Streetcar in war of the worlds

I was watching War of the worlds on powerdvd and saw this streetcar when the air raid sirens sounded is it a Pacific Electric PCC and are the tracks in the next picture a P. E. line? Why did GM and standard oil hate streetcars what was their @*$@%% problem? I wish I could jump in a martian war machine and turn the heat ray on those losers.

Supertrain is reborn in MSTS.

Attachments

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/406e23cc53bd1090.jpg

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/406e245654fa1f5d.jpg

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, pacmancreator, Apr-02-04, 10:10 PM, (1) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, imprezzed, Apr-03-04, 02:05 AM, (2) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, shoskins, Apr-03-04, 09:25 AM, (3) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, Swissie, Apr-03-04, 04:59 PM, (5) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, shoskins, Apr-03-04, 07:24 PM, (6) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, CGW409, Apr-03-04, 02:41 PM, (4) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, bradhig, Apr-03-04, 10:37 PM, (7) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, bradhig, Apr-03-04, 11:34 PM, (8) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, XRails, Apr-03-04, 11:50 PM, (9) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, CGW409, Apr-04-04, 01:26 PM, (11) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, chucksc, Apr-04-04, 02:40 PM, (12) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, pwillard, Apr-04-04, 04:19 PM, (13) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, chucksc, Apr-04-04, 06:17 PM, (16) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, pwillard, Apr-05-04, 11:07 AM, (33) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, NW_611, Apr-04-04, 04:45 PM, (14) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, XRails, Apr-04-04, 05:58 PM, (15) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, chucksc, Apr-04-04, 07:13 PM, (18) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, XRails, Apr-04-04, 07:45 PM, (19) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, CGW409, Apr-04-04, 08:20 PM, (21) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, chucksc, Apr-04-04, 11:40 PM, (23) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, bradhig, Apr-05-04, 00:01 AM, (25) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, chucksc, Apr-05-04, 00:41 AM, (26) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, XRails, Apr-05-04, 07:30 AM, (32) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, XRails, Apr-05-04, 07:15 AM, (31) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, CGW409, Apr-05-04, 06:55 PM, (37) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, CGW409, Apr-04-04, 07:52 PM, (20) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, NW_611, Apr-04-04, 11:45 PM, (24) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, chucksc, Apr-05-04, 00:51 AM, (27) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, NW_611, Apr-05-04, 01:20 AM, (28) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, chucksc, Apr-05-04, 02:34 AM, (29) Just for those interested and asking.., Boweavel, Apr-05-04, 04:23 AM, (30) RE: Just for those interested and asking.., chucksc, Apr-05-04, 02:11 PM, (36) RE: Just for those interested and asking.., CGW409, Apr-05-04, 07:06 PM, (38) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, Swissie, Apr-04-04, 03:00 AM, (10) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, bradhig, Apr-04-04, 06:43 PM, (17) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, CARex, Apr-04-04, 11:31 PM, (22) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, pwillard, Apr-05-04, 11:16 AM, (34) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, goonybird, Apr-05-04, 11:53 AM, (35) RE: streetcar in war of the worlds, shoskins, Apr-05-04, 07:41 PM, (39)

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Ummmmmmm big oil tycoons traditionally don't like mass transit because all the carpooling makes them lose money and potential sales for their gas. If you ran a big oil company, would you be thrilled at all the money you'd be losing by people not using as much oil as they potentially could be using?And stay away from those machines.--The FBL Commuter Edition!!!!!!---You can never have too much inner beauty. Or socks.
-Matt, 3:25am-Why are we here, and what is our purpose? That, my friends, is the everlasting eternal question. That, and, where's the Honeycomb Hideout?-Creating Pac-Man comics for the humorless people out there

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

That Movie is da bomb! I remember watching it years ago...

Mile 0.0 CN Bedford Sub
Location:
44 29.6 N
063 30.3 W
Reminiscing VIA LRC's in their Glory Days.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>I was watching War of the worlds on powerdvd and saw this
>streetcar when the air raid sirens sounded is it a Pacific
>Electric PCC and are the tracks in the next picture a P. E.
>line? That is NOT a Pacific Electric PCC.That "Fruit Salad" color scheme identifies it as a Los Angeles Transit Lines PCC. PR cars were red/orange/silver.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Hi Shoskins,> That "Fruit Salad" color scheme identifies it as a Los Angeles Transit Lines PCC. PR cars were red/orange/silver. ...and PE cars would have to be double ended anyways, wouldn't they? And I don't see the second pole on that PCC. But on the other hand, LARy was narrow gauge, and that are clearly standard gauge tracks in those pictures! Or could it be San Francisco's F-Street PCC #1052 which is in LARy colors? Hmm, actually I thought that one also had two poles. Questions over questions...Well, the car is a movie prop anyways, and thus 90% accuracy must be enough . Lukas a.k.a Swissie

