Bicycle on Amtrak?

[Carl Sundquist]

"JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 8, 7:03 pm, "Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > On Sep 8, 5:15 pm, "Sir Thomas of Cannondale" <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >> West Coast ...
>>
>> >> On the West Coast the world is different.
>>
>> >> But ,, remember.. Someone in Ohio, or Penn or Iowa who never would
>> >> ever
>> >> use
>> >> a train is paying for that F'n Amtrak ride ..
>>
>> > Yeah, then those fools need to get the hell out of their cages and
>> > ride the train once in a while.
>>
>> In those fools defense, they get stuck with some pretty lousy schedules
>> for
>> the train service that is offered.
>
>
> So, if those fools decide to head somewhere for the weekend, they
> can't hop a train instead of jumping in their car? Two of the best
> long distance rides I have done on the road bike this tear were to a
> destination and then return on the train. Excuses are like assholes,
> everyone has one and the midwest houses some rather large ones.
>

Let me give you a dose of reality.

The closest train service to me is in Little Rock, Arkansas. They have one
departure scheduled (emphasis on scheduled, not reality) at 11:34 PM going
north to St Louis & Chicago and a departure south to Dallas & San Antonio
scheduled at 3:10 AM. That is the only passenger service going through the
state. According to the schedule it is a daily service, but when I took it
to Chicago earlier this summer, it was only 3x/week. Due to the ownership of
the rails by the freight companies, Amtrak trains are very rarely on time,
frequently 2-4 hours late. As a means of business travel in this part of the
country this is essentially impractical, leaving ridership to passengers
with more flexible schedules.

I have to drive 150 miles just to get to the Little Rock station. Tulsa, OK
is somewhat closer, but offers only bus service, no train service. I could
ride my bike to the station, but under the time limitations for the trip my
11 year old daughter obviously could not (actually, under the time
limitations of leaving work at 5 and being at the train station by 11, I
couldn't have made it either).

As I said, I rode the train this summer (also commuter rail around the
Boston area) and won't hesitate to use it again, but to do so requires much
more planning than jumping in the car.

Look at Amtrak's route atlas
http://tickets.amtrak.com/secure/content/atlas/index.html. Laughingly
threadbare, especially if you omit the green bus service lines. If you live
in the upper plains states, what are you supposedto do? Move just to ride
the train? If you have the power to increase the passenger train line
network and frequency, I'll take a train trip out to the west coast to shake
your hand. In the meantime, don't be an ass and castigate people who live in
less dense areas for their lack of ridership.

 

[Sir Thomas of Cannondale]

My point: there is no train in most of the USA.

Amtrak is a government creation, therefore it does not care to make money.

If trains could be used more like buses [ obviously because of tracks etc,
not quite the same ] then more people would
take the train.

When I was a kid, there was train service from the city I grew up in to
Boston. In the late 60's, early 70's, the train stopped running.

There isn't even commuter rail now.

Amtrak is very expensive... the average person isn't going to pay the same
or more for a train ticket than an airplane ticket.

I just took a look at Amtrak's rail map. There isn't even a train from
Boston to Montreal.

What this means for the average American is this; no train.

If the service can't be available to more, then it should be abandoned. The
long distance trains are nothing but tourist trains, and very expensive.

Just for fun, I did an Amtrak schedule/fare search; Boston to Chicago.

The fare? $80 dollars one way.
The time to get there? 18 hours!

First the train goes to Washington, DC.. then on the Chicago.

And you wonder why people aren't riding the train?




"JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 8, 5:15 pm, "Sir Thomas of Cannondale" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> West Coast ...
>>
>> On the West Coast the world is different.
>>
>> But ,, remember.. Someone in Ohio, or Penn or Iowa who never would ever
>> use
>> a train is paying for that F'n Amtrak ride ..
>
>
> Yeah, then those fools need to get the hell out of their cages and
> ride the train once in a while.
>
> JD
>

 

[Sir Thomas of Cannondale]

OKkk,,, if it is so great, and all..

Why doesn't the train service become a private business just like Southwest
Airlines,etc.

