[cpbell0033944]

I've been shown-up by Lingster in many areas in the past, but, on the subject of rail travel, I'm pretty good. 😀 ;D

I certainly didn't say that British commuter trains travelled at 180 mph.  Most in congested areas struggle to hit 70 mph, but the distance travelled is usually less than 80 miles anyway.  Most longer-distance British expresses hit 100-125 mph.

Sleeping trains between Paris and cities in Spain are common now under a scheme called Trenotel (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/13/railtravel.transport) and the experience is better than sleeping on a transatlantic flight.  Europe has shown us that, for distances of up to around 500-600 miles, high-speed rail travel is indeed viable.  Now, I admit this means that remote parts of the States would be inaccessible for current train technology due to journey times, but I'm not saying that the whole country should be criss-crossed by high-speed lines.  The UK has only one true, dedicated, purpose-built high-speed line as yet, which is the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) which runs from London St. Pancras to the Northern portal of the Channel Tunnel, joining the French end to Paris Gare du Nord, but others are being proposed. 

Now, as for the cost, the CTRL cost around £5.9 billion, (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/ctrl/backgroundinformationonthech341) which is a lot.  However, given that the Bush administration has spent an estimated $513.4 billion on the Iraq war to date, (source: http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home), then I can't see why, if the US decides to ditch Mr McCain's "We might stay in Iraq for 100 years, dammit" rhetoric, it might not be able to afford a couple of strategically-placed links some time in the next 20 or so years.

As for specialist routes, yes, the trackbed needs to be concrete.  Yes, the route must not carry normal traffic.  Consider this, though.  Japan is hugely congested, yet they squeeze-in Shinkansen lines and stations because of their inventiveness in terms of civil engineering.  Part of the high cost of the CTRL is the new section to St. Pancras, which runs under London in a tunnel that is deeper than all the London Underground tube lines, a phenominal acheivement.  It also runs through the commuter belt of south-east England, easily the most densely-populated non-metropolitan area of the country.  If little olde England can do it, why shouldn't the mighty US of A do the same given much more physical room?  The only other problem for the politicians is that the line must be fenced to stop wild animals, livestock and vandals from accessing the line.  Historically, all British rail lines (save light railways) must be fenced anyway.  It's not all that hard to make it secure, really. 

All this boils down to a question of public and political will, rather than technical feasibility.  I have no doubt that some sectors of the US will resist this as some "cheese-eating surrender monkey" idea, but, given a decade or two of raising fuel prices and congestion of airline flightpaths and airports, attitudes might change.

P.S.  Apologies to Ad_Meyer on my erroneous reporting of Japanese train speeds. 

P.P.S.  War in Iraq to date (5 years) = $513 billion.
McCain suggests 100 years more = $513 billion x 20 = $10,260 billion = (I think) $120.6 trillion.  I'll say no more.  :-X

[cpbell0033944]

WTF! not another wutch hunt. Seriously, first HunterSC's page and now they decide to remove yours.

I really don't know who is the jacka$$ who ask for this kind of work removed, and the PTB at deviantart follow like cattle.

Yeah, I'm pissed off!

I'd have though that a website called Deviant art would have been open-minded. ::)

[cpbell0033944]

Something of a longer then normal posting to her blog (yes, there's a pic of her.  No, she's fully dressed.) about Memory, the gal she's been training.

Source: http://cindyphillips.blogspot.com/ (April 21, '08)

About her joint pain(s), she'd better get onto the joint maintance supplements ASAP (Glucosmine w/ MSM etal – and another, old school supplement, alfalfa tabs, too.)  I'm surprised she wasn't on them from the very beginning.

Hmmm, yes, the joint issue is a worry.  Do you think that one of us ought to contact her and suggest some glucosamine, etc?  Perhaps cod liver oil would be an idea too.  As for Memory, (interesting name) it must ber good being advised by an IFBB Pro, though she looks a touch older than Cindy.

Oh, and evansnowwolf – yes, that bit was hot! 😮 8)

[cpbell0033944]

Good luck, Mimi.  I'm sure you'll figure it out and thrive.

Today is also bittersweet for me, because this morning I discovered a new innovation that will very rapidly strip away the anonymity of many web site operators, including me.  So I am also wondering where to go from here with all of this.

I've always thought that old mantra – "change is good" – to be ridiculously simplistic.  Even when we get to choose the change, which is rare, it's still painful to go through it.

