[Hidden-tech] Amtrak Wifif

[Christopher Parker]

A trip on Amtrak is billable hours (or rest).  Waiting for security or driving to the airport is not.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 26, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Robert Heller <heller at deepsoft.com> wrote:

>   ** Be sure to fill out the survey/skills inventory in the member's area.
>   ** If you did, we all thank you.
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Hidden-discuss mailing list - home page: http://www.hidden-tech.net
> Hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net
> 
> You are receiving this because you are on the Hidden-Tech Discussion list.
> If you would like to change your list preferences, Go to the Members   
> page on the Hidden Tech Web site.
> http://www.hidden-tech.net/members