At Sat, 25 Jun 2011 22:37:08 -0400 Shel Horowitz <shel at frugalfun.com> wrote: > > ** Be sure to fill out the survey/skills inventory in the member's area. > ** If you did, we all thank you. > > > At 3:52 PM -0400 6/25/11, Edbride-PR wrote: > > ** Be sure to fill out the survey/skills inventory in the member's area. > > ** If you did, we all thank you. > > > > > >As much as I like to be connected while en route, I'm not sure that Wi-Fi > >(free or not) would make much of a difference in my plans for a short-range > >trip. To me, Albany-to-NY or even Philadelphia qualifies as short-range. > >Washington, D.C., closer to 400 miles, that's a different matter. For a trip > >of that distance, time en-route is going to have a much bigger impact than > >Wi-Fi vs. disconnected. If I can't afford an entire business day en route, > >I'll fly, Wi-Fi or not. > > Factoring in getting to/from the airport, going through security, > etc., and assuming (yeah, I know) both train and plane are on time, I > figured that October trip would have been five hours to fly (of which > one hour was actual air time from Bradley to Baltimore. It was seven > to take the train from Springfield, plus half an hour to and from the > train, for a total of eight. And since I fly economy, the luxury of > extra room on the train was like a first-class upgrade--not to > mention that it was much easier to walk around, and a much greener > option. It is more expensive than flying, which is somewhat crazy. Not really. Air travel has a number of 'hidden' subsdies that rail does not have. Also, Amtrak runs too few trains to gain the level of economies of scale needed to cover the unavoidable 'fixed' costs involved with its operation. > Sometimes it makes more sense to fly, but that particular time, I > felt I didn't lose much, and I was so much more well-rested that I > think I gave a better speech the next day. > > > > >Amtrak could probably offer Wi-Fi if it wanted, but I don't imagine they see > >it as a competitive advantage right now, and they're not in the habit of > >spending "needlessly" on customer conveniences. On the other hand, some > >expert in interstate commerce, rail subsidies, and other such matters may > >tell us that Amtrak is not permitted to offer Wi-Fi. Anybody on board with > >that (sorry)? > > If they wanted, they could even have two or three cars with wi-fi per > train, which would be much cheaper than a router in every car. But > I'd bet those cars would fill up FAST! I doubt if it makes any difference to have a few cars or all cars. At this point it is a matter of cycling all the cars through the shops to have the Wi-Fi equipment installed. Unlike a commuter rail (or even Peter Pan) Amtrak's cars are scattered all over the place and they only have so many extra cars, so it is going take a little while to get all of the cars outfitted with the Wi-Fi equipment. And they appearently are working on it. > > > > >Ed > > -- Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 / heller at deepsoft.com Deepwoods Software -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ () ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments