What do you do when you want to be accurate but can't find what you're looking for?
I need to get someone from Virginia to Oklahoma in 1943. I would guess he could take a train(s) or maybe a combination of trains and busses, but I can't find information for that at that time. I didn't even know Amtrak wasn't around back then. I think it was mostly steam locomotives with diesel just starting, not that that's important.
So what do you do when googling doesn't help?
I would guess that 1943 would be a mix of steam and diesel. The first commercially produced diesel electric locomotive produced in the US went into service in 1925 in New Jersey.
https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/steamtown/shs5.htm
The last steam locomotive in regular service in the US was retired around 1970.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieselisation.
The private inter-urban and long distance bus services would have been around in that era. Greyhound opened their first route in 1914.
Information on specific routes from that era will probably be difficult to find.
If you want accurate period information on Greyhound bus routes, try contacting the company, they may be willing to help.
For possible routes: here's a Rand McNally pocket map of the US from 1947
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~23824~920008:Rand-McNally-road-map-United-States
Here's the google search I used to find it: Period historical road maps US
That might be a great help. It was 5 years earlier, but so what.
Thanks.
Train routes don't change that much over time.
Not having done the research, it's my understanding at least that train routes changed significantly as the former carriers waned and consolidated into Amtrak. Once you're in the pre-Amtrak era my assumption would be that routes Amtrak uses would (mostly) exist, but many routes and stops Amtrak does not make would also exist.
Not having done the research, it's my understanding at least that train routes changed significantly as the former carriers waned and consolidated into Amtrak
The former carriers did not consolidate into Amtrak. Amtrak is and always has been a government entity.
Amtrak was created by the federal government in 1970, because the private rail carriers (most of whom still exist) were abandoning passenger service, most of those carriers (at least the ones still around in 1970 still exist, but they only do freight service now.
There is a reason for this. In today's world, passenger rail is a guaranteed money loser. Nowhere in the entire world is there a passenger rail service that even manages to cover operating costs, much less capital costs, out of passenger fares.
Rail freight on the other hand is quite profitable without significant government subsidies.
Also the target time frame is 1943, almost 30 years before Amtrak was created and the rail atlas I linked to was from 1948, still more than 20 years pre-Amtrak.
'Consolidate' may be the wrong word. However, from Wikipedia:
Of the 26 railroads still offering intercity passenger service in 1970, only six declined to join Amtrak.
All Amtrak's routes were continuations of prior service, although Amtrak pruned about half the passenger rail network.
My family traveled a fair bit by Amtrak, and I have fairly vivid memories of Amtrak using obviously converted cars from other lines and serving meals on china from other lines. That declined through the 1970's.
I agree with your last statement - that was my point. It's hard to determine 1943 except - rephrasing a different comment - if you can get there on Amtrak now, you could probably do it then. Vice versa is obviously not true, however.
Of the 26 railroads still offering intercity passenger service in 1970, only six declined to join Amtrak.
They didn't join Amtrak so much as they sold out their passenger service operations to Amtrak. Almost all of those railroads also ran freight service, which Amtrak does not and never did, and most of them are still running freight service.
If it hadn't been for the creation of Amtrak , intercity passenger rail service would have been dead in not much more than another decade.
Pretty much I agree with everything you're saying; it's a word-choice issue, I think. I agree; rail passenger service would have died without Amtrak, and freight service would be fine.
Amtrak was terrible for a while there, too. I have some stories...
My characters travel via Amtrak a couple times, too (in yet-unpublished chapters). Via existing routes, but I chose to play fast and loose with train schedules for dramatic purposes.
Amtrak was terrible for a while there, too. I have some stories...
Still is. It's a money hole
My experiences with them on a few trips in the 2000's and 2010's have been considerably better than they were in the 1980's and 1990's. That doesn't change whether or not they're a money hole, however.
If it hadn't been for the creation of Amtrak , intercity passenger rail service would have been dead in not much more than another decade.
If it weren't for the ICC (now long defunct) both long distance and commuter privately operated passenger rail would still be viable in the US. The ICC forced the railroads to maintain unused routes, unrealistic schedules and prevented any increases in fares. The result was that all of thoses companies were forced into bankruptcy with Amtrak and state governments taking over the service. As soon as the government took over fares were increased, schedules and routes cut, and the quality of service greatly decreased.
If rail had been deregulated there still would be a thriving long distance and commuter rail system.
If it weren't for the ICC (now long defunct) both long distance and commuter privately operated passenger rail would still be viable in the US.
This is doubtful as long distance and commuter rail aren't economically viable anywhere in the world, it's not just the US.
Every country that has passenger rail has to subsidize not just capitol costs, but operating costs as well. No country anywhere in the world has passenger rail that can even break even just on operating costs from ticket revenue.
unrealistic schedules and prevented any increases in fares.
Fares would have had to increase to the point that they were economically noncompetitive with intercity buses and the airlines.
That would have killed passenger rail even earlier.
No country anywhere in the world has passenger rail that can even break even just on operating costs from ticket revenue.
Pretty sure if you include the savings from not needing the automotive infrastructure, Japan does better with rail.
Pretty sure if you include the savings from not needing the automotive infrastructure, Japan does better with rail.
Japan does have plenty of automotive infrastructure.
There were more than 78 million cars in use in Japan in 2019.
ETA2: On a per capita basis, Japan doesn't have that many fewer cars than the US, around 0.6 cars per person vs 0.8 in the US. And that's cars, it's not even counting commercial trucks.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/674574/japan-motor-vehicle-in-use-numbers/
No cigar, but thanks for playing.
ETA: That kind of cost savings might play for a government run/supported railroad, but it wouldn't fly for a private railroad that needs to operate at a profit.
Shanken law and the required inspections for it, assure domestic Japanese cars are in much better condition than their US versions. That gave rise to the JDM used Japanese parts/engines. Old Japanese cars are rare as it cost an exorbitant amount to make them compliant.
And that's relevant to how much "automotive" infrastructure Japan has and any cost savings on said infrastructure vs the US how exactly?
And that's relevant to how much "automotive" infrastructure Japan has and any cost savings on said infrastructure vs the US how exactly?
You should look up the particulars of the law to understand. In particular the parts regarding the vehicles suspension.
ETA
https://www.statista.com/statistics/264753/ranking-of-countries-according-to-the-general-quality-of-infrastructure/
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-best-roads.html
You should look up the particulars of the law to understand.
No need. There is nothing about the particulars that could possibly make it relevant to the issue of the economics of railroads.
No need. There is nothing about the particulars that could possibly make it relevant to the issue of the economics of railroads.
Ignoring facts doesn't make them go away. It is your choice.
Ignoring facts doesn't make them go away. It is your choice.
Facts have to be relevant to be meaningful.
The issue isn't the economics of automobiles, it's the economics of passenger trains.
However, the point wasn't the economics of automobiles (which would involve fuel, insurance, maintenance, and taxes) but the economics of supplying sufficient infrastructure for massive numbers of people driving to commute to work versus subsidizing rail usage and determining which would cost less.
but the economics of supplying sufficient infrastructure for massive numbers of people driving to commute to work versus subsidizing rail usage and determining which would cost less.
True.
However, I showed that there aren't drastically fewer automobiles per-capita in Japan than there are in the US.
Therefore Japan can't have drastically less automotive infrastructure than the US on a per-capita basis.
Therefore there is no significant cost savings on automotive infrastructure which Japan could apply to justify passenger rail subsides.
Japan does have plenty of automotive infrastructure.
There were more than 78 million cars in use in Japan in 2019.
ETA2: On a per capita basis, Japan doesn't have that many fewer cars than the US, around 0.6 cars per person vs 0.8 in the US. And that's cars, it's not even counting commercial trucks.
The quote from you that started the topic on automobiles.
Facts have to be relevant to be meaningful.
The issue isn't the economics of automobiles, it's the economics of passenger trains.
You later deliberately misdirected to trains. One can only assume you realized you were wrong and obfuscated the subject via that redirection to cover it.
That's alright. Have fun with your willful ignorance. I'm done with the subject.
The quote from you that started the topic on automobiles.
You later deliberately misdirected to trains.
Yet you conveniently ignore what I was replying to.
From me earlier:
No country anywhere in the world has passenger rail that can even break even just on operating costs from ticket revenue.
To that BK69 replied:
Pretty sure if you include the savings from not needing the automotive infrastructure, Japan does better with rail.
And that's what I was replying to when I posted the information about the number of automobiles in Japan.
I did not misdirect to trains the discussion was about trains and the economics of trains in the first place.
You are the one who is trying to misdirect.
And that's what I was replying to when I posted the information about the number of automobiles in Japan.
However, number of automobiles says surprisingly little about usage. What's the yearly average distance driven per capita? Assuming all the commuters crammed into Japanese trains to get to work drove daily (at least on those days where they hadn't passed out drunk in one of those coffin hotels the night before) what increase in infrastructure would be needed to support that?
what increase in infrastructure would be needed to support that?
First you have to answer how much such infrastructure they have now. You are the one arguing for a cost savings relevant to rail subsidies. You don't just get to assume there would need to be a big increase.
Another factor that you are ignoring is freight. Japan moves very little freight by rail. You simply can't have high speed passenger rail and freight on the same tracks, it doesn't work.
However, in terms of energy (an operating cost) the energy need to move a fully loaded passenger train is only marginally higher than the energy needed to move the same train empty.
On the other hand, rail freight while relatively slow is vastly more energy efficient.
Yes, what you suggest, would put a lot of extra passenger cars on the roads, however, you are potentially moving a lot of commercial freight traffic off the roads and on to rail.
One truck requires a lot more road infrastructure than one car. And trucks cause a lot more wear on that infrastructure than cars do.
So I don't think it's at all obvious that such a switch would necessarily require a large increase in road infrastructure.
Personally, in terms of Japan, I think relative population density makes a much bigger direct impact on the relative economics of rail than any difference in road infrastructure.
I would've guessed they'd move much more freight via ships, given most of the country lives near the water. (Based on the fact that there's a lot of shoreline compared to area, and the mountains are mostly in the interior.)
And yeah, freight trains are tough on track compared to passenger traffic and high speed rail is more vulnerable to track that isn't ideal.
Still, the point stands that (admittedly, given the population density) if the rail ridership started commuting via single occupant vehicle, the amount saved in subsidizing trains would almost certainly be eaten up expanding roadway capacity... And then some.
Not true everywhere, obviously.
if the rail ridership started commuting via single occupant vehicle, the amount saved in subsidizing trains would almost certainly be eaten up expanding roadway capacity... And then some.
Again, yet another unjustified assumption to make your claim work.
And yeah, freight trains are tough on track compared to passenger traffic and high speed rail is more vulnerable to track that isn't ideal.
The problem with freight and high-speed passenger trains on the same tracks isn't about wear on the tracks. There is a much more immediate logistical problem.
Two trains can't run on the same tracks in the same place at the same time. One train will have to yeild, but a freight train is much harder to stop and then to get moving again. So it would have to be the passenger trains that yield.
But that largely defeats the point of high speed trains if they are constantly stopping and waiting for freight trains to pass. And when the passenger trains and freight trains are operating at drastically different speeds, it becomes impossible to schedule one set around the other.
But that largely defeats the point of high speed trains if they are constantly stopping and waiting for freight trains to pass. And when the passenger trains and freight trains are operating at drastically different speeds, it becomes impossible to schedule one set around the other.
We have no problem combining freight and passenger trains here in the Netherlands but it's main use is for passengers. True, we do have a rather unique rail network that is well maintained by the government separate from the operators. It's very dense in a very small country. A bit like the subway system in a large US city but then with trains in a country. In short: freight trains mostly run in the night when there are no passenger trains.
We have no problem combining freight and passenger trains here in the Netherlands but it's main use is for passengers.
Normal (50-60 mph) passenger trains can be run on the same tracks as freight. It's done in the US, though it's mostly the government run passenger rail operator leasing track space from the freight railroads.
It's not a huge problem when the passenger trains are running around the same speed as the freight trains.
It's combining high speed (100+ mph) passenger trains with freight that won't work.
The Japanese bullet trains run at 199 mph.
The Japanese bullet trains run at 199 mph
One of the older ones, about 50 years old, runs up to 199 miles an hour (a very strange upper limit, probably translated from something in kilometers per hour.) Some of them are planned to run faster than 200 miles an hour, at extremely high cost in infrastructure, a lot of it in tunnels, Japan is concerned about earthquakes, a problem for very fast trains floating several inches above the track while at those high speeds. Look it up on line, it is not as simple as running at 199 miles an hour from start to finish. And other trains run at different speeds.
Look it up on line, it is not as simple as running at 199 miles an hour from start to finish. And other trains run at different speeds.
It was just an example. The exact speed the bullet trains are running at is irrelevant to my point.
The point is you can't have 200 MPH trains on the same tracks as 50 MPH trains when the 50 MPH trains need minutes to come to a stop.
It's combining high speed (100+ mph) passenger trains with freight that won't work.
You obviously didn't read the last sentence of my comment:
In short: freight trains mostly run in the night when there are no passenger trains.
Freight and passenger trains simply don't run at the same time. (Mostly, there is a dedicated freight line from the Rotterdam harbor to Germany.)
For specifics see the Wikipedia link I provided.
freight trains mostly run in the night when there are no passenger trains.
That simply isn't true in the US. Our rail system is optimized for freight and freight trains run 24x7.
A freight train hauling coal from a mine in Montana to power plants in New York could take 2 days to get from one end of the run to the other. A train like this could have 6 locomotives on one train, because the load is that heavy.
Such massive freight trains are very energy efficient measured in fuel/ton/mile, but it takes a lot to get them moving in the first place, and a lot to stop them.
Once the train is moving, they aren't stopping it (before it gets where it's going) for anything that isn't an emergency.
That simply isn't true in the US. Our rail system is optimized for freight and freight trains run 24x7.
Of course you can't compare the US to the Netherlands. I was simply responding to 'can't be done'. If depends on the local circumstances if it's possible. Obviously here it can and in the US it can't.
Of course you can't compare the US to the Netherlands. I was simply responding to 'can't be done'.
The can't be done was specific to freight mixed with high speed passenger rail.
Obviously here it can and in the US it can't.
So far, specific to high speed rail mixed with freight, you haven't demonstrated (or even explicitly claimed) that it is done in the Netherlands.
So far, specific to high speed rail mixed with freight, you haven't demonstrated (or even explicitly claimed) that it is done in the Netherlands.
What I said was that it wasn't mixed: During the day passengers, at night freight. That's in general, there are some times/routes where it is mixed but not many. Obviously only when it can be done at that time and route.
What I said was that it wasn't mixed: During the day passengers, at night freight.
Even that, you haven't actually said is done with high speed passenger rail.
Even that, you haven't actually said is done with high speed passenger rail.
It depends on what you call high speed. Our country isn't big enough to justify 200Mph speeds. The link I provided tells it all. Several maps with passenger/freight/combined/single/double tracks, maximum speeds, etc. I'm not sure what I can tell you more except for copy/pasting large parts of the link I provided. For speeds it says that most are limited to 81-87Mph except for the HSL-Zuid line where the max speed is 190Mph. Upgrading and new lines will raise allowed speeds which is an ongoing project.
One thing we have is a very high frequency of trains. Most lines have a train stop every 15 minutes switching between a 'stop-train' (stops at every station) and an intercity train (stops only at the bigger cities). The Wikipedia article is an interesting read although I personally hate trains and public transport in general ;)
For speeds it says that most are limited to 81-87Mph except for the HSL-Zuid line where the max speed is 190Mph.
I would put the cut-off for high-speed passenger rail at around 100 MPH*, so no, the 81-87Mph isn't high speed.
And I can't see anything at that link that shows what lines carry freight, other than the Betuweroute, which from the information at the link appears to be a dedicated freight line (no passenger traffic).
And from the information at the link, the HSL-Zuid line appears to be a dedicated line carrying only passenger traffic.
*100 MPH was accomplished with steam locomotives.
And I can't see anything at that link that shows what lines carry freight, other than the Betuweroute, which from the information at the link appears to be a dedicated freight line (no passenger traffic).
As I said, our country is too small for real high speeds unless starting and stopping gets more advanced for things as heavy as trains. We would probably be out of the country before we hit such a speed :D
This map (from the link I provided) shows all lines with which are passenger, freight, or both. As you can see most lines are used for both.
Comparing the Netherlands to the US makes no sense. Just the commuter rail in the NYC area has a larger ridership than the entire Dutch system.
Comparing the Netherlands to the US makes no sense. Just the commuter rail in the NYC area has a larger ridership than the entire Dutch system.
Not only that, but the idea of "freight trains running at night" is ok if you're going from, say, Rotterdam to Germany (about 260 miles). Shipping fruit and vegetables from California to New York (2,700 miles) only at night isn't so ok. You will double the time required for the trip, and arrive with spoiled food.
Building two sets of tracks, one for freight, the other for high-speed passenger service, is a good idea. Who will be first to come up with a trillion dollars for the downpayment? Let's see a show of hands...
Building two sets of tracks, one for freight, the other for high-speed passenger service, is a good idea.
The best idea is to just forget passenger rail. It's an old idea whose time has come and gone.
From an energy efficiency perspective (passenger miles/gal), while passenger rail is better than single occupancy cars, it's not that much better than a 2 person car pool and a lot worse than buses.
https://www.buses.org/assets/images/uploads/general/Report%20-%20Energy%20Use%20and%20Emissions.pdf
This doesn't include high-speed rail. I would expect high-speed rail to come out worse than domestic air travel.
Limiting the comparison to just modes of mass transit, rail has the least flexibility (for routes and schedules) and the worst energy efficiency.
Limiting the comparison to just modes of mass transit, rail has the least flexibility (for routes and schedules) and the worst energy efficiency.
The energy efficiency is debatable. But that doesn't matter.
The Progressive agenda is to eliminate air travel (except for "highly ranked party members, of course) and eliminate private automobile ownership (except of course for limos owned by those previously named).
All this is done in the name of environmental consciousness. So what is left other than high-speed rail?
Biking? Hiking? Or maybe it will just be illegal for us "peasants" to travel without permission.
Limiting the comparison to just modes of mass transit, rail has the least flexibility (for routes and schedules) and the worst energy efficiency.
Perhaps. But you'd need a Tesla bus to be powered by the turbines at Niagara Falls like a maglev train could. Or really any electrified rail.
Japan does have plenty of automotive infrastructure.
Not disputing that.
Just that if the commuters who travel by train daily were to all drive instead, the needed infrastructure would be far beyond what it is.
The argument becomes one of "Does providing necessary road and parking capacity from government infrastructure investment raise to the level of subsidizing auto usage, and if so would it be cheaper to subsidize passenger rail service?" Look at the NYC subway. Most traffic on the roads seems to be commercial vehicles and cabs, while very few bother driving.
while very few bother driving.
I heard few bother to drive in New York City as there is a severe shortage of parking spaces and what are there cost a fortune.
I heard few bother to drive in New York City as there is a severe shortage of parking spaces and what are there cost a fortune.
NYC Parking Authority says average is around $430 per month. That's to have a place to keep your car at night. Driving it in the city and trying to find a place to park during the day is a different matter. That's why there are so many taxis and limos in NYC. People who can afford one or who can pretend that they can afford one don't use the subway.
The argument becomes one of
That argument is irrelevant to the economic viability of a private passenger railroad.
and if so would it be cheaper to subsidize passenger rail service?
The same thing can be accomplished with bus service at a fraction of the cost of rail and infinitely greater flexibility to respond to changes in demand.
The same thing can be accomplished with bus service at a fraction of the cost of rail and infinitely greater flexibility to respond to changes in demand.
Both of these things are true, yet buses fail for the same reason that trains have failed. Neither can actually respond to demand, as long as people have the freedom to live where they want and to work where (and when) they want.
Solution 1: pack enough people into a confined area, where they must live and work. and you will reach a point were there are enough people to support transit. (NYC, for example)
Solution 2: going back a century or so, Atlanta, Los Angeles, and a few other cities were building "bedroom communities" and providing transit (streetcars, light rail) to and from the communities to "downtown".
Point to point works well, until you have a million different starting and ending points in all different directions. Buses cost money and drivers with seniority make over $150,000 a year. It all adds up really quickly.
And that *reality* is why there is no bus or rail service, private or government-run, in this area.
It would actually be cheaper to buy everyone a Tesla and pay the power bill.
And just about the time you buy an over-priced house in a 'bedroom community' so you can take public transportation to your job downtown, your employer decides that the location downtown is a) overtaxed b) now a high-crime area c) more profitable in Texas, and there you are...
The first point: The goal of all "urban planning" for the last 50 years is to force people to live in clustered development. The "progressive" wing of the political landscape has fully embraced that idea. The problem they face is that most people don't want to live that way. Despite the best efforts to force people to live the native born American population in central cities continues to decline. It is only through massive immigration, largely illegal,, that almost all cities maintain their population base.
Look at the NYC subway.
Actually, the thing to look at is mature cities that have tried to add rail on top of decent bus service.
https://coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2020/09/phoenix-light-rail-fail-valleymetro-2020-report.html
In almost every case you will find that adding rail doesn't take cars off the roads, it cannibalizes riders from the buses and generally results in a reduction in total transit ridership.
because the private rail carriers (most of whom still exist) were abandoning passenger service
I wonder if part of that was due to any government regulations. I know most rail services around the world used to run mixed freight and passenger services for a long time then they started to split the services off into either just freight or just passenger services. In some places this was due to changes in government rules to not allow them to run both in the same train. However, in most cases it was because the rail freight services for small shipments to a lot of destinations dried up as it moved to trucks, then as the freight services moved to more large shipments requiring multiple railcars between shipper and receiver the fright trains grew in size and weight and it wasn't cost effective to stop them except where a number of railcars were being added or removed. Then local rail passenger services to a lot of smaller locations dropped to the point the stops weren't justified and a lot of smaller stations were no longer getting passenger services. Which in turn reduced passenger traffic further.
I wonder if part of that was due to any government regulations.
As I understand it, at least in the US, while the things you mention might have been an issue, the biggest driver was that passenger rail service just wasn't competitive, on either price or convenience, with either long distance intercity buses or air travel.
And passenger railroads have even less ability than the airlines to adjust to changes in travel patterns.
Either bus or train would get them there. If you choose train, then remember some routes were restricted. Specifically those near military assets.
If a person took a bus, it would be routed through multiple towns/cities big and small as the Eisenhower interstate system didn't exist then.
If the person had money, air service was available albeit limited due to the war effort.
the Eisenhower interstate system didn't exist then.
Yeah, that's why I thought a long distance bus trip wasn't feasible. Plus from Virginia to Oklahoma I needed a sleeping compartment and eating area. So I thought about trains.
btw, when researching I read that there were difficulty moving around during WW2 for military reasons both in Europe and in the U.S. and that's why Eisenhower developed the interstate highways.
Long-distance buses were active way before the interstate highway system was wide-spread. As a young soldier in the late 60's I endured some of those routes in the South, where two-lane highways were the norm and fifty MPH was high speed, with slowing down in every little village and town straddling the route.
And heaven help you if you didn't take an 'express' bus, because then the bus stopped at just about every one of those towns. It was often better to delay departure an hour or two to catch an express that take the first bus out, if it was the local.
And heaven help you if you didn't take an 'express' bus, because then the bus stopped at just about every one of those towns.
If the buses only stopped in every little town, you were lucky. Anybody who lived along the route, or who could find a way to get somewhere beside the road - the bus would stop and pick you up if you flagged it down.
As a young soldier in the late 60's I endured some of those routes in the South, where two-lane highways were the norm and fifty MPH was high speed, with slowing down in every little village and town straddling the route.
My character is a young soldier, too. He was sent from a hospital in England on a Douglass C-47 cargo plane via the North Atlantic Route (England to Iceland to Greenland to Newfoundland, Canada). Then a full colonel who worked in the War Department gave him a lift on his plane to Ft. Belvoir, Virginia (btw, that's where I did my AIT and it was active in 1943 and had an airfield).
Now he needs to get to Oklahoma before reporting to Camp Bowie in Texas for his next assignment. I'm going to put him on a train without giving specifics or even train transfers. I just wanted to know if that was possible back then. It looks like it is.
I think maybe you're over thinking it. If he's a soldier, he could simply fly under orders into ATC (Air Transport Command) in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
ETA: Oklahoma was a hub for Army air training, ferry, and transport during WW2.
If he's a soldier, he could simply fly under orders into ATC (Air Transport Command) in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
True, is following orders to report immediately. However, if he's on leave for a few weeks prior to reporting in transport to his place of leave is his own problem and he has to take private or public transport to move about.
True, is following orders to report immediately. However, if he's on leave for a few weeks prior to reporting in transport to his place of leave is his own problem and he has to take private or public transport to move about.
Agreed with an exception. Even with leave he could hitch a ride. If it's necessary for a scene, it could be a mile high encounter with a WAAF given the number of transport and ferry hubs in Oklahoma.
Agreed with an exception. Even with leave he could hitch a ride.
If he could! While on leave he'd not have a priority and would be on Space Available and with all those on duty travelling it's a very low probability of getting official transport. Not impossible, juts extremely unlikely. I've read biographies where people have had to wait several days for Space Available official transport during WW2, which is why most would opt to try the public transport or hitch hiking. Anyone in uniform often got free travel on the non-urban public transport services back then.
A lot of supposition involved depending on the scenario at hand. I don't think it would be as unlikely as you may be thinking though. It it were anytime in the last 70 years, you'd probably be right.
I don't think it would be as unlikely as you may be thinking though.
My thoughts and comments are based on what I've read in the way of biographies and accounts of the wartime transport problems experienced by people. From what I read my understanding is there were many different levels of transport, authorities to travel, and methods of travel.
Travel options for everyone were:
1. Official military vehicle which required a travel authority document that also carried a priority.
2. Public transport by commercial plane, train, tram, or bus.
3. Private transport by plane, train, truck, car, or foot.
The priorities for military personnel on military transport were, in order of highest to lowest:
(a) On duty.
(b) On the direct way to a duty station to commence duty on arrival.
(c) On the way to a duty station but on leave before reporting.
(d) On the way to a leave location from your place of duty.
Most seating on military transports of all forms were taken up with (a) and (b) priority people and the (c) and (d) people took their chances which often included lengthy delays and waiting. Also, the (a) and (b) military people got priority on public transport services.
To add to the whole issue a service person with a (c) priority could have their priority for a particular part of the trip vary depending on where they were and where they were headed. Going from Point A to Point E by direct transport links through Point B, Point C, and Point D would usually provide a higher priority than if they wanted to deviate at Point B to got to Point F for some of their leave before travelling back to Point B or onto Point C to resume their trip to their next duty station.
In general, people travelling between duty stations had few issues, but when they deviated from the most direct travel option paths they ran into issues and delays.
If he's a soldier, he could simply fly under orders into ATC (Air Transport Command) in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Except his orders are to report to Camp Bowie in Texas. The general gave him 4 weeks to report so that he could make a stop in Oklahoma. His orders were written up very fast and were an afterthought with everything going on at the time. So things were overlooked, like how he would get to America from Newfoundland, Canada. They just stuck him on a cargo plane (with some seriously injured soldiers) returning to Newfoundland to pick up the next cargo.
Commercial air travel wasn't what it is today. Even military.
He got lucky and hitched a plane ride with a full colonel from Newfoundland to Ft. Belvoir, Virginia, but then is on his own. I'm going to have him take trains to Oklahoma City and then a bus to Lawton, OK. That's only 87 miles SW from Oklahoma City and in 1940 had a population of 18,000 so it wasn't a large city. It's also near Ft. Sill (don't know if that will be part of the story).
So a military plane to Virginia. Sleeper/dining trains to Oklahoma City. Bus to Lawton. Hitchhike to the person's home.
It's also near Ft. Sill (don't know if that will be part of the story).
At that time Fort Sill was an active Army training base, so it's possible he might have been able to get a lift to or from the fort on a truck taking supplies there from one of the nearby cities or a truck on it's way to get supplies.
At that time Fort Sill was an active Army training base,
Still is, too. Field Artillery trains there.
At that time Fort Sill was an active Army training base,
Ironically, his orders are to Camp Bowie which at the time was one of the largest training facilities and it is in Texas where he's from.
I may not want him to be near an army base so maybe Lawton isn't the right city.
But thanks, guys. He'll take trains and then a bus.
his orders are to Camp Bowie
If he's on orders, with leave authorized while en route, then he could travel where ever via space available military. If he was in a goonie bird crossing the Atlantic, there's probably something coming back from Virginia. Bowie isn't that far from Dallas. And people go straight from OKC to Dallas all the time, even back then. They'd be glad to give a ride to a hitchhiking soldier.
If he's on orders, with leave authorized while en route, then he could travel where ever via space available military.
So he might get a military plane out of Ft. Belvoir to Ft. Sill?
This is 1943. Air travel wasn't what it is today. Was it even common for military to travel in the U.S. by air? I didn't think so. FDR was the first president to travel by air. The industry really was in its infancy.
The industry really was in its infancy.
It's your story so you could have him travel on the back of a dolphin if you wanted.
However, the quoted statement simply isn't true.
http://www.birthofaviation.org/birth-of-commercial-aviation/
WW1 heralded the end of infancy for the aviation industry. The Boeing 247 first flew in 1933, the Douglas DC-3 went into service in 1936. With the war and accelerated pace of aircraft production, it was decidedly removed from its infancy by 43.
it was decidedly removed from its infancy by 43.
But not a widely used form of transportation. I believe (and I don't have a reference) that the major advancements took place during WW2 because of the war. They later overflowed to commercial travel.
But he's going by train. I know a scene I will be writing on that train.
But not a widely used form of transportation.
To reiterate my earlier statement:
If the person had money, air service was available albeit limited due to the war effort.
I never stated it was widely used in civilian form. Mainly because it took a lot of money, something that wasn't widely available post great depression.
However, I do have a lot of information on the WW2 era military air transportation efforts available to me. A few museum visits would back up my information as well.
Private travel was almost solely the realm of the rich, but not so among the military.
As for the train, I'd suggest the west then south route. The south then west route passed through some peculiarities that could muck up your story.
https://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/entries/alcoa-inc/
Alcoa aluminum and the nearby Oak Ridge bomb efforts definitely affected train routes.
https://www.company-histories.com/Reynolds-Metals-Company-Company-History.html
Reynolds had much the same problem minus the Oak Ridge complications.
Travel directly west, then south was less of an issue by train.
Ironically, his orders are to Camp Bowie which at the time was one of the largest training facilities and it is in Texas where he's from.
Switch,
The reason I mentioned Fort Sill was to point out it had a lot of official traffic to and from it because there were a number of Oklahoma Army National Guard units based there that were training up there as the 45th Infantry Division then other units undertook training at Fort Sill.
I'm going to have him take trains to Oklahoma City and then a bus to Lawton, OK. That's only 87 miles SW from Oklahoma City and in 1940 had a population of 18,000 so it wasn't a large city. It's also near Ft. Sill (don't know if that will be part of the story).
He could easily hop a plane from Ft. Belvoir to the Midwest Air Depot - what is now Tinker AFB. That's where the C-47s were built. The bus station in OKC at that time was downtown, not where it is now on the east side of town.
But also, because Lawton is where Fort Sill is located, there'd always be somebody from there in OKC that could give him a ride back.
So a military plane to Virginia. Sleeper/dining trains to Oklahoma City. Bus to Lawton. Hitchhike to the person's home.
During WW II, most stateside transport was via bus and rail. A fortunate (or not) few got to hitch rides on aircraft, but unless you were VIP or assigned aircrew, I wouldn't bet on flying much.
During WW II, most stateside transport was via bus and rail. A fortunate (or not) few got to hitch rides on aircraft, but unless you were VIP or assigned aircrew, I wouldn't bet on flying much.
That's what I believe.
And he got a lift on a plane to Virginia by a VIP colonel.
The Tennesseean, a train running 1155 miles between Memphis, Tennessee and Washington, D.C., inaugurated on May 17, 1941, and ended on March 30, 1968.
The Tennesseean was a deluxe train operated for most of the route by Southern Railways, and for part of the route (Lynchburg, Virginia to Bristol, Tennessee) by Norfolk & Western. The trip took 23 hours and 50 minutes.
The Morning Star train was a service that operated from 1941 to 1950 out of Memphis (by the St. Louis Southwestern Railway), specifically to connect with the Tennessean. It operated westward to Dallas, Texas. I don't know for sure that it stopped in Tulsa or Oklahoma City on the way to Dallas, but it is in the general direction.
As I said, I'm not going into detail. As of now, I wrote:
Boyd got a lift to Washington D.C. where he bought a train ticket. He had to change trains several times as they sped west through the country.
Then I describe what he saw out the window and then
Boyd had changed trains for the last time in Jefferson City, Missouri. He had just settled into his seat when…
That train will take him to Oklahoma City where he'll get on a bus to Lawton.
Was there a train from Jefferson City to Oklahoma City? They are two large cities in bordering states so I would guess there was.
Was there a bus from Oklahoma City to Lawton. Since Ft. Sill was outside Lawton, I would guess there was.
Pacific Railroad (Succeeded by Missouri Pacific Railroad, St. Louis-San Francisco Railway) reached Jefferson City in late 1855.
The Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe (ATSF) reached Oklahoma City as the first rail there in 1887.
By 1907 rail services crisscrossed Oklahoma via several regional carriers.
Which of those regionals connected with the Pacific Railroad progeny to the ATSF (BNSF since 1996) is debatable but there were definitely connections, no guesswork there.
I suspect that route maps for the various train lines are available from Railfan historical groups. I believe the area you were discussing is not serviced by Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific. So you might want to check their historical groups for the information.
https://armyhistory.org/railroaders-in-olive-drab-the-military-railway-service-in-wwii/
https://www.american-rails.com/world.html
Some interesting history on the subject.
Some interesting history on the subject.
Thanks.
I'm not going to be specific on the route. An author can get into a world of trouble writing what he knows nothing about. That's why a lot of my places are fictitious. I just sprinkle in real names of people and places to make it seem real.
rustyken, Ernest, and everyone else, thank you so much. If I get stuck writing it, I'll be back to this thread.
1943
Remember that travel was tight back then. Trains were shipping defense goods. Otoh, we're definitely talking trains. I have an atlas copyright 1953; tell me what cities; I may be able to tell you what railways.
tell me what cities; I may be able to tell you what railways.
Thanks, but I don't need that level of detail.
I probably should note that there is a train station 5 miles from my house. I 'could' ride a bike to the station, but the last train left there in 1946.
During WWII, pretty much everyone who wasn't in the armed services and who could work, did work, many of them at Lockheed, building airplanes. The trains ran then, from around a 60 mile radius, taking workers to work and back home.
After that, when people could once again buy gas and automobiles, nobody much wanted to take a train except for long distance travel.
I probably should note that there is a train station 5 miles from my house. I 'could' ride a bike to the station, but the last train left there in 1946.
Where I am, in February it could be -15F outside. No one is riding a bike 5 miles in that kind of weather.
Where I am, in February it could be -15F outside. No one is riding a bike 5 miles in that kind of weather.
While it doesn't get quite that cold here, the trip back home at the end of a day of work would mean an uphill climb of ~1,000 ft. No, thank you very much, I'll have to pass on that opportunity.
While it doesn't get quite that cold here, the trip back home at the end of a day of work would mean an uphill climb of ~1,000 ft.
For that commute, to/from the train station, what you need is a pair of skies to go down and a ski lift back up. :)
If you are going to commute by car into NYC it's going to cost (in Midtown) around $600 monthly parking. Less the the farther west you go. If you commute to the Bronx, Queens or Brooklyn from outside the city you would likely drive. That isn't cheap - for Brooklyn or Queens the tolls would probably total $30 per day, but you can probably get free parking.
That isn't cheap - for Brooklyn or Queens the tolls would probably total $30 per day
And now we get to the real reason why so few people commute in/out of NYC by car on a daily basis.
I haven't been following the discussion on planes, trains, and automobiles, but my character just got off a Greyhound bus in Lawton, OK so he found his way there. Now he's heading to where there are three taxicabs lined up outside the Greyhound terminal.
Lawton, OK
I'm not old enough to remember 1943, and I don't live in Ok, but that doesn't hit any red flags for me.
I'm not old enough to remember 1943, and I don't live in Ok, but that doesn't hit any red flags for me.
What doesn't?
Greyhound bus in Lawton, OK
Greyhound will work. It might have also been Southern Trailways, because they were big in this part of the country then. Also, keep in mind that bus stations were generic for the city - all the bus routes in and out used the same location, because local lines would be feeder routes.
Greyhound will work.
Oh, this time I wasn't asking. Because of the active discussion on trains (which I haven't been reading), I was making light of my situation saying he safely arrived.
The impractical idea of high speed rail replacing air travel is shown by a simple comparison.
The fastest Japanese train trip from Tokyo to Osaka is 2 1/2 hours. Flying from NYC to Chicago takes 10 minutes longer but its at least 2 5 times the distance by car. To make any sense, a rail route would have to be much longer to take in cities insteadof empty farmland. An optimistic estimate is that high speed rail would take at least 7:00 hours instead of 2:40. Who would take that option?
An optimistic estimate is that high speed rail would take at least 7:00 hours instead of 2:40. Who would take that option?
Everyone who's afraid of heights.
Depends. How early do you need to show up for the train to get through security? Is the train gonna have to circle the station in a holding pattern for long? Will th train diver to another city due to weather?
Also, what's the timing of the train vs the flight? How about cost?
I wouldn't mind a midnight departure for a seven hour train ride. Especially if I had a one-day meeting at the destination and could get a train ride back... If the cost was close to air travel, the savings on parking at the airport and no needing a hotel room would make it very appealing.
You're going to sleep sitting up for 7 hours on a train? Trains with baggage already have security checks and you are told to arrive 45 minutes before departure.
Savings on parking? Where are you leaving your vehicle in a major city that's going to cost less than an airport?
Weather, accidents, suicides regularly disrupt train travel. Even slugs can shut down the system https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/24/asia/japan-high-speed-train-slug-intl-hnk/index.html
How about cost?
Current Amtrak fares NYC to Chicago run $88 to $110, but that's subsidized, that's not enough for Amtrack to even break even on. And if you want a sleeper birth for the long trip, that will be another $188 to $400.
I would expect that fares on a high speed line would have to be higher.
Currently listing for airline tickets NYC to Chicago on Travelocity start at $143 for a non-stop flight and $123 for one stop.
Non-stop flight time is just under 3 hours.
I wouldn't mind a midnight departure for a seven hour train ride. Especially if I had a one-day meeting at the destination and could get a train ride back... If the cost was close to air travel, the savings on parking at the airport and no needing a hotel room would make it very appealing.
This used to be very common, especially NY to Chicago, Atlanta to DC, and a few other routes. Leave after work, eat a nice dinner, sleep, shower, breakfast, and be there for your 9 a.m. meeting. Return the same way that evening. City center to city center.
I did that myself when I had to travel from Atl to DC to make presentations to congressional committees. (Hey, lighten up... everybody has done something they're not proud of!)
Unfortunately, poor management has made the idea unappealing (no good food, trips are slower, sleepers overpriced, schedules less dependable, departure and arrival times less geared to business hours...)
I forgot to mention cost before. The fare (heavily subsidized) on Japanese bullet trains between Tokyo and Osaka is about $140 one-way for a very short trip.
To make any sense, a rail route would have to be much longer to take in cities insteadof empty farmland.
Why? A dedicated high speed line could be as straight as possible to get the shortest distance possible and thus the fastest travel time. An airplane doesn't stop while on route to pick up passengers along the way, why would such a high speed train do that? Although I don't like trains (at least not like here in the Netherlands) I see a future for long distance high speed trains because they have some very convincing advantages over flying.
I see a future for long distance high speed trains because they have some very convincing advantages over flying.
Name one.
Trains have major disadvantages. They cost a lot more (once you eliminate subsidized fares and look at actual operating & capital costs) and they are even harder to re-route if demand changes.
I see a future for long distance high speed trains because they have some very convincing advantages over flying.
Name one.
Trains have major disadvantages. They cost a lot more (once you eliminate subsidized fares and look at actual operating & capital costs) and they are even harder to re-route if demand changes.
Mind you, this concerns may remark "I see a future for long distance high speed trains because they have some very convincing advantages over flying".
* huge energy savings compared to flying
* it's very hard to electrify an airplane, very easy for trains
* way less polluting than flying
* stops between start and end possible if wanted
* much more room to move around for passengers which makes long travel a lot easier than sitting in an airplane seat for hours
* can transport many more passengers per tour
* with double tracks many trains can move on the same track in the same direction which makes adjusting train sizes and timings very easy
* they can't fall out the sky so any accidents are likely to be with less casualties, even with more passengers.
Do I need to go on?
Of course there are also disadvantages but investments will pay back in time. If an airplane can be operated profitable these kinds of trains should be able to do the same. I agree that you can't divert from an existing track but when rail networks are expanded over time this becomes easier.
they can't fall out the sky so any accidents are likely to be with less casualties, even with more passengers.
This is wrong. A train has a lot more mass than an airplane. Train derailments are far more destructive than plane crashes.
Also measured by fatalities/injuries per passenger mile air travel is by far the safest mode of travel.
If an airplane can be operated profitable these kinds of trains should be able to do the same.
Again, trains do not operate profitably anywhere in the world today (including places like Japan that have high speed rails), so no, there is no basis to assume that they could be operated profitably in the future.
* it's very hard to electrify an airplane, very easy for trains
* way less polluting than flying
Electrification of trains is not an absolute good, and is not necessarily less polluting, that would depend on the source of electricity.
Solar and wind will never provide enough power for high speed electric trains, hydro and geothermal are limited by geographies/geology, so globally, your choices are nuclear, coal and natural gas.
And no, electric trains powered by coal are not significantly less polluting that modern jet airliners.
1. Powered by coal? Which coal plants? Some are damn clean. Not the ones China uses, but... And what about all the hydro turbines? Or nuclear plants? Or natural gas? Lot's of power is cleaner than coal.
Which coal plants? Some are damn clean.
That depends on whether you are talking about real pollutants or CO2. There is no such thing as clean coal when CO2 has been defined as a pollutant.
And what about all the hydro turbines?
There are probably fewer than you think. There are relatively few places where the geology and land topography makes large scale hydro projects viable.
Clean? Not if you count all the terrestrial habitat destroyed by flooding to create the required reservoir.
Or nuclear plants?
What about nuclear waste?
Nuclear has become politically impossible. Several European countries are shutting down existing nuclear plants ahead of end of life as fast as they can with no plan for replacing the power generated other than to buy it from other countries. A couple more are bringing old coal plants back on line to offset the lost power.
The environmentalists don't want to allow nuclear to be counted a clean energy even when they've defined CO2 as the problem.
Or natural gas?
I mentioned natural gas.
I singled out coal for two reasons:
1 As an example to illustrate the fact that electric rail is "non-polluting" only to the extent that the electric generation powering it is "non-polluting"
2. When it comes to generating electricity, coal is still king. globally, 36.7% of electric generation is coal based, natural gas is 23.5%, nuclear 10.4, hydro is only 15.8%, wind 5.3% everything else is a rounding error.
https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix
The environmentalists don't want to allow nuclear to be counted a clean energy even when they've defined CO2 as the problem.
That's because to a significant number of them, they won't be happy until people are living in mud huts with no technology beyond maybe a spear. Although a spear may be pushing it for them.
they can't fall out the sky so any accidents are likely to be with less casualties, even with more passengers.
September 22, 1993 - Sunset Limited goes into an Alabama swamp at 70 miles per hour due a barge hitting the bridge literally just a few minutes before. 47 people killed, 103 injured.
September 12, 2008 - Chatsworth, California - 25 killed, 130 injured, MetroLink passenger train blows red-light, head on into a freight train
There's been a lot more - back when we had a lot of passenger liners, there were 1 or two fatal train wrecks every year, typically with 30+ people killed.
Of course, this completely ignores the OTHER side of things - grade crossing accidents. In 2019, there were still 2,200 of those in the US. The train CAN'T dodge. I've been a passenger on a train that did that, and it was a fatal accident.
Do I need to go on?
Yes, how about actual cost?
High speed double track rail - between $2.3 - $2.6 million per MILE.
High speed single track rail - between $1.6 - $1.8 million per MILE.
Oh, did you need turnouts? (switches) - $700,000 EACH
Need some sidings, for passing tracks, each maybe 1.25 miles long - $2.5 million EACH
And you need to fence the high speed rail, that's $200,000 per MILE.
Don't forget that you better have some way to control those trains, since they're high speed. That's another $400,000 per MILE.
Chicago to St. Louis - 300 miles. With appropriate turnouts, you're talking a smooth $1 billion dollars for two rail tracks, that only connect those two cities. Let's run a double track Chicago to New York. That's $2.75 billion.
Obviously, you're not going to build a straight line track from St. Louis to New York, they have to go through Chicago.
Oh, and the current cost for a runway capable of handling fully loaded 747's is $1 billion, each. And you're not stuck with going only where the tracks lead.
I'm a rail fan. My personal favorite train is the N&W J. And the only reason IT could haul passengers was because it was also used to haul coal and freight. From a cargo cost perspective - because when you boil it down, it doesn't matter if you're hauling coal, fresh fruit, or people, it's all just cargo to the carrier - at the volumes of passenger travel versus distance involved in the United States, rail cannot compete with air.
If you've got plenty of time - Amtrak New York to LA is $197, and takes almost 3 days, and requires switching at Chicago. So round trip takes 6 days, for $400.
Round trip tickets from La Guardia to Los Angeles, staying a week, with one transfer in Chicago, with a total flight time of 16 hours, cost $216.
Yes, how about actual cost?
I wonder why Tesla even bothers experimenting with his hyperloop...
I wonder why Tesla even bothers experimenting with his hyperloop...
1. Musk, not Tesla. Telsa is the name of one of Musk's companies. Tesla makes electric cars and has no connection to the hyperloop.
2. Musk isn't seriously experimenting with the hyperloop. Like around half of Musk's companies it is a vaporware scam.
https://jalopnik.com/elon-musk-says-hyperloop-tunnel-is-now-just-a-normal-1835024474
To recap: Musk's company spent two years developing a very narrow car tunnel. To anyone who ever believed Elon Musk's bullshit: you've been had.
Do you seriously think that there would be political and social support for high speed rail that had no intermediate stops. Do you believe that voters would support the wildly expensive, highly disruptive land grab that will only provide them with noise pollution and social isolation? All to connect two dying center cities for the benefit of the wealthy?
Do you seriously think that there would be political and social support for high speed rail that had no intermediate stops.
With real high speed rail (150+ MPH), intermediate stops are impractical unless you are talking very long runs (LA->NYC for example)
All high speed rail has intermediate stops. The number might be small but they have to be there or rail makes no sense whatsoever.
All high speed rail has intermediate stops. The number might be small but they have to be there or rail makes no sense whatsoever.
Outside of Japan, rail in general, and high speed rail in particular is mostly built for triumphalist reasons.
Most projects are started with the intent for intermediate stops, but many have been abandoned after the first leg is built.
The high speed rail project in California, is bogged down in massive cost overruns, to the point that federal funding was cut off and they haven't even completed the first leg yet.
If they ever do manage to get the first leg operational, that is likely to be the end of the project.
All high speed rail has intermediate stops. The number might be small but they have to be there or rail makes no sense whatsoever.
There's a major psychological difference between having to take a cab or bus 10 or 20 blocks to get to a high-speed rail station, and having to drive 50 -100 or more miles to get to the nearest station.
Once you've driven that 50 or 100 miles, it's pretty easy to just stay in the car and finish the trip. It won't cost more; trains aren't cheap. And your car is probably comfortable, uncrowded, and ready to take you home when you are.
The real problem is that people who live in cities tend to think everyone does, while people who live in the country know better. And it's the people who live in the cities who make up the majority of the high-speed rail advocates. The people in the country can see that it wouldn't do them a bit of good, so why pay taxes for it?
The real problem is that people who live in cities tend to think everyone does, while people who live in the country know better.
I'm probably missing something very obvious, but "think everyone does" what?
The fastest Japanese train trip from Tokyo to Osaka is 2 1/2 hours. Flying from NYC to Chicago takes 10 minutes longer but its at least 2 5 times the distance by car. To make any sense, a rail route would have to be much longer to take in cities insteadof empty farmland. An optimistic estimate is that high speed rail would take at least 7:00 hours instead of 2:40. Who would take that option?
OK, people, about the discussion of what transport is more suited to what: There is no clear definitive answer. This is because so much of which is better to use out of car, rail (high speed and low speed), and air depends on way too many variables. The major ones are: population density - both current and historically, available land, topography, geology, and historical usage. All of these have an effect on the transport option for every city and country.
Let's look at some of the differences you encounter in cities. Population density (people per square mile): Tokyo 16,440, New York City 10,716, Hiroshima 3,400, Boston 5,531, Sydney 1,100, Monte Carlo has 15,200 in.234 of a square mile which equates to over 61,000 people per sq mi if it stayed that dense while growing to that size.. That has a serious effect as the more people you stuff into an area the less space you to stuff in cars, parking areas, and roads; and thus the more effective public mass transit systems become if they have the correct infrastructure.
Now some of the differences in countries.Population density (people per square mile): Japan 865, USA 87, Australia 8.5 (it's real weird watching all them half people walking around), Monaco 48,466.
Air travel between cities in Monaco isn't viable for the simple reason of them not having the land to build the airports on. They have an extensive road system, but they don't have the land for the effective private car usage for parking areas. Thus they have a very extensive public bus service and taxi service. They also have an effective water taxi service, and well developed and used footpaths.
The history of an area and the historical population density has an effect in how much space was used for transport in the past and how much is available for transport today. By the time you look at everything involved there is no one definitive answer of which is best overall, just what is best for each individual situation.
How do those 1/5th of a people walk around?
(Density of 0.2 people per square mile.)
Maybe they're just a bunch of single legs that hop about everywhere!
How do those 1/5th of a people walk around?
They don't, rather you have one whole person with 5 square miles all to themselves.
But that's not the lowest population density in the US.
That would go to Yukon Koyukuk County, Alaska at 25.75 square miles / person (0.04 people/square mile).
Lemme guess, like centaurs, only half sheep instead of half horse?
At least, that's what it should be, according to kiwis I know...
Air travel between cities in Monaco isn't viable for the simple reason of them not having the land to build a second city.
Air travel between cities in Monaco isn't viable for the simple reason of them not having the land to build a second city.
When you account for all the land the rails occupy, passenger rail doesn't occupy that much less space on the ground than air travel.
Air travel between cities in Monaco isn't viable for the simple reason of them not having the land to build the airports on.
The fact that Monaco is just 0.78 of a square mile in total area means that not only is an airport not viable, it means Monaco is far smaller in total area than an international airport..!!
I need to get someone from Virginia to Oklahoma in 1943.
Well, that is a little vague. But it must be remembered that the Interstate Freeway system largely mirrored major rail lines.
For Virginia, just use a train following I-40 from and to major cities closest to your destination. Depending on how far away from there you need to go, you may need to have them use a local bus or train to get from there.
In that era, most long distance train travel required multiple trains. But by looking at freeway maps, you can recreate the route that most trains of the era would have operated.
For example, travel to say from Atlanta to Boise would mean taking a train most likely to Chicago, then transferring to one that ran between Chicago (which may mean traveling to New York first) and Portland and getting off on the way.
And most major air hubs were at one time major rail hubs. LA, Portland, Atlanta, New York, Chicago, Dallas, etc. Just use local to get to the closest medium sized city on a modern freeway map, and follow that to the largest medium sized city to your destination.