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>Hi Shoskins,
>
>> That "Fruit Salad" color scheme identifies it as a Los Angeles Transit Lines PCC. PR cars were red/orange/silver.
>
>...and PE cars would have to be double ended anyways,
>wouldn't they? And I don't see the second pole on that PCC.
>But on the other hand, LARy was narrow gauge, and that are
>clearly standard gauge tracks in those pictures!Yes, you're correct on both the car details and track gauge.
>Or could it be San Francisco's F-Street PCC #1052 which is
>in LARy colors? Hmm, actually I thought that one also had
>two poles. Questions over questions... Actually, the SF Muni car isn't in the "Fruit Salad" scheme, but rather in the earlier yellow/orange scheme. And yes, it would have two poles (front one for backup moves) at San Francisco Muni too!!>Well, the car is a movie prop anyways, and thus 90% accuracy
>must be enough . It may have actually been a real car filmed downtown LA -- that DOES look like the intersection of Broadyway and 7th Streets, which was a crossing of two streecar track sets.
And the second photo with all the trash lookslike downtown Los Angeles does today....it's one huge garbage pit.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Didn't realize WOTW was out on DVD,guess I'm going to have to snag that one when I go grab my copy of The Final Countdown(finally, YES!!) this weekend.Gary S

42 year old future curmudgen(Hey you kids get offa my lawn!!)

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Stupid oil and car companies don't care about traffic jams that could have been avoided by leaving streetcars in place. So many European countries still have'em. LA in WOW before martian attack looked like a paradise and those greedys sobs ruined it not the martians.

Supertrain is reborn in MSTS.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Here's another screengrab. I think thats a trolley bus on the left side of the screen? If it is then why are there tracks in the street?

Supertrain is reborn in MSTS.

Attachments

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/406f90412d7e887c.jpg

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Look, tycoons care only about money, so why in the heck would they support a system that causes less of their product to be sold? I agree that it is in everyones' best interest to start saving fuel (and switching to alt. fuels) now so that we'll avoid a crisis later, but right now oil means $$$ for business. Money is all a buisness like that cares about, not the greater interests of society. Without prodding by the government (unlikely given the background of our Fearless Leader), nothing will happen soon. Personally, I think a large capitol investment in Amtrak (expand the network, lower ticket prices) would be a huge step, as would be encouraging the freight RRs. The difference between Europe and America is that over here everyone loves their cars too much to give them up. Starting in the '50s, we abandoned the train in favor of the car and highways. Here's a stat for you: if we shifted %15 of trucked freight to railroads, we'd save 200,000,000 gallons of fuel oil a year. Plenty more where that came from.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Xrails
Another thing to consider is at the time Americans wanted to live in the burbs out away from the city meaning no access to public transit, while on the subject on public transit there is a reason why it needs tax payer support to remain a going concern.
You might want to talk to Railbarron(he's been off the board for a while due to real life getting in the way of MSTS)about the "joy" of being bound to the mercy of public transit, he lost his job in early December 00(someone lost their job while Billy boy was the prez,shocking)a month or so later his car died,with his unemployment benefits denied(forgot to mention that his company claimed it was a layoff to him but then claimed termination with cause to the state so he was denied bennies late Dec/early Jan 01 thank you George Ryan) meaning he was dependent on the bus for his job search,he had to pass on several promising prospects because the bus schedual didn't sync up
with the work hours and was unemployed til the wife and I were able to buy a decent 350 dollar beater(BTW we also provided him with groceries and such to keep his head above water),within a month of having his own wheels under him he was back to work.I agree that it is in everyones' best interest to start saving fuel (and switching to alt. fuels) now so that we'll avoid a crisis later,
Yeah let's go with that Kerry/European $5/$6 bucks a gallon to encourage conservation that'll really kick the economy into high gear,alternative fuels are still at this point experimental,in short supply or the technology is prohibitvly expensive(I for one would never pay high performance sports car prices for a pregnant roller skate)and while on this subject there is no oil shortage, prices are spiking because (1) we are switching once again to the Clinton administration's EPA mandated 36 flavor summer blend gasoline and folks regardless of what the media tells you $1.75 a gallon is not a record high(got to paint W to blame don't you know)but in Chicago in the spring/summer of 00 we were paying $2.50 a gallon,they have not hit those ranges since W ordered the EPA to allow mixing summer /winter blend gas.
(2)OPEC has decided to cut production, geeze maybe if the eco loons would let us drill for more of our own we could tell OPEC to go pound sand.
(3) Chavez the embattled "leader"(and wholely owned subsidiary of Fidel Castro )of Venezuala decided to nationalize the oil industry down there,when the oil workers decided they didn't want to be slaves toiling for "greater good" of the peoples goverment they told Chavez to stick it where the sun don't shine and quit,needless to say Venezualian oil production went into the toilet causing some price fluctuations last year and this year a sizable chunk of the oil from that country is being diverted through Cuba so Castro can use the money to keep the "workers paradise" from following other communist dictatorships down the ol peoples collectiveist crapper.Money is all a buisness like that cares about, not the greater interests of society. Money is what the share holders care about (such as my 401K) any CEO who would cut the knees out from under his own company to be "socialy responsible" is going to find himself shown the door most likely with out the golden parachute by the stockholders.Without prodding by the government (unlikely given the background of our Fearless Leader)There are a couple of names for goverment prodding of the sort you're asking for,First is Communist/Socialist the former being a more virulant version of the latter,this is the goverment owns and runs all commerce and we can see how well that's working for Venezuala.
Second is Fascist, I know a lot on the left like to throw that word around a lot in regard to those on the right in general W in particular but Fascisim is basicaly the same as Communisim just in order to save maintanece and material costs the industry remains in private hands(usually those connected to those in power)but every single aspect of how business is run comes from govermentGary S

42 year old future curmudgen(Hey you kids get offa my lawn!!)