The only one full of **** is you.

Any half wit can see that Amtrak is a government waste of mony.

Does the government run the bus lines? Such as Greyhound?

Taxi service?

Whenever the government is involved we can be sure it will be a big waste of
money.

I'd like to see the Walmart Express.

=======================
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 8, 7:15 pm, "Sir Thomas of Cannondale" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> West Coast ...
>>
>> On the West Coast the world is different.
>>
>> But ,, remember.. Someone in Ohio, or Penn or Iowa who never would ever
>> use
>> a train is paying for that F'n Amtrak ride ..
>
>
> That's a load of ****. In the first place, contrary to widespread
> ignorant belief, _generally_ speaking it is the coasts' federal tax
> dollars that subsidize the middle. Second, "Penn" benefits from trains
> a lot. It is in the NW Corridor.Third, the NW corridor from DC to
> Boston is the closest thing there is in the US to self funding
> passenger rail (outside of maybe the autotrain from VA to FL).
> Finally, most US citizens do not want their train service eliminated
> (although you could probably talk them into eliminating someone
> else's), and I'm guessing that probably includes even Iowa, whose
> train service is more costly to subsidize than the NW Corridor.
>

 

[RBrickston]

In article <VCTEi.1832$Ic3.757@trndny09>, [email protected] says...
> My point: there is no train in most of the USA.
>
> Amtrak is a government creation, therefore it does not care to make money.
>
> If trains could be used more like buses [ obviously because of tracks etc,
> not quite the same ] then more people would
> take the train.
>
> When I was a kid, there was train service from the city I grew up in to
> Boston. In the late 60's, early 70's, the train stopped running.
>
> There isn't even commuter rail now.
>
> Amtrak is very expensive... the average person isn't going to pay the same
> or more for a train ticket than an airplane ticket.
>
> I just took a look at Amtrak's rail map. There isn't even a train from
> Boston to Montreal.


Sure there is. You have to go to Albany and then Montreal.



> What this means for the average American is this; no train.
>
> If the service can't be available to more, then it should be abandoned. The
> long distance trains are nothing but tourist trains, and very expensive.
>
> Just for fun, I did an Amtrak schedule/fare search; Boston to Chicago.
>
> The fare? $80 dollars one way.
> The time to get there? 18 hours!
>
> First the train goes to Washington, DC.. then on the Chicago.
>
> And you wonder why people aren't riding the train?
>
>
>
>
> "JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Sep 8, 5:15 pm, "Sir Thomas of Cannondale" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> West Coast ...
> >>
> >> On the West Coast the world is different.
> >>
> >> But ,, remember.. Someone in Ohio, or Penn or Iowa who never would ever
> >> use
> >> a train is paying for that F'n Amtrak ride ..
> >
> >
> > Yeah, then those fools need to get the hell out of their cages and
> > ride the train once in a while.
> >
> > JD
> >
>
>
>

 

[Robert Broughton]

[email protected] wrote:

> On Sep 8, 7:15 pm, "Sir Thomas of Cannondale" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> West Coast ...
>>
>> On the West Coast the world is different.
>>
>> But ,, remember.. Someone in Ohio, or Penn or Iowa who never would ever
>> use a train is paying for that F'n Amtrak ride ..
>
>
> That's a load of ****. In the first place, contrary to widespread
> ignorant belief, _generally_ speaking it is the coasts' federal tax
> dollars that subsidize the middle.

And furthermore... Amtrak's biggest expenses are employess and diesel fuel.
A major chunk of the money paid to employees goes back to the government as
income taxes. When Amtrak buys diesel fuel, the taxes on it also goes back
to the government. Factor these two things in, and Amtrak doesn't really
get any subsidy at all.

This won't stop the Repugnikans from claiming otherwise, unfortunately.