And since that was during wartime, you would have had additional lines active specifically to major military bases. I had a character in a story set in WWII travel from San Francisco to South Carolina in WWII. That would have incorporated travel to LA, then cross-country (where I even had her interact with some people along the way). Then in Atlanta another train up to coastal South Carolina.
And most major air hubs were at one time major rail hubs. LA, Portland, Atlanta, New York, Chicago, Dallas, etc.
Many of them still are, at least for freight.
For example, travel to say from Atlanta to Boise would mean taking a train most likely to Chicago, then transferring to one that ran between Chicago (which may mean traveling to New York first) and Portland and getting off on the way.
It was actually easier to do that in 1940's than now. There were a couple of direct trains from Atl to Chicago; the Dixie Flyer (Chi-Atl-Jacksonville) and the Dixie Flagler (Chi-Atl-Miami) plus half a dozen others if you were willing to change trains somewhere along the way. The Union Pacific had two (count 'em, 2) trains, the Portland Rose and the City of Portland, both serving Boise from Chicago.
There were likely other ways as well, such is via Kansas city and Denver.
While there isn't much passenger service left in the US ("thanks" to AMTRAK), a lot of the rail lines are still there, and often still used for freight. You can see them on sectional charts even if they have been unused for 50 years and aren't shown on maps anymore. If there aren't any rails going to your destination, there probably weren't any in 1940 either.
While there isn't much passenger service left in the US ("thanks" to AMTRAK)
Like it's Amtrak's fault that passenger rail is uneconomical and can't pay for itself.
Like it's Amtrak's fault that passenger rail is uneconomical and can't pay for itself.
It may well be the case. When I was growing up in Sydney we had a local bus line that ran two routes through the local suburbs with a bus every 10 minutes on each route from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and one every 30 minutes from 2:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. as well as 7:00 p.m. to midnight. They were very successful and made good money. However, when the state government nationalised the services they routes changed to 1 bus per route on the hour from 3:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. then 1 bus per route every 30 minutes until 7:00 p.m. with 1 bus per hour from 8:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
During the decade following the nationalisation the residents in those suburbs tripled. The number of children using the free government bus passes on the listed school allowed services doubled (this service existed when it was privately owned), and the general usage dropped to 20% of the private usage while the costs went up due to the government employees were more expensive than the private ones and the government had more than double the management structure working the local depot that used to operate the private service.
The main reason for the dropped usage was the new schedule no longer suited the needs of the locals, thus they took to walking or a taxi as both were much faster than waiting for the next bus. The services made huge loses.
Many decades later the government privatised those routes and the new owner remembered the old schedule, reinstituted it, and has been making a huge profit every year since.
The demand for the service was always there, it's just that the bureaucrats running the government owned operation had no reason or need to find out what the people wanted or to cater to it. That has been the major problem with all government owned transport systems around the would for many decades. The same issue affected the NSW passenger rail services, and still does.
Edit typo, and to add: When I was 12 years old the bus service to the nearest shopping centre took 10 minutes. If I missed the bus I could walk it in 15 minutes, or ride my bike in 5 minutes. The bus was just easier on my legs, but standing around to wait for the next government bus was more leg strain than walking was.
It may well be the case.
Amtrack hasn't been well managed and hasn't helped the situation much, if any, but Amtrak was created in the first place because the private carriers were bailing out of passenger rail because it was unprofitable before the government got directly involved.
If it wasn't for Amtrack and a few state government funded operators (Such as METRA in Illinois), inter city passenger rail in the US would have died out completely more than 30 years ago.
Amtrak is very much not a case of the government nationalizing a profitable industry and then fucking it up.
Actually, the rail industry is a perfect example of unions taking a profitable industry and fucking it right up.
The great shift in transportation from freight trains to the trucking industry was made possible by the rail union. And short-haul freight traffic combined with a passenger manifest was the only sustainable model for inter-city transport via rail. Other than commuter trains into NYC and such.
And short-haul freight traffic combined with a passenger manifest was the only sustainable model for inter-city transport via rail. Other than commuter trains into NYC and such.
Once you had intercity buses and affordable air travel, there was no sustainable model for inter-city passenger rail. Continued intermixing passenger and light freight might might have changed the timing, but it wouldn't have changed the long term outcome.
. . . it was unprofitable before the government got directly involved
No. The government controlled fares, controlled routes, controlled schedules through the ICC. A change to any of these required ICC approval.
That's what put passenger rail,especially commuter rail, out of business.
No. The government controlled fares, controlled routes, controlled schedules through the ICC. A change to any of these required ICC approval.
Even if rail fares had been completely unregulated, they would have had to risen to level much higher than air fares in order for the passenger rail operation to have been profitable.
Even if rail fares had been completely unregulated, they would have had to risen to level much higher than air fares in order for the passenger rail operation to have been profitable.
Nope, because we can see many rail lines still in operation that are not. Specifically the commuter lines. Heck, for over a year I actually took a ferry to and from work every day, in 2014.
But the local lines are still normally in the hands of local organizations, and they fight to keep them low. The concern is not the same for the National system.
Nope, because we can see many rail lines still in operation that are not. Specifically the commuter lines. Heck
Nope those local commuter lines are still government run, it's just that they are run by state and/or local governments rather than the feds.
Amtrak can't even cover their operating costs just from fares, much less their capital cots, which are much higher than for the airlines. And that is just as true of every other passenger rail system everywhere in the world.
Nope those local commuter lines are still government run, it's just that they are run by state and/or local governments rather than the feds.
Which is the point. They do not have the huge budget to hide or absorb those kinds of losses, so operate much more efficiently.
The Capital Corridor (Sacramento to SF) is $25 each way, $200 a week, or $500 a month. A lot of people do that commute, because it is actually cheaper than driving. I took the ferry to SF for the same reason. After factoring in gas, bridge tolls and parking, it was much cheaper to take the boat to work.
And most of them run at near capacity. This is what they need to do with the trains. Drop the stupid high rates, and return to affordable so people can afford to take it again.
Germany was making these phenomenal tanks, huge and very well built. The US though swamped them with cheaper tanks, which cost 1/3 as much but made up for their shortcomings in quantity. We could build 3 for every 1 the Germans made.
We also had to, because the Sherman going up against the Tiger one on one meant the Sherman died, every time. Hell, going up against a Tiger three on one more than likely meant three dead Sherman tanks. The problem was the fourth Sherman would get behind the Tiger and shoot it in the butt, which with those 75mm cannons was what it took.
It wasn't until we got the higher velocity 76mm cannon that we actually could take out German tanks with anything close to a reasonable chance.
Hell, going up against a Tiger three on one more than likely meant three dead Sherman tanks.
From what I've read, there were tactics that worked. I've read about incidents where the lured a German Tiger in among trees where it's long gun became a liability and it couldn't rotate it's turret fully. Then three Shermans pound the tiger from three directions without facing any return fire.
From what I've read, there were tactics that worked.
Yeah, but that's where there were trees. Tactics win battles, logistics wins wars. That's one reason we had trouble in North Africa - same reason Rommel did, too. Supply lines. (That, and our tanks were nicknamed Ronson's, because with the gasoline engines, a hit that would merely disable a diesel tank turned ours into crematoriums.)
Good thing the Allies had many, many more of them than Germany then. I remember an article from somewhere long ago that said the U.S. produced about 3 times more tanks than Germany in WW2. That's what I thought led to Stalin's famous quoted that quantity has a quality all it's own, or words to that effect.
The U.S. produced over 100,000 tanks during that war. Wikipedia says the Soviets outproduced us, turning out almost 120,000. That surprised me. That's over 220,000 tanks to the Germans 45,000, or approaching a 5 to 1 superiority.
So it didn't really matter if some of them were Ronsons. And apparently Stalin was right.
The U.S. produced over 100,000 tanks during that war. Wikipedia says the Soviets outproduced us, turning out almost 120,000. That surprised me. That's over 220,000 tanks to the Germans 45,000, or approaching a 5 to 1 superiority.
That is not accurate, unless they are incorporating all armored vehicles.
The dominant tank they made was the T-34, at around 59,000. Then another 16,000 or so self-propelled guns.
The second most common Soviet tank of the war was actually the 4,100 Sherman tanks that the US sent them.
But the US far outproduced that, at over 88,000 tanks. Including 45,000 M4 Shermans, 22,000 Stuarts, and 2,000 Pershings.
One problem with the Soviets, is that they quite literally placed most of their tanks into a single class. Where in the US, the light tanks were made throughout the war as primarily recon and infantry support. And the Pershing and specialized "tank destroyers".
But it is a common misconception that armies would send tanks off to attack other tanks. That is not the case when it could be avoided, that was the job of the Tank Destroyer. In the USX, that was the M10 Tank Destroyer, M18 Hellcat, and M36 Tank Destroyer.
As for the US Tank Destroyers, they are often confused with tanks from the ground. However, if seen from above the differences are immediately obvious, as there is no roof on the turret.
However, if seen from above the differences are immediately obvious, as there is no roof on the turret.
Interesting, do you know why not?
However, if seen from above the differences are immediately obvious, as there is no roof on the turret.
Interesting, do you know why not?
The reason for it I saw in a book years ago was to keep the silhouette low and make it hard for the enemy to tell them from the light tanks at a distance. To put a top on with enough room for the crew ro stand in it made it too tall.
From what i read back in the 1970s the best tank destroyers against the Germans were the Shermans that had been modified with a much heavier gun. One of the reasons they were so effective was it wasn't until they were up close and personal that the Germans realised they weren't the usual Shermans. Well, that's what many of the crews claimed at the time.
From what i read back in the 1970s the best tank destroyers against the Germans were the Shermans that had been modified with a much heavier gun.
The M10 and M36 tank destroyers mentioned above by Mushroom were (I looked them up) basically Sherman tanks with a different turret.
The M10 and M36 tank destroyers mentioned above by Mushroom were (I looked them up) basically Sherman tanks with a different turret.
From what I read there were 2 groups, one group were Shermans with a heavier gun in the turret, and the other was a specially built tank destroyer which wasn't a Sherman. In an odd twist of fate my YouTube recommends had a clip on the Achilles Tank Destroyer tonight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPQPi-vvxeQ
This is the one without the top, not the Sherman with the heavier gun.
From what I read there were 2 groups, one group were Shermans with a heavier gun in the turret, and the other was a specially built tank destroyer which wasn't a Sherman.
According to the Wikipedia entries on them, both the M10 and M36 tank destroyers, which had open top turrets, were built using the same body as the Sherman tank, but had a different turret with a much bigger gun with a longer barrel.
ETA: The video you linked to is an British modified M10 with an even heavier British made gun.
Interesting, do you know why not?