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

What Gary said! You said it all brother!This we are the world $hit annoys the heck out of me.That only works in Communist/Socialist countries and while participating in outcome based education! Real life has proven that time after time.The Europeans have mass transit because (Pick one) 1. they were devastated by WW2 and no one could afford anything in the immediate aftermath. 2. When they finally got their economic heads above water in the 50s they discovered that since they had no oil (North Sea came much later) they had to import it at great expense hence driving the price up... You didn't really think they drove VWs, Yugos and Fiats by choice did you?????? No matter what they say now... FWIW The elite over there drove vehicles that made 50s era Cadillacs look positively eco-friendly.... 3. Their socialist leaning governments (by our standards) taxed the living $hit out of personal transportation to support massive public transport bureaucracies...None of the above have occured here in the states, yet!!!!Chuck Schneider
Chief Cook, Bottle Washer and (Virtual) CEO

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

None of the above have occured here in the states... WHY?How about an example.People seem to forget that Germany... is literally the same size as NEW YORK STATE?If all you had to worry about was creating a MASS TRANSIT SYSTEM in NEW YORK STATE versus a NATIONAL system in the US that went to centers of commerce in ALL 50 states, which one might be "do-able"?BTW: Chuck. How many years have you lived in ANY country in EUROPE?Pete Willard


http://www.trainsimstuff.com

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Apr-04-04 AT 07:18 PM (EDT)

One of the contributing reasons as to why we don't have effective mass transportation over here Pete is that during the 40s and 50s and maybe even into the 60s a collusion of Air, Oil, Road and Auto Maker interests conspired (and yes several of them were even convicted in court of this - so I guess that makes it something more than an Urban Legend) to buy out and dismantle mass transportation around the country and especially in the California area. Since then those political lobbies which have benefited most from the Highway Fund and the various Air Transport support projects have contributed heavily to politicians to retain control of the agenda...Good Point on the relative sizes of things Pete...
I sometimes forget to make that point (I just assume everyone over here is educated enough to know the relative sizes of things....BTW, I always Equated Germany to Pennsylvania in size.>>BTW: Chuck. How many years have you lived in ANY country in
>EUROPE? 2 years in the UK (Metro London area) in the early 80s on a NATO staff....Visited Spain and France and the Low Countries....How about You Pete?????
Chuck Schneider
Chief Cook, Bottle Washer and (Virtual) CEO

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

8 years. 2 In britain, 3 in Italy and 3 in Germany. (All on the ECONOMY, not in some military NATO installtion where it's like little America)Contrary to popular believe... Public transportation (Both Tram and Rail) doesn't go everywere in Europe, but due to a smaller size in general, they do generally go to useful places without going to "New York City via Omaha" as it is here on the US.It's also not feasable to fly everywhere in Europe the way it is here in the US. When it's only a 6 hour trip or less, it's easier to take a car or train... and it takes about the same amnount of time if you include the trip to the airport... checking in, waiting around and flight time.
I'm not completely sure about the small car due to fuel economy thing. Many cities and towns in the European contryside have small roads and underpasses. With many places being over 500 years old, there are cart paths turned to roads that just can't handle the likes of a 60's Buick liuxury car without destroying historical buildings and pathways.My oibservation shows me that the europeans seem to frown on tearing down *really* old stuff to put new stuff in unless it's an extreme case.
Europeans have also always understood the Small Car-Big Engine thing better than us Americans. We now seem to have caught on since america's new love if hot rods shows it is not the OLD's 442 or LTD that is the most coveted rod... it's the Honda's and other rice burners that have taken over.For example: The Mini-Cooper was so desireable... they brought it back for US AMERICANS. Are we talking economy or desire here?
Pete Willard


http://www.trainsimstuff.com

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Apr-04-04 AT 04:51 PM (EDT)

Something else that gets brought up every so often is that the Europeans are stuck with infrastructure choices made three or four hundred years ago in a number of places, whereas our significant infrastructure dates back only into the mid-19th century. I don't know if that's the whole of the matter, but it certainly would help explain why they didn't just expand their road networks. (Besides, a certain wee border dispute from 1939-1945 had, shall we say, deferred maintenance on many things.)ADDENDA: And another thing: The nations of Europe in 1946 etc. weren't exactly in the financial shape to be building massive new automobile transportation networks. The only folks around the continent with any money were the government agencies with loans from America, and the Marshall Plan wasn't about buying cars for each and every citizen. Have the cities of Western Europe ever undergone a suburban emigration such as occurred in the United States after WWII?

____________________________________________________________________
Norfolk & Western’s Radford Division, Pulaski District: Who needs the Marias Pass?

