. 3. Companies offer more luxurious models because some consumers will pay for the upgrades.
TNote that this is completely different from the original argument. Point number 2 should not concern 'luxury' at this point, but speed: for example, specifying the old WS6 option for suspension, or ordering a Trackhawk, or for a more 'barebones' model perhaps harking back to the original Plymouth Roadrunner with its delete options and el cheapo horn. These can produce the 'corresponding' speed increase represented by a 220mph-capable train, at a cost the customer may or may not think represents a practical use of his available capital.
We've already established beyond reasonable shred of a doubt that the same 'luxury' could be provided for equivalent or lower cost in a 125-mph capable shell and consist configuration than in a lightweight and carefully engineered 220mph-capable one. Which is again inherent in backshop's analogy to cars, up to a very reasonable point: the fastest-accelerating car in America recently was a Porsche Panamera ... with rear seat heaters standard.
Backshop1. All American cars will go well over any posted speed limit.
BackshopA barebones model will get you there at the same speed as the more luxurious model.
Backshop3. Companies offer more luxurious models because some consumers will pay for the upgrades.
About MAX speed. Could it be that Amtrak would ultimately want to operate at these faster speeds during the life time of Acela-2s ? Probably if the rebuilding of Trenton - Newark is complete. That of course would need the easing of the 2 curves between TRE and NWK ?
charlie hebdoJoe shows us he used a Thesaurus. But his poor educational base reveals itself again, like Trump's does every day. The analogy to which you object was pretty decent, IMO. Not perfect, but close. So in your infinite wisdom, can you itemize the specific points where Backshop went astray as a favor to us ignorant louts?
Nope no Thesaurus I used overmod's descriptive portrayal of backshop's SPECIOUS reasoning.
Here is my "poor educational base": Elementary school, high school, graduating in 1961 and hiring to the NY.NH.&H.RR 1963 in engine service. So given my "poor educational base" where in this thread does it "reveal itself"?
As for you portraying yourself as an ignorant lout, I take no exception to that.
blue streak 1 About MAX speed. Could it be that Amtrak would ultimately want to operate at these faster speeds during the life time of Acela-2s ? Probably if the rebuilding of Trenton - Newark is complete. That of course would need the easing of the 2 curves between TRE and NWK ?
Would the vast outlay of taxpayer dollars for this project for minimal gain in running time be worth it?
blue streak 1About MAX speed. Could it be that Amtrak would ultimately want to operate at these faster speeds during the life time of Acela-2s ? Probably if the rebuilding of Trenton - Newark is complete. That of course would need the easing of the 2 curves between TRE and NWK ?
Bearing in mind that I wholeheartedly support the purchase of these trains since the Government has chosen to buy them, for reasons other than the idea they'll provide time savings at all proportional to their marginal cost for added speed --
Take this simple quiz:
1) What is the anticipated service life of an Avelia Liberty trainset?
2) What is the cost, and more important the full project time including EIS and 'consultant' delays, in making the necessary changes completely within that service life?
3) What is the actual saving in time (and corresponding schedule timing) from each increment of the improvement as it becomes effective? (Customers only care about peak speed if they're tech lovers like me; what they care about is being on time in minimum time for a fair price -- the luxury amenities can be the same regardless of speed, unless someone wants to argue the onboard sandwiches being 10 minutes fresher when served is meaningful...)
The issue with the NECIP all along has been that many billions are required to reduce the timesignificantly even at 125mph peak speed... because there is a #4, which applies here as much if not more as to the original Acelas: what percentage of a given trip time is covered at a speed above 125mph, and adding up the cumulative mileage run at higher speed, what is the marginal gain for 220 over 125mph capability?
243129Nope no Thesaurus I used overmod's descriptive portrayal of backshop's SPECIOUS reasoning.
Joe, you need to stop shooting at people who support you. All the points he make explicitly (another fun GMAT vocabulary word!) support your original argument, as well as some of the things you've said since. I'm too lazy to go back to the original letter again ... but did you not clearly establish there that the 'luxury' of any branded Acela service could be as easily achieved with slower-peak-speed equipment -- in fact, with loose-car equipment? That's backshop's third point. Has he not established that paying extra for 'more speed' than the road requires is a waste if cheaper equipment does the job as well as needed for less money? Does to me. Do I hear him saying the answer for automobiles is more and more radically expanded road capability really soon so more of that 'vanity cushion' speed could be utilized before modern cars start to wear out? I don't think so.
But luxury as something we could want to pay extra for? I thoroughly agree. And so should you... oh wait, I see you do.
Joe is living in the distant past, those golden years. He got old and was forced to retire. He seems to have problems with unit trains of all types for some reason, even though they are widely and successfully used all over for many years. The public prefers them. But Joe feels a compulsory need to attack any and all who see things differently. Thankfully not all of us seniors act like the old man shouting at kids to get off the lawn as Joe does on here with his two, perseverative (not just repetitive) themes : 1. poor vetting, training and supervision as universal remedies; 2. Acela, Avelia Liberty ET Al. are bad.
charlie hebdo ... perseverative ...
My Lord, that's wicked!
Let's see who else gets it.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.