--
Bob Broughton
http://broughton.ca/
Vancouver, BC, Canada
"There is no rational, moral or economic argument for the continuation
of the manufacture, sale or use of smoking tobacco."
- Robert Starkey, http://smokefreerevolution.org/, 03/18/2007

 

[R. S. Y. Buchanan]

In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sep 8, 12:06 pm, [email protected] (R. S. Y. Buchanan) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Scott Gordo <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm planning a trip from NYC up to Boston next week, and by taking the
>> >train I'm hoping to bring a bike along as a freebie.
>>
>> Unless you're taking the Lakeshore Ltd. or the Vermonter to Albany, and
>> then transfer to the 448 east to Boston, you are probably SOL. There is
>> no baggage service on the Acela Express or Regional service. You can
>> bring a folding bike aboard (and some conductors are sticklers for them
>> being in a bag of some sort), but full-sized bikes are a no-go in my
>> experience.
>
>Train #66 (I can;t remember its name but it used to have one) has a
>baggage car. That was a good way to get to Boston from DC at one time,
>with sleeping cars- go to bed and wake up in Boston. Now the sleeping
>cars have been removed because of equipment shortages.

#66 was a Regional/Northeast Corridor run that, IIRC, took the
inland route via Springfield, MA, rather than the coastal route via
New Haven, CT. IIRC, it was the *only* run of the Regional that
carried any baggage, so you could check baggage for other trains and
they'd schlepp it along on the last run of the night, and you could
pick it up at South Station, or maybe have it forwarded to your hotel
or home. I think #67 was the south-bound counterpart, but don't hold
me to that.

Since the advent of the Acela, I think they've done away with all
checked baggage service along the route. I take the Regional and the
Acela a few times a year, and all the baggage now just gets stuffed
in the overhead racks or on seats (because it's way more important
that a f'ing steamer trunk get to sit than that I should).


--
--
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is
total. I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the
diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution."
-- Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (Texas)

 

[[email protected]]

I agree. Try taking the train in Germany. Totally different
experience--they are on time and they actually travel at a reasonable
pace. Bicycles are almost always loaded without any need for
packaging or disassembly, although for longer trips you have to buy a
special ticket. If it is a short haul, you just carry it into one of
the luggage compartments yourself. If it is a long distance train,
you bring it to the baggage car and one of the porters will lift it in
for you.

On Sep 6, 3:55 pm, "Sir Thomas of Cannondale" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Amtrak ,, and bicycles.
>
> This is a subject that has been written about on and off for years.
>
> First; Amtrak sucks. It is a government creation run by hacks, for hacks,
> with no regard to the masses.
>
> The short distance trains are really just commuter rail. The long distance
> trains are "tourist" trips.
>
> It is one more reason to drive yourself nuts. The USA,, one totally F'kd up
> country.
>
> A passenger train system that doesn't carry bicycles that aren't in boxes?
> Duh?
>
> In many cities the public buses have bicycle hangers on the front of the
> bus. You put your bicycle on the rack, load on the bus and go.
>
> Yet; Amtrak .. a rail line which is paid for by the US taxpayers can't
> figure out how to carry a freaking bicycle?
>
> The USA sucks.. sorry about my feelings and I do live here but it still
> sucks.
>
> ======================================================================"bdbafh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Sep 5, 12:35 pm, Scott Gordo <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I'm planning a trip from NYC up to Boston next week, and by taking the
> >> train I'm hoping to bring a bike along as a freebie.
>
> >> Most of the info I've found about bikes on board says it's free, but
> >> it sounds like the bike has been boxed for shipping and then put on
> >> board as cargo. I don't mind boxing her up, but if I could avoid it I
> >> would. Especially if that means giving it to a baggage handler.
>
> >> For local NJ Suburban trains, I can bring a bike on board and secure
> >> it to certain areas without seats that are made for larger cargo. Roll
> >> it on, anchor it to a wall using a bungee, and it's good to go.
>
> >> Can I do that on Amtrak? Or do I need to box her up?
>
> >> TIA.
>
> >> Scott
>
> > Check out the LimoLiner.
>
> >http://www.limoliner.com
>
> > They have fewer trips per day, but plenty of storage and no surcharge
> > for bikes (last time I checked).
> > As someone that is not vertically challenged, I like the legroom on
> > either Amtrak or Limo Liner.
>
> > Ever try taking a bike on the NJTransit NE Corridor on a Friday after
> > off-peak have started? Plan on using a long time window, as conductors
> > will say "wait for the next train" if its the least bit crowded.
> > You're far better off to pick an end of the train (rear) further from
> > conductors so that you can already board before they start in on you.
>
> > Note: this is not LIVEDRUNK approved, as no alcohol is permitted
> > onboard the Limo Liner.
>
> > -bdbafh

 

[[email protected]]

On Sep 9, 4:41 pm, "Sir Thomas of Cannondale" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> My point: there is no train in most of the USA.
>
> Amtrak is a government creation, therefore it does not care to make money.
>
> If trains could be used more like buses [ obviously because of tracks etc,
> not quite the same ] then more people would
> take the train.
>
> When I was a kid, there was train service from the city I grew up in to
> Boston. In the late 60's, early 70's, the train stopped running.
>
> There isn't even commuter rail now.
>
> Amtrak is very expensive... the average person isn't going to pay the same
> or more for a train ticket than an airplane ticket.
>
There was circa 2005. It travelled through the Adirondacks. Very
beautiful, but it crept along at a snail's pace because of the poor
state of the track so it took almost twelve hours to get there!
Travelling Ottawa to Washington DC via public transit, and don't have
the money for travel by air? For maximum efficiency, take the train
to Montreal, the bus to New York and then the train to DC. Yup,
public transit in N. America is wonderful.

> I just took a look at Amtrak's rail map. There isn't even a train from
> Boston to Montreal.
>
> What this means for the average American is this; no train.
>
> If the service can't be available to more, then it should be abandoned. The
> long distance trains are nothing but tourist trains, and very expensive.
>
> Just for fun, I did an Amtrak schedule/fare search; Boston to Chicago.
>
> The fare? $80 dollars one way.
> The time to get there? 18 hours!
>
> First the train goes to Washington, DC.. then on the Chicago.
>
> And you wonder why people aren't riding the train?
>
> "JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Sep 8, 5:15 pm, "Sir Thomas of Cannondale" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> West Coast ...
>
> >> On the West Coast the world is different.
>
> >> But ,, remember.. Someone in Ohio, or Penn or Iowa who never would ever
> >> use
> >> a train is paying for that F'n Amtrak ride ..
>
> > Yeah, then those fools need to get the hell out of their cages and
> > ride the train once in a while.
>
> > JD

 

[RBrickston]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> I agree. Try taking the train in Germany. Totally different
> experience--they are on time and they actually travel at a reasonable
> pace. Bicycles are almost always loaded without any need for
> packaging or disassembly, although for longer trips you have to buy a
> special ticket. If it is a short haul, you just carry it into one of
> the luggage compartments yourself. If it is a long distance train,
> you bring it to the baggage car and one of the porters will lift it in
> for you.
>

Europe is a bad comparison, mainly because the population density allows a
larger user base as well as numerous stations. Also, the high gas price
culture has furthered the usage of public rails. Compare to the US and the
vast expanse of land area along with a long history of uber cheap fuel.

 

[Sir Thomas of Cannondale]

no matter what anyone writes, you will tell us Amtrak is the best thing
since sliced bread.

Amtrak sucks.. are ya hearing US.. it sucks.

The Congress almost put the thing out of business a year or two ago.
Hopefully, soon the piece of **** called Amtrak will be
dead.


==============
"RBrickston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> I agree. Try taking the train in Germany. Totally different
>> experience--they are on time and they actually travel at a reasonable
>> pace. Bicycles are almost always loaded without any need for
>> packaging or disassembly, although for longer trips you have to buy a
>> special ticket. If it is a short haul, you just carry it into one of
>> the luggage compartments yourself. If it is a long distance train,
>> you bring it to the baggage car and one of the porters will lift it in
>> for you.
>>
>
> Europe is a bad comparison, mainly because the population density allows a
> larger user base as well as numerous stations. Also, the high gas price
> culture has furthered the usage of public rails. Compare to the US and the
> vast expanse of land area along with a long history of uber cheap fuel.