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I agree with a lot of what you said, but be careful about calling every kind of government intervention some sort of marxism. Positive incentives and government control are not the same thing. Providing funds to businesses to come up with this kind of stuff and then sell it at an affordable price is a healthy way to advance technology. You'd probably still be sitting in front of a 486 right now if it weren't for the government-funded Apollo program and other trickle-down technology from private contractors. I am not so much against new oil drilling (ANWR, ect.) for environmental issues as I am against it for the fact that it would only be a crutch, putting off action until it is too late to prepare for an oil crisis. Biodiesel, hybrids, and fuel cells (from non-petrolium generation sources) are all areas that can be opened up now to drastically reduce fuel costs instead of drilling. The sooner the better I say.Remember also that not all environmentalists belong to Greenpeace. These are some very smart people, and certainly not tree-hugging hippies. It troubles me that every time someone says "global warming" he is instantly branded a whacko hippie. If it's not real, explain to me why rising CO2 levels since the 1850s corresponds exactly to increasing world temperatures? In fact, the Pentagon recently leaked a memo that stated the military sees global warming as a potentially greater threat to national security than terrorism. The rest of the world thinks it's a problem, or they wouldn't be so pissed at us (the #1 polluter on the planet, #2 per capita) for not signing off on Kyoto.But maybe it's just that I'm your typical young liberal, though I would never be one to do any of that activist "hippie" crap. People who actually have brains back up their words with research in a scholarly way. I also go conservative on many issues, so I keep an open, unaffiliated mind. I heard a good theory: when you're young, you're a liberal because you want to make money, when you're older you become a conservative because you want to keep your money.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Apr-04-04 AT 07:34 PM (EDT)

>I agree with a lot of what you said, but be careful about
>calling every kind of government intervention some sort of
>Marxism. Didn't say that...
Merely referred to them as socialists...
Are they not Socialists??? At least by the generally accepted American definition which is usually taken as Social Welfare written large with an overlay of direct government intervention in the economy and taxes that some would describe as confiscatory!
I however did observe that a large swath of Europe as communist run until recently and they did CLAIM to be socialists and spouted some of the same theorys.FWIW the Communists were no more Socialists than the Nazis, who actually had the word socialist in their name. Talk about untruth in advertising >Remember also that not all environmentalists belong to
>Greenpeace. These are some very smart people, and certainly
>not tree-hugging hippies. It troubles me that every time
>someone says "global warming" he is instantly branded a
>wacko hippie. Probably because of the company they keep.
Unfortunately the "Green" movement appears to have been co opted by the radicals...
IMO This tends to drown out any reasonable discussion.Also the concept of global warming as caused by mankind is hotly debated in legitimate scientific circles and to my mind there is enough legitimate (as opposed to the shills for both groups.) diversity that I don't take it as a given myself. Even though I'll listen to what both sides say.
Global warming is real! But may be part of a larger natural phenomena as I note below.>If it's not real, explain to me why rising
>CO2 levels since the 1850s corresponds exactly to increasing
>world temperatures? Well 1st off we've only been able to measure it since then and 150 years is statistically and scientifically insignificant in the history of man let alone the world.
Are you aware that reputable climatologists now believe that the climate of the earth goes through a regular warming and cooling cycles based on perturbations in the our orbit around the sun and wobble around our spin axis, These cycles last some 10s of thousands of years and that mini-ice ages and warm ups are on about a 6k cycle IIRC???? The evidence for this is located in ice layers in the Arctic and Antarctic Glaciers and in the fossil sedimentary records. And variations in the Earth's magnetic flux as recorded in deep iron and nickle deposits.>In fact, the Pentagon recently leaked a
>memo that stated the military sees global warming as a
>potentially greater threat to national security than
>terrorism. Well actually that is NOT a fact.
There is NO such FINDING and there was No such LEAK! At least not reported in the mainstream news and as anti Bush as they are they would be on it like a big dog!
In fact I would typify the official position (and what I have heard anecdotally in my travels around DC) of the government as something like "the jury is still out - not enough scientifically reliable data"! And that position dates to studies done during the Clinton presidency and back through Jimmy Carter's day. Do you think if there was any chance in hell of proving it that Billary and Al Bore would have dropped the issue???? >The rest of the world thinks it's a problem, or
>they wouldn't be so pissed at us (the #1 polluter on the
>planet, #2 per capita) for not signing off on Kyoto.
>Well actually IMHO they are pissed at us because we refused to cripple our economy so they could benefit! I believe the position of the US Senate when they refused to ratify the treaty was something like "We'll ratify it when the same standards applied to us are applied to China, India, Africa and Brazil"!
For instance it is a generally accepted scientific fact that slash and burn agriculture in Brazil produces and order of magnitude more CO2 than all the autos in North America!
The consensus among the majority of US citizens (validated by various polls and elections where it became the critical issue outside of Oregon and California) is that Kyoto was just income redistribution by a Elite World Oligarchy that we do not recognize. As for our being #1 or #2 in pollution I don't believe it...
Not in my personal experience!
IMO More Junk Science by hysterical tree huggers - you know the ones that give those of you who are serious about the environment a bad name. I suggest you travel to Tokyo or Beijing or Bhopal or several other neat places that you have to wear an oxygen mask at times or at least some filtration system to survive....
When they fix all that then I'll listen to their complaints about us...
The arguments that the 3rd world countries can't afford to clean up pollution are not valid in an argument about the environment!
If we ALL don't do it then we may as well not try.
They can and do undo everything positive we try for a year in about a month IIRC.
Now if you are talking about redistributing the world's wealth then that is different.... And should not be a valid part of a discussion on the environment!>But maybe it's just that I'm your typical young liberal,
>though I would never be one to do any of that activist
>"hippie" crap. People who actually have brains back up their
>words with research in a scholarly way.OK so what about Greenpeace as currently constituted????
I keep reading their papers looking for the scholarly research you refer to.
I'm not a scientist but I recognize spin and statistical doctoring when I see it...
(I've spent most of my adult life working for and around the government )
I personally think there is more than a modicum of intellectual dishonesty on both sides of this issue...> I also go
>conservative on many issues, so I keep an open, unaffiliated
>mind. I heard a good theory: when you're young, you're a
>liberal because you want to make money, when you're older
>you become a conservative because you want to keep your
>money. Keep your idealism! Just bear in mind that over half of your teachers are probably extremely liberal even radical in their world view (why does academia seem to attract a disproportionate number of folks like that? One of life's greatest mysteries... ) You should strive to view both sides of an argument like this and form your own views independently. Note; the radicals (of both sides) tend to label dissenters as "mindless puppets" and those that agree with them as "Independent thinkers"... The elite of whatever ilk are always uncomfortable around people who think for themselves.
Chuck SchneiderP.S. Us old guys are not conservative to keep our money (Most of it was confiscated already by an unholy combination of Corporate Thieves and Confiscatory Taxes mismanaged by the self described elite... Ever wonder why Congress does not pay social security or subject themselves to the fair labor standards?????)P.P.S. A liberal is a conservative who hasn't been burglarized yet and a conservative is a liberal who hasn't been laid off yet!

