From: stephen@sprunk.org   
      
   On 14-Nov-14 20:56, conklin wrote:   
   > "Peter Schleifer"  wrote:   
   >> "conklin"  wrote:   
   >>> "Stephen Sprunk"  wrote:   
   >>>> Trains have the option of adding more cars, which is both more   
   >>>> flexible and more cost-effective than replacing small planes   
   >>>> with big planes.   
   >>>   
   >>> I rather suspect that the slots cannot be increased in the   
   >>> Washington-DC corridor, or even to Boston.   
   >>   
   >> Which is not relevant to the option of adding more cars to   
   >> existing trains running in the same slots. -- Peter Schleifer   
   >> "Ignorance is easy and you get it for free"   
   >   
   > It is relevant to increasing the number of humans who can travel   
   > between Boston and NYC.  The increase in capacity is due to air   
   > carrier policy, not the lack of runways.  How many new cars can   
   > Amtrak put on the corridor to increase capacity?   
      
   Amtrak could increase their rolling stock 50%-75% if they had the funds.   
    If you allow investment in more/faster tracks too, they could double   
   that again without much difficulty--aside from funding.   
      
   It ain't chump change, but it's still a lot less per passenger than the   
   same amount of capacity by road or air.   
      
   S   
      
   --   
   Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein   
   CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the   
   K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)