That doesn't sound good.  I hope you don't mean that the site may close. :'(

[cpbell0033944]

In the U.S. we simply have too much space between our large cities, everywhere except the Boston-Washington corridor.  So people in the U.S. tend to combine travel modes instead of relying on one.  Trains aren't that flexible, and they're slow, so people prefer to use planes (inflexible but fast) and cars (flexible but slow).

Also, the infrastructure costs of rail construction and maintenance are pretty high.

And 55 is not the national speed limit anymore.  In most states its 65 or 75 on the open highway.

Well, I'm glad you don't trundle around at 55 mph anymore. ;D

I fear, though, that you are falling for the old American trait of viewing rail travel as being slow.  In Europe, trains regularly travel safely at 180 mph.  In Japan, 200 mph is not unknown.  How much slower is that tha air travel, after you factor-in check-in, baggage check-in, security, etc?

[cpbell0033944]

Oh the reasons are varied – a few would be: 1) we have had a love affair with the automobile since day one, 2) we had access to incredibly cheap gas for decades, 3) we built the Eisenhower Interstate System after WWII, 4) we began using air travel for short hops in favor of trains after WWII, which in turn caused passenger train travel to decline to its present state as Amtrak, which is also related to 2) above, 5) we're a continental spanning [s]republic[/s] empire with a vastly spread out citizenry (excepting the two left coasts, of course), which can hardly be equated to small-sized European nations with populations that are not only living cheek to jowl in density, but that are not much bigger in land area, then our second largest state of Texas.

Lastly, I won't get into the collusion of the oil industry, tire industry, the government etal, after WWII to encourage Americans to use their cars over that of mass-train transit.  8)

I shouldn't hijack Mimi's post, but I'm interested as a rail enthusiast.  I've watched many US videos on YouTube on the rail system and it's interesting to hear your reasons for the lack of US passenger rail travel, particularly as it's no good having Interstates if the speed limit is so low – 55 mph if I remember correctly, as opposed to 70-80 mph on many European roads.  Do you think that with higher fuel prices and increased inconvenience of air travl that high-speed rail trael will become popular?

Apologies to Mimi.

[cpbell0033944]

Well, they're so heavily airbrushed it's hard not to say. For one thing, a woman whose thighs are the same diameter all the way to her knees would not not have the bodyfat to have breasts like those we see here.

I'm afraid I don't like her.  Ever since she was interviewed by ex-F1 driver Martin Brundle during his "gridwalk" prior to the Monaco Grand Prix a few years ago and she said that she was "looking forward to the take-orf (take-off?) or whatever they call it" and Brundle acerbically commented "I think they call it the start." ::)
I'm afraid I think that says it all.

[cpbell0033944]

Dear Mimi – you've shown a lot of courage in leaving a job that pays well, but I have no doubt that you've made the right decision.  I have seen too many people stay in jobs that they hate, that cause upset or distress, and it just isn't worth it.  In honesty, I cannot see a future for short-haul air travel, i.e. within the UK or UK-mainland Europe.  Perhaps the greater distances in the US might keep that market alive, but, if America embraces high-speed trains (why haven't they followed the example of Japan, France, Germany, Spain etc?) even that may dwindle.  The experience of air travel seems to be too stressful to retain any of the glamour or mystique it had even when I last flew (early 1990s) to keep its place.

You deserve some time to rethink your life and priorities.  I personally feel that you are talented enough to make a go of writing, but such careers are notoriously unrealiable, irrespective of ability.

[cpbell0033944]

[color=navy][font=times new roman][size=11pt]*Be still my beating heart*

Simply delicious.

XOXO’S

[size=14pt]~Mimi[/size]

I have been humbled in my crudeness by the delicacy of touch of this comment. 

[cpbell0033944]

[color=navy][font=times new roman][size=11pt]Oh yes, I saw Cindi’s new pics last night, and was immediately (and understandably) aroused.  😮 

Although I am concerned… just slightly that she might start to look worn out in the next 3-5 years.  But that’s just IMHO.

Peace and Love,

[size=14pt]~Mimi[/size]

Mimi!!! 8)
Great to hear from you again!  I think that Cindy has now been in offseason trim (those photos are semi-on-season, IMO) long enough to restore and refresh prior to making her Pro debut.  I feel the more pertinent problem is that she doesn't stand a chance of doing as well as her physique deserves in major Pro contests, and that, if she tries to do so, she may well regret it.  Of course, I've been saying for ages now that Pro contest judging is rubbish – ask the fans of FBBers what they want, then you might see Pro contests becoming more than low-bodyfat competitions as they are now.

[Author]

Posts