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Apr-04-04 AT 07:51 PM (EDT)

The marxism comment was more in response to Gary's last paragraph than to your response, but good points. I'll shut up before going into it any further. I personally think that debates are kinda pointless because both sides are so firmly entrenched into their beliefs and pretty immovable. You did nothing to change my opinions. Did I say anything that changed yours? Besides, it's generally not a good idea to argue with someone about four times your age. Unlike some people around here I feel my elders should be given some respect.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Xrails
However these little debates are enjoyable and prove that we can disagree without resorting to name calling flame wars.
Good grief though respecting your elders,kid now ya done gone and made me feel old Gary S

42 year old future curmudgen(Hey you kids get offa my lawn!!)

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>Xrails
>However these little debates are enjoyable and prove that we
>can disagree without resorting to name calling flame wars.
>Good grief though respecting your elders,kid now ya done
>gone and made me feel old I wonder if he was referring to you as 4 times his age or me? LOL!
Must be you Gary can't be me as I am damn near 18 years older than you! 1/4 my age would be approx. 15 and he acts a lot more mature than that IMO!And you are right that these little debates are enjoyable as long as they are conducted with respect for the other guys's opinion and the other guy himself.....Don't flame me and I won't flame you...
But I'll try to hold an intelligent discussion with anyone - even Larkie!Chuck Schneider
Chief Cook, Bottle Washer and (Virtual) CEO

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Apr-05-04 AT 00:06 AM (EDT)

Maybe if people would stop buying and drving those 4x4 suv tanks gas prices might come down. Read a book called "asphalt nation" it changed my view of cars. I can't drive because the insurance rates are too high and I don't make enough money so I have to take the bus to work sometimes. Buses just don't have the appeal of trolleies and LRVs.

Supertrain is reborn in MSTS.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Well I guess I'm guilty!
I own a Jeep Grand Cherokee V8....
However in my defense I take a bus to a train to the metro and walk a couple of blocks to work every day so the Jeep stays parked for most of the time...However this past week my wife took it to work one day (Her little Mazda was out of Gas and she was late and didn't want to take the time to stop so she took my Jeep).... She was stopped at the back of the usual Route 66 parking lot about 3 miles from the beltway when some bozo comes flying down the highway in a F-150 and doesn't see the 4 lane 5 mile backup till he's right there and slams into the back of the Jeep.... Wipes out his front end and does a couple $k worth of damage to the rear of the Jeep... Thing is the wife walks away with out a scratch and the jeep is easily repairable...
Now if she'd been in her MX3 the entire outcome would have been different... I got this feeling I'll have even more trouble keeping her out of it and scr*w the gas prices!
Displacement/Gross Tonage Wins.....Chuck Schneider
Chief Cook, Bottle Washer and (Virtual) CEO

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Well, seeing as this thread has gone the farthest I've seen without degenerating into a flame war I guess I'll stick around (before the trolls come)Have you seen the GMC Sierra hybrid pickup? I haven't heard much about it recently, but I'll definately go for it if gas prices keep going up (being a truck kind of guy myself even with the mpg issues). It is possible to have both gross tonnage and fuel economy.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Apr-05-04 AT 07:16 AM (EDT)

>1/4 my age would be approx. 15
I didn't know I was that exact . 16 next month.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Bradhig
SUV's aren't what's affecting gas prices,even the Saudi's are pointing out it's the same price spikes we've gone through since Billy boy's EPA gave us 36 flavors of reformulated gas back in spring 2000,gas refined in St Louis for example is verboten to be sold in Chicago because it's the regular "that section of the midwest" gas and not the EPA approved Milwaukee,Chicago,Gary blend, actually if I've got one beef with Dubbya it's the 36 or 38 blends, if Chicago's blend is the cleanest then just order the EPA to make that the nation wide summer blend instead of this Clinton/Algore halfa$$ed patchwork designed to create shortages and high prices.
Another dirty little secret that even the Saudi's have pointed out is there hasn't been a new refinery built in the US since 1976 and some of the older ones have been shut down and the remaining refineries are running at 99.5 % of capacity.
I'm sure the oil companies would love to build more capacity but our ol buddies the ecotwits throw a royal hissy fit at the mere mention of building one of those evil, ickky refinery complexes.XrailsI didn't know I was that exact . 16 next month. Ah , then my young friend, I expect your feelings towards cars and such might be changing rather soon, unless you live in one of those locales where they've decided"for your own good" not to let you have full driving privileges until your darn near 18, what the Graduated driving licence really is is a bunch of uptight, stick in the mud, old fa**s(old far* is a state of mind not real age)who need to keep you damn kids from getting in their wa...er I mean are concerned your driving skills aren't up to their high standards and forgot they were once those damn kidsGary S

42 year old future curmudgen(Hey you kids get offa my lawn!!)