There were actually several reasons.
First, it helped reduce the weight, as the M36 TF for example used a much heavier and more powerful 90mm main gun. A lighter turret allowed it to swing to a new position faster.
It also allowed the crew more visibility. In a traditional Infantry Support role, such visibility does not matter as much. But when hunting tanks, having the crew able to see in all directions could mean a few critical seconds where you spotted the enemy tank first, and got off the first shot.
But the M10 and M36 were both successful tank destroyers, and also both based on the Sherman. Same hull, and a modified turret. So unless one really knew what they were looking at, a person would see an M36 Tank Destroyer, and simply see another "Sherman Tank".
Not unlike say somebody scanning the flightline and seeing a dozen C-130 cargo planes. But not knowing the difference or looking close enough, to see 4 of them are AC-130 gunships.
From what I can see, the number included tank and tank destroyers for both. And the T-34 (and variants of) weren't the only tanks produced by the Soviets. They produced a helluva lot of medium tanks. Their light tanks, like the U.S.'s, were reputed to be garbage.
That is not accurate, unless they are incorporating all armored vehicles.
From what I can see, the number included tank and tank destroyers for both. And the T-34 (and variants of) weren't the only tanks produced by the Soviets. They produced a helluva lot of medium tanks. Their light tanks, like the U.S.'s, were reputed to be garbage.
In this, you have to compare things that are the same.
The biggest problem whenever people think of tanks is the role. Light Tanks are made for recon and infantry support. I can not stress this enough, THEIR ROLE IS NOT GOING UP AGAINST OTHER TANKS! No more than an M-2 .50 heavy machine gun is to be used as a sniper rifle (although it has been used for that).
So of course, when comparing any light tank to a medium or heavy tank it will come off as poor. But that is not their role, and they should never be compared in that way.
And yes, those Soviet numbers include the SP series, which was their idea of making a tank destroyer. You put the biggest gun you can inside of a light tank, and use it to destroy other tanks.
But here is the problem, the Soviets put them into the hulls of light tanks. And because of the size and weight, they were mounted inside the main hull, and not into a turret. This means they could only fire forward, and have a very limited traverse, of around 20 degrees. If you are not looking right at the enemy tank, you can't shoot it.
The Germans learned this fast, and when one was spotted (they had an obvious shape), they would immediately split up and each work to flank the SP. It might take out 1 German tank, but the others which were now unable to be fired at would then take the SP out.
The SP was designed as a tank destroyer, but it was quickly regulated to the role of a self propelled Howitzer. So while technically these were "tanks", they were rarely used in that role. They were simply so vulnerable that they were instead used as a form of heavy mobile artillery.
And yes, both sides did produce heavy tanks that could fight it out with German tanks. Specifically the M26 Pershing and the Soviet IS-2.
And the M36 Medium Tank Destroyer could take on a Tiger, and did it many times.
The issue here, is you are thinking like Hitler, and taking the name alone and assuming it is all that matters.
Heck, the US even designed and built 2 T28 Super Heavy Tanks. 95 tons each, 105mm fixed fun in the nose, so heavy it required 2 tracks on each side.
But once again, they were not designed to take on other tanks. Their role was blasting defensive positions, like the Siegfried Line. Even after Allied forces went around that, it was decided to continue development and use it for taking out Japanese defensive positions, but the end of the war caused this to be cancelled.
You have to compare the role of a tank to if it is good, not just act like a bookie and look at armor and guns. This is a mistake far to many do.
Many laugh at the Japanese tanks, but the Japanese also never really made tanks for fighting other tanks. They however did make impressive light tanks, and were very effective with them against forces without tanks.
Just ask those that stormed Iwo Jima about them. A huge number of the defensive positions they were attacking were actually Type 97 tanks. After seeing how ineffective they were against US tanks, the decision was made to bury them in the sand and use them as pillboxes.
And the Marines had a hell of a time taking out these tanks, normally dozens of Marines sacrificing themselves until they could get close enough with satchel charges or flame throwers.
the decision was made to bury them in the sand and use them as pillboxes.
Tom Kratman describes that very well in his Carrera series. Go read it if you want see the toll war takes on a man that doesn't want it, but when it comes to him, he fights it as it should be fought.
You must've missed my point that both numbers that I gave, U.S. and Soviet, included tanks and tank destroyers. I really wasn't addressing which tank was most produced; it wasn't relevant. The point I was making is the Soviets outproduced the U.S. as far as armor went.
And you're right that the Soviets used a helluva lot of American armor and field artillery as did other allies. But the Soviets still produced more of those than America did.
America outproduced trucks by an almost 12:1 ratio. That's what the Soviets used to haul their artillery. Probably wouldn't have won Kursk without either the armor and trucks provided by America. Certainly not without the trucks.
I also didn't address the relative quality of the armor, i.e. whether the various incarnations of the Sherman was better than the various incarnations of the T-34. Or vice versa. That's another discussion entirely.
another discussion entirely
Some of that discussion, about what tanks were best should include the abilities and training of the Soviet recruits and of the American ones. I have been led to believe Americans knew much more about driving, maintenance and care of self propelled vehicles than almost all of the Soviets. Most American young men had driven cars they owned and maintained. Very few Russians and other draftees from Soviet republics had any experience with vehicles. It was probably easier to build armored vehicles and train Americans to operate them than what the Soviets faced. In part that may explain any superiority of American vehicles compared to Soviet ones.
Most American young men had driven cars they owned
I'm not sure how well driving a car would translate to a tracked vehicle that uses clutch-break steering.
I'm not sure how well driving a car would translate to a tracked vehicle that uses clutch-break steering.
ORLY?
It all works together, as the more advanced a technology becomes, the more skill it takes to learn how to operate it. And the more precursor skills an individual has, the easier it becomes to learn more similar skills.
And remember, in that era automatic transmissions were very rare. Almost all cars used a clutch to engage the transmission. Multitasking, hand-eye coordination, visually steering, those are all skills learned through doing.
When dealing with a group of people that have little to no experience with equipment more complex than horse drawn farm equipment, they have a lot more to learn than simply what lever to pull and pedal to push.
And all skills like that really do feed off of each other. Some of the best computer techs I know started as automotive techs. The skills of troubleshooting and diagnosing are largely the same, even if one is mechanical and the other is electrical. In the same way that programming really does not help computer hardware skills much, but it helps a hell of a lot in learning networking.
The advantage that the Sherman tank had was that they were better built, much more reliable and needed significantly less maintenance than the German tanks.
When dealing with a group of people that have little to no experience with equipment more complex than horse drawn farm equipment, they have a lot more to learn than simply what lever to pull and pedal to push.
Sorry but learning to use, maintain and repair mechanical equipment was easier than it was to learn to use and maintain the horse drawn equipment. Sure because of history many more where trained to use horse drawn equipment first but they had no problems switching over to mechanical with little training. My Grand Father loved telling us how his Father drove home their first tractor and turned to him giving him a manual and said you need to read this it is your job to keep it running. It took the Dealer that sold the tractor less than 20 min to show my Great Grand Father how to start and drive the 1924 Fordson tractor home. My Great Grand Father had limited schooling as his Father was killed from being kicked by a horse so like many in that time he stopped all schooling and became the man of the house to take care of the family and yet he had no trouble learning once shown how to run these new MORDERN gadgets.
Running horse drawn equipment is a skill in itself as you have to know and learn how to use not only the equipment but how to take care of and maintain control of the horse itself.
Oh my Uncle still has that 1924 Fordson tractor and love taking it to shows and in parades.
My Grand Father loved telling us how his Father drove home their first tractor and turned to him giving him a manual and said you need to read this it is your job to keep it running.
Which is very different from having to do so in a combat situation. In the field, one generally does not have the luxury of sitting down and carefully going through manuals to try and diagnose the problem.
This is why in computers, field techs get paid more than bench techs. And there is a huge difference between "learning how to start and drive", and learning how to do it well and efficiently.
Even in the modern era where almost everybody had run and maintained vehicles, it still takes almost 2 months to train a truck driver. There is a huge difference between just doing something, and doing it proficiently. I can teach anybody to shoot in a few minutes, but that is not going to turn them into any kind of Marksman, that is a skill that takes time to master.
I'm beginning to sound like a cheer leader for the Red Army in WW2 but just trying to be accurate. They really weren't just peasants from the field thrown out there as cannon fodder.
The Red Army was a professional organization where infantry recruits were trained for 3 months and armored personnel for up to a year. The main motivating force was a general by the name of Tukhachevsky. His philosophy was one of mobility in war. Sort of like Patton.
Anyhow, until his death in 1937 (victim in Stalin's massive purge of the military), he developed a reasonable competent military with his training regimens. Known as the Little Napolean, his popularity really irked Stalin, who never did completely trust him. The Soviet military's disastrous performance at the start of the war with Germany was more a product of Stalin's inability to grasp the gravity of the situation (ignoring at least 18 months of competent intelligence from multiple sources) than the performance of the military. Although the loss of almost all of the generals and a TON of junior officers in the purge did little to improve the battle worthiness of the forces.
I heard the stories while growing up of the backwardness of the Soviet military, even while sitting opposite of it across the Iron Curtain during the 60s. But, later, I came to question that view. It didn't make much sense to me how a country's military could perform so poorly at the beginning, yet within a year or two successfully defended Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow and Kursk. How, I asked myself, can a military turn itself around so completely in such a relatively short period?
Well, the first answer is by sacrificing manpower. Soviet losses were almost 9 million total dead and 30 million total casualties. Second, though, was training and a TON of equipment (tanks and other armor, artillery, machine guns, and planes). So, while neither troops nor equipment likely were of the same quality as the Germans, there were enough of them to make a difference. The Soviets also probably exceeded the minor Axis powers, e.g. Romania, in quality of both troops and equipment. I found out about this pre-internet when research into such matters wasn't quite as easy as today. So some may not agree with what's online nowadays. But I find mostly agreement when I look.
And note that the Germans did NOT make up a vast majority of the invading army. Especially Army Group South which got hammered at Stalingrad. In fact, the siege at Stalingrad was lifted when both Romanian and Italian troops performed poorly against the Soviet pincer movement that surrounded the German 6th Army.
This can get a lot more detailed. In fact, a lot of books have been written on these topics. But the anti Russian narrative that came into being when we became opponents in the Cold War did little for the sake of accuracy. Remnants of which still exist to this day.
I'm beginning to sound like a cheer leader for the Red Army in WW2 but just trying to be accurate. They really weren't just peasants from the field thrown out there as cannon fodder.