 

[Chalo]

Sir Thomas of Cannondale wrote:
>
> Amtrak sucks.. are ya hearing US.. it sucks.
>
> The Congress almost put the thing out of business a year or two ago.
> Hopefully, soon the piece of **** called Amtrak will be
> dead.

I think Congress keeps Amtrak on life support as a favor to the
airlines. With Amtrak gone, the market would open up for a business
that actually worked well and met public expectations for cross-
country travel (which would be another huge nail in the coffin of most
airlines). Many folks would opt out of what air travel has become, if
only there were an alternative faster than driving or taking the
bus.

Chalo

 

[Chalo]

Sir Thomas of Cannondale wrote:
>
> Whenever the government is involved we can be sure it will be a big waste of
> money.
>
> I'd like to see the Walmart Express.

Is that the line that runs straight to the concentration camps?

Chalo

 

[Scott Gordo]

On Sep 5, 9:23 pm, RBrickston <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > I'm planning a trip from NYC up to Boston next week, and by taking the
> > train I'm hoping to bring a bike along as a freebie.
>
> > Most of the info I've found about bikes on board says it's free, but
> > it sounds like the bike has been boxed for shipping and then put on
> > board as cargo. I don't mind boxing her up, but if I could avoid it I
> > would. Especially if that means giving it to a baggage handler.
>
> > For local NJ Suburban trains, I can bring a bike on board and secure
> > it to certain areas without seats that are made for larger cargo. Roll
> > it on, anchor it to a wall using a bungee, and it's good to go.
>
> > Can I do that on Amtrak? Or do I need to box her up?
>
> > TIA.
>
> > Scott
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6aptj- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I finally called. They said no regular bikes on these trains. There's
one that runs at 3:45am tomo morning I could box it up and bring it
on, but no go on the 2172 from Penn Station to Back Bay, nor the 179
back. No bike racks, no checked baggage, no unboxed and bungeed. You
can, however, bring a folding bike. Too bad I don't have one anymore.

That stinks.

If I hadn't just sold off all my beaters, I would have tried it and,
if I failed, might have risked leaving it to the elements outside Penn
Station for a few days.

Time for a quick craigslist.com scan for folders....

/s

 

[[email protected]]

On Sep 10, 3:29 pm, RBrickston <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
> > I agree. Try taking the train in Germany. Totally different
> > experience--they are on time and they actually travel at a reasonable
> > pace. Bicycles are almost always loaded without any need for
> > packaging or disassembly, although for longer trips you have to buy a
> > special ticket. If it is a short haul, you just carry it into one of
> > the luggage compartments yourself. If it is a long distance train,
> > you bring it to the baggage car and one of the porters will lift it in
> > for you.
>
> Europe is a bad comparison, mainly because the population density allows a
> larger user base as well as numerous stations. Also, the high gas price
> culture has furthered the usage of public rails. Compare to the US and the
> vast expanse of land area along with a long history of uber cheap fuel.

Amtrak still sucks. Even Canada's Via Rail is better (although not by
much) I once took a train from Harper's ferry to Washington DC that
was over six hours late. I used to ride the commuter train along that
same line: it would sway over a foot, even at low speeds. Sure
enough, while I was living in DC an Amtrak train derailled on that
exact same stretch of track. I lived on the West Coast for a while.
For some reason I thought the trains might be better out there. Nope,
same old story: slow and unreliable.

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Sir Thomas of Cannondale wrote:
> >
> > Amtrak sucks.. are ya hearing US.. it sucks.
> >
> > The Congress almost put the thing out of business a year or two ago.
> > Hopefully, soon the piece of **** called Amtrak will be
> > dead.
>
> I think Congress keeps Amtrak on life support as a favor to the
> airlines. With Amtrak gone, the market would open up for a business
> that actually worked well and met public expectations for cross-
> country travel (which would be another huge nail in the coffin of most
> airlines). Many folks would opt out of what air travel has become, if
> only there were an alternative faster than driving or taking the
> bus.