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Xrails
I was not arguing for darwinian capitalisim,goverment involvement is sometimes needed but it must be tempered,a good example is color TV just celebrated it's 50th Bday(1954) but it took nearly 10 more years to begin broadcasting in color and that was due to market forces,jump forward to the mid/late 90's HDTV had been around for awhile but was always considered a rich man's toy due to the fact that nobody was going to start broadcasting HD anytime soon because unlike the seamless color/B&W conversion switching to HD/digital requires everyone have the new tech therefore was a nice toy but a national switch wasn't going to happen.
Enter Bill Clinton,he signs an executive order mandating that we must switch to digital by 08(IIRC)nevermind that TV's that get that signal were in the same price range as a nice midsize car,the nation is going digital,granted the price has come down but still rather pricey,but it seemed that someone wanted the change made,Bill obliged and if we "common folk" out there can't afford the new TV or the digital adapter are just plain ol SOL, that's how goverment interference in the market can be bad.
As to global warming,since you've remarked about being a young fella(I'm guessing 18-20) back in the winter of 78/79 when I was 16/17 there was the most hellacious couple of winters,the first and only time I'd seen the C&NW bring Russel plows in from Iowa to clear the track in suburban Chicago,this type of snow storm was not only hitting Chicago but a great deal of the US.
The talk from the enviromentalists was of the steps needed to avoid the oncoming new ice age,this went on for a bit but died down because they didn't have access to the computers and the modeling software to show us how in just 50 years North America would be a frozen wasteland(comedian Steve Martain used to do an "I belive" speech bit as part of his routine that went "I belive Ronald Regan can make this country what it once was,A vast wasteland covered with ice")it' sort of good thing they didn't have the computer models at the time because when the drought and heat wave in the summer of 88 hit, they just switched gears from ice age to global heat death, Bush refused to sign Kyoto not only because of bad science but because it would have nailed the taxpayers big time,tied an anchor to the developed(first world)countries economies while exempting developing(third world)from any restrictions, you've got to ask if Kyoto is such a good idea how come none of the other economic powers signed on, could they have been waiting for the US to voulnteer to swim the race against all others with a 10 ton boulder round our necks?
As to the Pentagon report, remember there are still mid range holdovers from the Clintons in there and that sounds like it's right out of the Clinton era's military where they had defense funds used for eco clean up(pretty much how can we fight an eco freindly war)
acctually I'd heard China is by far the biggest producer of pollution as their primary energy source is coal with none of the enviro regs we've got here in the States.
Actually the radical "hippie fringe" took control of the Democratic party sometime ago, the Democratic/liberal party that was FDR and JFK have a lot more in common with ol Dubbya,what passes for liberal/Democrat today is the blame America first crowd or (granted I know this is cliche) outright communist.
As to the theory I think what you got there was major mangling of a statement by Sir Winston Churchill that went something to the effect"If a young man of twenty is not a liberal,then he has no heart,If a man of forty is not a conservitve,then he has no brain" true to the words of the British Bulldog I turned much more conservitve twenty days before my 40th birthday, I turned 40 on 10/01/01,we all grew up a lot faster twenty days earlier, it just seems there's a whole lot of people out there(you excluded)that want to forget.Gary S

42 year old future curmudgen(Hey you kids get offa my lawn!!)

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

With regards to the Pentagon report you reference, I think it's been put up on the Internet. The entire thing was an exercise in speculation---if global warming theories are correct and if it went nuts and if America wasn't prepared, then the political consequences (breakdown of society in various regions etc., refugees and whatnot everywhere) could be a bad thing, yes. That is not indicative of a Pentagon endorsement of the theory of global warming. Rather, it is a study that might lead to a contingency plan, which is what the Pentagon does on a regular basis. Contingency plans are developed to cover even the strangest ideas. From snippets I've heard over the last ten or fifteen years, "reality/plausibility" are not necessary requirements to be a planned-for contingency.

____________________________________________________________________
Norfolk & Western’s Radford Division, Pulaski District: Who needs the Marias Pass?

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Apr-05-04 AT 00:54 AM (EDT)

I don't know about being placed on the internet...
But it sounds like some of What ifs that the lads and lassies in contingency plans and ops down in the sub-basement think up on a regular basis... Some of it is really weird like what if HG Wells was right?....
I think they are encouraged to partake of hallucinogenics in that department. As I said there was no official REPORT or endorsement like that.....Chuck Schneider
Chief Cook, Bottle Washer and (Virtual) CEO

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

If it wasn't the whole report, then it was significant excerpts from the executive summary. If I ever find it again, I'll send the URL your way. In other news, I concur with your assessments of the far-out thinking that our contingency people work with and of the "no endorsement" notion. Everything was "if" this and "if" that. Not much concrete at all.

____________________________________________________________________
Norfolk & Western’s Radford Division, Pulaski District: Who needs the Marias Pass?

