I don't think that's all that's wrong...

[bhskittykatt]

Beautiful, beautiful pwnage!

Meanwhile, the cheapest way to get to China *might* be by ship. Don't ask me where to find a company that does that, though. Most likely you won't be able to be picky about which city you end up in.

I seem to recall reading a frugal travelling article that discussed how you could hitch cheap rides on freighters. Not glamorous accomodations by any means, but it sure was dirt cheap.

[mharbourgirl]

Beautiful, beautiful pwnage!


I seem to recall reading a frugal travelling article that discussed how you could hitch cheap rides on freighters. Not glamorous accomodations by any means, but it sure was dirt cheap.

My grandfather did that when he was 17. They put him to work. It was 3 years before that freighter hit the west coast of North America again.

Just sayin'.

[Geek King]

Actually, there is a reason for that. On many of their routes they are renting time from Union Pacific on their tracks, and UP requires all long haul trains to have two locomotives (so if one fails they can still limp along with one rather than block a remote part of track). So Amtrak makes the best of it and makes the trains long enough to actually need two locomotives and get some extra revenue from the extra cars.

That, and two trains would probably be more in rental right-of-way than one.

[Mr Hero]

Wow. OL had three cards to play, and all three declined. If I were the AE, I would have given her a shovel and tell her to start digging.

[Pagan]

OL: I'm trying to get to China, what's the closest you can get me to China?
AE: Well, we only operate in the United States. Delta has flights from the Salt Lake Airport, or we have service that could take you to either Los Angeles, San Francisco, or Seattle, all of those cities airports would have flights to China as well.
OL: Are you stupid, I can't afford those flights, I want to get to China for cheap.

I don't think even the Hogwart's Express can do that. Maybe Durmstrang's ship or Beauxbatons carriage could manage, but I don't think they rent those out.

Or get her a broom.

Hey! I resemble that remark!

[Brojekk]

I hope she never makes it to China. I like China too much to inflict them with this raging SC.

[Shalom]

Actually, there is a reason for that. On many of their routes they are renting time from Union Pacific on their tracks, and UP requires all long haul trains to have two locomotives (so if one fails they can still limp along with one rather than block a remote part of track).

This is why they came up with the DDA40X, and then retired it. This locomotive was essentially two GP40 locomotives on one extra-long frame with 8 axles, with the engines souped-up to make 3300hp each (usually 3000). The resulting machine weighed 261 tons (!) and produced 6600 horsepower, easily the most powerful Diesel locomotive in the USA at the time (although their own turbine-powered "Big Blow" units left them in the dirt at 8400+ hp at sea level, and over 10khp at the altitudes they used them at).

Not a new idea: the much older E9's had two 1200hp prime movers each; if one half of the locomotive broke down, you could still get along on the other half until you got to a service facility. Problem was, when one half of the locomotive broke down (and with the DDA40X's, it was when, not if), both halves had to be removed from service and you had to substitute two normal units. They still have one of these machines in semi-regular service; they'd saved it for a museum exhibit, but it stayed on the general roster and when they had a shortage of locomotives a few years back, they pulled it out of mothballs and used it.

So Amtrak makes the best of it and makes the trains long enough to actually need two locomotives and get some extra revenue from the extra cars.

There was another reason once, although I don't know if they still do this: sometimes the train splits in two at an intermediate station, and each half goes to a different destination with one locomotive each. e.g. the Lake Shore Limited ran from Chicago to Albany with two locomotives, and then one broke away and continued east to Boston with half the train, and the other one went south to NYC. Of course both halves had to make it back to Albany at the same time on the return trip, and it often took longer than expected to get the cars though the congested East River tunnel to Sunnyside Yard in Queens for servicing and then back to Penn, so there's a reason this train was commonly known as the Late-For-Sure Limited...

[PepperElf]

I don't think even the Hogwart's Express can do that.

But Mr. Weasley's car can! Provided it stays away the Whomping Willow at least...

[Captain Trips]

Beautiful, beautiful pwnage!


I seem to recall reading a frugal travelling article that discussed how you could hitch cheap rides on freighters. Not glamorous accomodations by any means, but it sure was dirt cheap.

Actually, some freighters do have rather nice passenger facilities, complete with steward crew, etc. No fancy frills, but can take approx 50-100 passengers in low-key luxury! (They've found a way to make empty superstructure profitable!)

[Sapphire Silk]

But Mr. Weasley's car can! Provided it stays away the Whomping Willow at least...

Well, if the SC lady is willing to go into the Forbidden Forest after it, she's more than welcome to

[Chromatix]

No, the Anglia got tired after just driving the length of Britain, which is why it hit the Willow in the first place. It wouldn't be able to cross the Pacific, unless it went via Alaska and eastern Russia, and even that might be pushing it.

Splitting trains isn't new, as it used to be done even fairly recently at Carstairs in southern Scotland. A train would come from the south, and split to have some carriages to Glasgow and some to Edinburgh, both of which are relatively nearby. Returning trains would sometimes be combined at the same place. However, a spare engine would be provided at Carstairs to take the Edinburgh half of the train, with the bulk of the journey being done with only one.

Locomotives with two engines has been done in Britain too. The best-known examples are the Class 52 "Western" and the Class 55 "Deltic".

The Western was built that way simply because hydraulic transmissions were not then made large enough to handle the power of a single large diesel engine, so two smaller engines and two transmissions were fitted. This does however mean that one engine failure leaves it with both half power and half tractive effort, so it has been known for a part-failed Western to be unable to climb a steep hill unassisted, where it would normally have little difficulty.

The Deltic was designed so that not only could it "limp home" quite reliably on one engine (with about 1600hp instead of 3300hp, but full tractive effort from stall), but it could have a blown engine swapped out in an hour or so at the depot, thus ensuring it would be back in service very quickly. The whole locomotive was surprisingly lightweight at only 100 tons, and worked the fastest passenger trains until it was replaced - rather quickly as it happens - by the HST.

The HST is yet another approach to the problem, having two complete locomotives (streamlined at the outer ends) per train. The train can't run with only one of them attached, so splitting at Carstairs is not done with them, but it can continue (with half power and half tractive effort) with one shut down. The total available power is roughly the same as a single Deltic, and it has the advantage of being able to reverse direction without a time-consuming shunting operation. It also holds the distinction of still being the fastest diesel-powered train in the world, 35 years after it was introduced (most high-speed trains being electric powered).

But none of these trains can cross the Pacific either...

[RootedPhoenix]

I'd offer her a ride in a slingshot. Free to ride, but......

[Wenchie]

Actually, there is a reason for that. On many of their routes they are renting time from Union Pacific on their tracks, and UP requires all long haul trains to have two locomotives (so if one fails they can still limp along with one rather than block a remote part of track). So Amtrak makes the best of it and makes the trains long enough to actually need two locomotives and get some extra revenue from the extra cars.

Exactly. And when train is a long one carrying 300+ passengers, it really does LIMP if they lose an engine! I've been on a few trains where the engine died and they had to use a freight engine and those aren't made for passenger speeds.

Also, Amtrak almost always rents tracks, and freight traffic gets priority. On the Detroit to Chicago route, there is only enough time for 3 outgoing and 3 incoming trains, because the freight schedule is tight.

If Amtrak had their own rails, they could schedule as many trains as they could afford to. But it isn't cost efficient. Especially because you'd have to pay twice as many conductors and engineers if you had twice the amount of trains scheduled.

Can you tell that I've taken Amtrak a few too many times? ^_^ So many times that I'm friends with one of the conductors!