Like the train? It's significantly better than a bus.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per RBrickston:
>Europe is a bad comparison, mainly because the population density allows a
>larger user base as well as numerous stations. Also, the high gas price
>culture has furthered the usage of public rails. Compare to the US and the
>vast expanse of land area along with a long history of uber cheap fuel.

Also, where my in-laws live about an hour from Frankfurt, last
time I visited they'd been shutting down local rail service
incrementally over the years until, as far as I could see, there
was none for their area.
--
PeteCresswell

 

[Chalo]

David Kerber wrote:
>
> [email protected] says...
> >
> > I think Congress keeps Amtrak on life support as a favor to the
> > airlines. With Amtrak gone, the market would open up for a business
> > that actually worked well and met public expectations for cross-
> > country travel (which would be another huge nail in the coffin of most
> > airlines). Many folks would opt out of what air travel has become, if
> > only there were an alternative faster than driving or taking the
> > bus.
>
> Like the train? It's significantly better than a bus.

That's what I meant. A functioning rail system would be preferable to
driving or riding the bus.

The bus goes to basically anywhere and leaves every day, sometimes
several times a day. Amtrak omits huge chunks of the country, leaves
my city something like twice a week, and costs more than flying coach
class and taking Greyhound combined. And it's slower than the bus for
the trips I've checked. The train probably works okay for shortish
trips in the northeastern USA, but for most of the country it's a
waste of time and money.

I'm sure cross-country rail could work; it works nicely in most of the
world. But Amtrak is broken. A broken, artificially supported rail
system is worse than no rail system, because it prevents a good one
from taking its place. I believe that Amtrak has been carefully and
intentionally handicapped so that people will not want to use it.

Chalo

 

[A Muzi]

>> [email protected] says...
>>> I think Congress keeps Amtrak on life support as a favor to the
>>> airlines. With Amtrak gone, the market would open up for a business
>>> that actually worked well and met public expectations for cross-
>>> country travel (which would be another huge nail in the coffin of most
>>> airlines). Many folks would opt out of what air travel has become, if
>>> only there were an alternative faster than driving or taking the
>>> bus.

> David Kerber wrote:
>> Like the train? It's significantly better than a bus.

Chalo wrote:
> That's what I meant. A functioning rail system would be preferable to
> driving or riding the bus.
>
> The bus goes to basically anywhere and leaves every day, sometimes
> several times a day. Amtrak omits huge chunks of the country, leaves
> my city something like twice a week, and costs more than flying coach
> class and taking Greyhound combined. And it's slower than the bus for
> the trips I've checked. The train probably works okay for shortish
> trips in the northeastern USA, but for most of the country it's a
> waste of time and money.
>
> I'm sure cross-country rail could work; it works nicely in most of the
> world. But Amtrak is broken. A broken, artificially supported rail
> system is worse than no rail system, because it prevents a good one
> from taking its place. I believe that Amtrak has been carefully and
> intentionally handicapped so that people will not want to use it.

Like the designed-to-fail Susan Anthony Dollar? Maybe. Amtrak,
inherently, just has way too many factions, or as they say nowadays
'stakeholders'. . . none of whom are customers or anyone motivated to
serve them profitably.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Papa Tom]

All expletive hurling and insult tossing aside, it would sure be awesome if
Amtrak offered better service for cyclists. Who wants to have to ship their
bike two days in advance of a trip and pick it up two days after returning?
That's four days of cycling sacrificed!

"(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Per RBrickston:
>>Europe is a bad comparison, mainly because the population density allows a
>>larger user base as well as numerous stations. Also, the high gas price
>>culture has furthered the usage of public rails. Compare to the US and the
>>vast expanse of land area along with a long history of uber cheap fuel.
>
> Also, where my in-laws live about an hour from Frankfurt, last
> time I visited they'd been shutting down local rail service
> incrementally over the years until, as far as I could see, there
> was none for their area.
> --
> PeteCresswell

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per A Muzi:
>Like the designed-to-fail Susan Anthony Dollar?

My take was that it's (and others') fatal flaw is similarity to
the twenty-five cent piece. A dollar coin needs tb
distinguishable from a quarter by feel.

Bring on the Dolly Parton Dollar.
--
PeteCresswell