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>If it wasn't the whole report, then it was significant
>excerpts from the executive summary. If I ever find it
>again, I'll send the URL your way. In other news, I concur
>with your assessments of the far-out thinking that our
>contingency people work with and of the "no endorsement"
>notion.
>
>Everything was "if" this and "if" that. Not much concrete at
>all. Thanks, I'd love to see it...
And this is exactly why I have no faith in the pronouncements of the Tree Hugging Jihadists.... If their message was so scientifically correct there would be no need for them to take something like this and spin it all out of shape! The truth usually stands on its own!
Of course they couldn't be stupid enough to believe this kinda stuff is a real pentagon report too could they?????
The sad thing is that some one blew this particular bit of smoke up the young lad's skirts.....
Sheesh!Chuck Schneider
Chief Cook, Bottle Washer and (Virtual) CEO

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Heres 'A' posting i saw about the leak.... Enjoy !------------------------------------------------------------------
A secret report prepared by the Pentagon warns that climate change may lead to global catastrophe costing millions of lives and is a far greater threat than terrorism. The report was ordered by an influential US Pentagon advisor but was covered up by "US defense chiefs" for four months, until it was "obtained" by the British weekly The Observer. The leak promises to draw angry attention to US environmental and military policies, following Washington's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change and President George W. Bush's skepticism about global warning -- a stance that has stunned scientists worldwide. The Pentagon report, commissioned by Andrew Marshall, predicts that "abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies," The Observer reported. The report, quoted in the paper, concluded: "Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life.... Once again, warfare would define human life." Its authors -- Peter Schwartz, a CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of Global Business Network based in California -- said climate change should be considered "immediately" as a top political and military issue. It "should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern", they were quoted as saying. Some examples given of probable scenarios in the dramatic report include: -- Britain will have winters similar to those in current-day Siberia as European temperatures drop off radically by 2020. -- by 2007 violent storms will make large parts of the Netherlands uninhabitable and lead to a breach in the acqueduct system in California that supplies all water to densely populated southern California -- Europe and the United States become "virtual fortresses" trying to keep out millions of migrants whose homelands have been wiped out by rising sea levels or made unfarmable by drought. -- "catastrophic" shortages of potable water and energy will lead to widespread war by 2020. Randall, one of the authors, called his findings "depressing stuff" and warned that it might even be too late to prevent future disasters. "We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years," he told the paper. Experts familiar with the report told the newspaper that the threat to global stability "vastly eclipses that of terrorism". Taking environmental pollution and climate change into account in political and military strategy is a new, complicated and necessary challenge for leaders, Randall said. "It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat," he said. Coming from the Pentagon, normally a bastion of conservative politics, the report is expected to bring environmental issues to the fore in the US presidential race. Last week the Union of Concerned Scientists, an influential and non-partisan group that includes 20 Nobel laureates, accused the Bush administration of having deliberately distorted scientific fact to serve its policy agenda and having "misled the public". Its 38-page report, which it said took over a year to prepare and was not time to coincide with the campaign season, details how Washington "systematically" skewed government scientific studies, suppressed others, stacked panels with political and unqualified appointees and often refused to seek independent expertise on issues. Critics of the report quoted by the New York Times denied there was deliberate misrepresentation and called it politically motivated. The person behind the leaked Pentagon report, Andrew Marsall, cannot be accused of the same partisan politicking. Marsall, 82, has been an advisor for the defense department for decades, and was described by The Observer as the author of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's plans for a major transformation of the US military. Remember folks.. Dont flame me.. I didnt write it
And here are several interesting links on the topic of crazy weather...
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/climate.jsp?id=ns99994259
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=4282&method=full
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/HAW2/english/inland_flood.shtml
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/fcons.aspIf there is a god (and i believe there isnt) im sure he'd favour those that protect this planet over those that continue to polute it.I had to laugh at the reply 'If they dont do it , why should we ?'... Ever heard of leading by example ? What if we compared it with skin sores, 'They wont clean theirs, why should we clean ours ?" Well.. wouldnt you rather be clean ?:sigh: All of us reading this post will be dead anyway before any serious weather (if at all) impacts on human life enough to officially wipe it out. Catchya's

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Apr-05-04 AT 02:13 PM (EDT)

You need to learn to read dude....>>>>"The Pentagon report, commissioned by Andrew Marshall, predicts that "abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies," The Observer reported." Where does it say or endorse that said abrupt climate changes were going to happen????? I note the use of the term "could"....Author Peter Shwartz - "Peter works with corporations and institutions to create alternative perspectives of the future and develop robust strategies for a changing and uncertain world." This dude makes his living doing doomsday predictions and what if scenario planning (and apparantly a good one at that....) He was brought in as a consultant to CIA to specifically look at far out contingencies (his specialty).... Doug Randall the other author works for Shwartz..... "Taking environmental pollution and climate change into account in political and military strategy is a new, complicated and necessary challenge for leaders, Randall said" And my guess is that they Shwartz and Randall would be glad to help them for a few bucks! Now a lot of governments and business have discovered contingency planning and it makes good sense...
Of course as there are more and more contingency planners they have to move further and further out from the mainstream of scientific and business thought in order to retain their incomes!Heck, Ralph Nader lived a much better life on a material level as a "Consumer Advocate" then he ever did as an Ambulance Chaser...
He was just astute enough to cover it in Benefits (housing and transportation and the almighty Ego trip for publicity to name a few)By no means is it a government or government agency endorsement of the global warming theory...
It's a just in case "what if it's true" paper...
There are lots of them down in the bowels of the Pentagon and even probably some about invasions from Mars.....Now isn't the Observer a left leaning tabloid?????
Sorta like the Inquirer here in the states????
I wonder if they ran this story before or after the one about the 15 year old girl in Arkansas who had a 3 headed baby after being seduced during an Alien abduction (probably by her cousins )"Last week the Union of Concerned Scientists, an influential and non-partisan group that includes 20 Nobel laureates, accused the Bush administration of having deliberately distorted scientific fact to serve its policy agenda and having "misled the public". "Now this I know is an outright lie... The Union of Concerned Scientists is influential only to Green Peace and save the whales...
There positions on the environment are scoffed at in serious scientific circles as looney...
If you look at what the referenced Nobel Laureates are Laureates in, none of them are prize winners in Ecology or Climate.....
The key here, IMO, is the timing to coincide with the US Elections...
These guys have endorsed Ralph Nader in the past (not exactly a mainstream position in the US) and with held their endorsement of Al Bore, "People and Cars are the enemy of the Planet", because he wasn't radical enough.
For a little balance you might want to read this article about the above captioned fiction!http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/murray200402260901.aspHere is a direct excerpt to whet your whistles..."This represents appalling journalism. The report was not secret, but unclassified and certainly not "suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer" (presumably by the furtive and dangerous method of asking the Pentagon for it); the report's only mention of Britain relates to it being a nuclear power; and the comparison to terrorism is actually made not by the Pentagon but by British scientists on their own crusade to terrify America into adopting the Kyoto protocol. Far from concluding that global warming "will destroy us," the report actually concludes that such a dramatic event as the sudden onset of an ice age would present "new challenges" for the United States, admittedly ones with "potentially dire consequences."Chuck Schneider

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

And my guess is that they Shwartz and Randall would be glad to help them for a few bucks! Chuck
You got totally wrong,they're pitching themselves for the overnight or weekend gig on Error America.Gary S

42 year old future curmudgen(Hey you kids get offa my lawn!!)

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Hi bradhigcorrect, definitely a LA Trolleybus. Trolleys and trolley busses don't bite each other normally, the presence of the one does not exclude the other mode running over the same stretch of the system. Many towns overseas still have both systems today, as when you're going electric with the trolleys then it makes some sense to also have trolley busses. These towns often tend to have some downtown area where trolley and trolley bus lines run in the same street (again, San Francisco's Market Street comes to my mind for North American reference), often in dedicated bus/trolley lanes. I have seen pictures of LA with Pacific electric interurbans and MTA trolleys sharing the same traffic lane, so that might be the case here?Only thing is to make sure you don't get confused to which wire to raise your pole(s) to as a motorman/busdriver, or you'll hear some nice bang from the electrical cabinet of your vehicle If you look closely, you notice that there are three wires over the traffic lane with the tracks each way (upper right corner of your screengrab). Two for the trolley bus, one for the trolley. Lukas a.k.a Swissie

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

What is that sign in the middle of the street? I have never ridden a PCC or any other type of streetcar the closset thing I have ridden is a LRV in ST. Louis. They wanna build another bridge across the Mississippi because the main interstate bridge in downtown St. Louis is jammed during the day. Screw it just put the money on mass transit.

Supertrain is reborn in MSTS.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>...definitely a LA Trolleybus. In Boston we used to call 'em "trackless trolley’s"That's my 2 cents.Toodles!!

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Apr-05-04 AT 11:16 AM (EDT)

I used to think those were so neat. I spent a lot of time in Cambridge, MA (Accross the Charles R. north side of Boston near Harvard U.) They had those Electric Busses everywhere in that area. There were so many electical gantries and supports, you could have laid a tarp over it walksed all over Harvard Square and vicinity and never get wet if it were raining. (Bit of an eyesore though. It was a mess.)Pete Willard


http://www.trainsimstuff.com

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Apr-05-04 AT 11:55 AM (EDT)

>thats a trolley bus on
>the left side of the screen? If it is then why are there
>tracks in the street? Like the reason for this thread, your question's gone full circle -- it's a little like asking, "Why is the train/metro station here when we have all these cars all around us to take us to destinations in the first place" Cheesh! (No offense, your question's funny though!)Transit's taken a ding in the world so that people have less excuse to get together. A corporation -- in the 20s', 30s, etc, as well as now -- would love nothing more than you as a human being to be alone, alone, alone -- "Nowhere to run to baby, nowhere to hiiide béhbé" -- they can't have swarms of people amassing in areas around us now, now can they? (Don't mind me . . . I've a huge urge to move back to Europe to be amongst trains again; so few trains in North America, so few . . . )Cheers,
goonybird

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>Here's another screengrab. I think thats a trolley bus on
>the left side of the screen? If it is then why are there
>tracks in the street? Because Los Angeles did, at one time, have a few streets that had trolleybus routes on them as well as streetcars. Just like Market Street in San Francisco, which sees trolleybuses, streetcars, and diesel buses.

Alert | IP

[ Home | MSTS Forum | MSTS FAQ | File Library ] Copyright © 2004 by Nels Anderson. All Rights Reserved.