There were quite a number of those, but like you say, they did have quite a number of people who actually did know their anal orifices from holes in the ground.
It didn't make much sense to me how a country's military could perform so poorly at the beginning, yet within a year or two successfully defended Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow and Kursk. How, I asked myself, can a military turn itself around so completely in such a relatively short period?
Um, same way we did, only it didn't take us quite as long. Kill off the incompetents in combat, and the ones that led them to failure were sacked. Get gear that actually gave your people a chance to survive, instead of the sending someone up in a Brewster Buffalo to go against a Zero.
Combat is an amazingly Darwinian experience. And nothing provides experience like combat.
It must be remembered, the US had not really fought since 1918. Yet the German, Italian, and Japanese armies had been fighting for decades by the time the war started. Their equipment had all been tested in battle, and their leadership all experienced.
The US on the other hand was still struggling to update their equipment, and had a military, that was mostly WWI veterans, and a bunch of kids. But as they gained experience, the US got significantly better.
Then took the unusual step of pulling off some of the best and brightest combat leaders, and sending them back to the US to teach new leaders. By 1943, most of the instructors at the boot camps and combat schools were already veterans of combat. So they were not only teaching tactics and doctrine, they were teaching from experience.
And one thing that must be remembered about the Brewster Buffalo, their sacrifice (and they knew they were going in to die) allowed the US to win at Midway. As callous as it sounds, sometimes you have to expend people in order to achieve a victory.
As callous as it sounds, sometimes you have to expend people in order to achieve a victory.
I completely understand that, having at one time in my life written the blank check to Uncle Sam of up to and including my life.
Actually, I just talked myself out of the argument I was going to make regarding the Buffalos and their effect upon the Battle of Midway. The extra resistance they helped provide, even if futile, helped convince the Japanese to keep planes ready for ground attack, not naval attack. I don't know if you can quantify sacrifice like that, but the torpedo bomber pilots were the key element, by drawing the air cover down so the dive bombers could come in unhindered. As the American torpedoes actually sucked badly, if the Japanese had known about that, they could have ignored the American torpedo planes.
As the American torpedoes actually sucked badly, if the Japanese had known about that, they could have ignored the American torpedo planes.
Actually, that was the Mk 14 submarine torpedo that had that issue. And the Buffalo was a bomber. You are confusing it with e SDB Dauntless.
Aircraft used the Mk 13 torpedo, those did not have the problem of the Mk 14 that the submarines used. The Mk 14 was almost exclusively used on subs, the PT boats used the Mk 8 and Mk 13.
Actually, that was the Mk 14 submarine torpedo that had that issue. And the Buffalo was a bomber. You are confusing it with e SDB Dauntless.
No, I know the Buffalo were bombers, flying from Midway, while the Dauntless were (primarily) carrier based. I didn't have confusion on my part, I simply may not have made it clear.
Also, the Mk13 as used at Midway sucked. They made improvements to during the war such that late 1943, it was a good torpedo. And the reason PT boats could use it was because of the different launch conditions, rolling it off the side of the boat instead of dropping it into the water at 150 mph from 200 feet up. Basically, from a standing start, it performed great. Just not when dropped from an airplane like it needed to do.
the US had not really fought since 1918
See the "Banana Wars" in South and Central America and some islands off the coast. Also military actions took place in the Philippines between the two world wars. Many, perhaps most officers were not WW1 officers, West Point and other military schools had graduates every year from 1918 until 1941. If you served in the military since 1918 you had 22 years of service in 1940. You were at least a field grade officer if you had a commission. (Major to Colonel) The Generals and Admirals were mostly WW1 veterans, but numerically they were a small part of the armed services.
See the "Banana Wars" in South and Central America and some islands off the coast.
Those were low intensity conflicts, and the Marines.
And the Philippine Insurrection was 1899-1902, not inter-war era. And most of those recalled to service in WWII used badly outdated tactics. None of those recalled had experience in tank warfare, and were using the old WWI playbook. Hence, getting our butts kicked in Operation Torch.
And none of those admirals understood the power of aircraft when WWII started. They were old black shoe sailors, and did not really understand the brown shoe navy.
In fact, that was a bone of contention prior to Midway, when Admiral Halsey was left ashore due to shingles, and the Cruiser Driver Admiral Spruance was put in charge. His excellent leadership shocked a great many in that battle, but he had an excellent advisor in Carrier Operations in Captain Miles Browning.
The Red Army was a professional organization where infantry recruits were trained for 3 months and armored personnel for up to a year. The main motivating force was a general by the name of Tukhachevsky. His philosophy was one of mobility in war. Sort of like Patton.
Actually, the Soviet Army was in horrid shape when the German invasion happened. The "professionalism" had been destroyed in Stalin's purges, and he even had to pull Officers out of the gulags as the organization was collapsing under Officers who tried to lead py Party Doctrine.
No, the Red Army at that time was not "professional" at all, it was simply big. As in throwing bodies at a fire to put it out big. As in they had entire "Penal Battalions" to lead assaults, no guns, just bullet sponges to shield the forces behind them.
Here is the funniest part, this is the era where they created what became known as the "Warsaw Pact Doctrine". An attempt at creating their own version of the German "Lightning War". And for the next 50 years they continued to use that as their blueprint for future war, and teach it to every nation that would follow them.
And most amazingly, it has not worked since. Unless the enemy was horribly outnumbered, and not even then. That is what the Arabs used against Israel, and got trounced every time. Korea, Iran-Iraq War, it is amazing that only the Soviets with their insanely large Army could ever make their doctrine work.
Plus, it must be remembered that the Germans had no problem recruiting over 50,000 Soviet prisoners to join and serve in the "Russian Liberation Army", primarily from POW camps, but also from those who had not even served.
Yes, I have studied the Soviet Army for over 40 years, and it never really impressed me to be honest. Other than being freaking huge.
Now Germany however, it had a true Professional Army. Since the end of WWI, they were limited to around 100,000 men. And no conscription, in fact when you joined it was essentially for 20 years.
They only kept the best of the best after WWI, and their organization was amazing. Each Company actually carried the name and colors of a pre-WWI Regiment. That is why after Hitler took charge, he could grow it so fast. They had everything in place already, and a core of NCOs and Officers who had done nothing but train for the past 2 decades.
Oh, and as an FYI, Hitler was one of those that had been selected to remain in the Army after WWI. The holder of an Iron Cross for bravery, he was actually an Intelligence Agent in the Army, and was directed to infiltrate (spy) on one of the new political parties and report back his findings. It was only after he became "radicalized" that the Army let his enlistment and.
If by "horrid shape", you mean that the generals and senior officers only had very limited experience in their jobs and their competence was a real question mark, then you're spot on. If you mean the troops couldn't fight, that might be "a bridge too far". The Red Army wasn't ably lead at the time. But it's fighting men were at least professional.Actually, the Soviet Army was in horrid shape when the German invasion happened. The "professionalism" had been destroyed in Stalin's purges, and he even had to pull Officers out of the gulags as the organization was collapsing under Officers who tried to lead py Party Doctrine.
The Soviets lost at least 200K and maybe a million soldiers in its war against Finland in 1940. Against a country of about 3.6 million people. Not a recommendation that it was a professional army.
In the context of this discussion, what does "professional army" mean? Just that the soldiers are/are not volunteers? That they all have professional training and education like a lawyer or physician? That they get paid like "professional" football players?
The Soviets lost at least 200K and maybe a million soldiers in its war against Finland in 1940. Against a country of about 3.6 million people. Not a recommendation that it was a professional army.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e4/a3/af/e4a3af637be749ff3403eabfecd58149.jpg
Not a recommendation that it was a professional army.
I'm not sure what context you're using. When I used the term professional, I was addressing an earlier criticism that the Soviet troops were essentially peasants put up as cannon fodder. That just wasn't the case at all. The troops were well trained as soldiers.
Additionally, the fact that Stalin purged almost all the generals and a significant portion of lower ranked officers didn't help the "professionalism" of the Army. It took awhile when Germany attacked before "the cream rose to the top" so to speak. And that was evidenced as well in The Winter War with Finland (which Russia won, btw).
I don't dispute that other militaries may have been better trained. No doubt they were. But that didn't mean that the Russian army wasn't professional. At least by my definition.
In other words, professional doesn't necessarily connote high competence, just a certain minimal level.
In fairness, invading Finland is kinda like invading Russia in the winter. Without the proper specialty equipment and a good supply line, it's not going to be easy. And the defending force usually has numerous advantages.
On top of that, I really got the impression that the Russians basically used Finland as a place to field test numerous prototype weapons systems, including a half dozen or more tank variants. And they still hadn't abandoned WWI tank doctrine.
I'm not sure how well driving a car would translate to a tracked vehicle that uses clutch-break steering.
That also was the same reason why, when an American truck or tank broke down due to a mechanical failure, there nearly always was someone around who could just go, yep, here's the problem, and fix it. Young American men at that time worked on their own cars. The same is not true of other countries.
There was a car from the early 30's that even had as their ad that if you needed to, you could disconnect the engine and bring it into the kitchen table to work on it, it was that simple.
There was a car from the early 30's that even had as their ad that if you needed to, you could disconnect the engine and bring it into the kitchen table to work on it, it was that simple.
A car that would fit on your kitchen table doesn't seem especially useful. :)
A car that would fit on your kitchen table doesn't seem especially useful. :)
The engine, not the car. And of course it depends on the size of your kitchen table :D
The engine, not the car. And of course it depends on the size of your kitchen table :D
And how strong you are to carry it.
the size of your kitchen table
Presumably it would be big enough for Ma, Pa, Granny, and all eleven kids.
Presumably it would be big enough for Ma, Pa, Granny, and all eleven kids.
That would be the dining room table, not the kitchen table.
Every country used gasoline in their tanks except for some Soviet tanks.
And the story that the gas causing tanks to be destroyed is a myth.
Most tanks were destroyed by the detonation of the ammunition kept inside of the hull. This is why you will even in modern conflicts see tanks with their turrets blown off, even though they use diesel engines.
After such a hit, the fact it burns afterwards is of little matter, as the crew was already slaughtered by the exploding shells.
Which is a main reason why even to this day, the US does not use autoloaders in their tanks.
Which is the point. They do not have the huge budget to hide or absorb those kinds of losses, so operate much more efficiently.
They still have deeper pockets than any private operator would have. While they have to be more efficient than Amtrak, they still aren't half as efficient as would be needed for a private passenger rail operation to be profitable.
And most of them run at near capacity.
I've use the METRA system which goes in and out of Chicago. While a few trains in the morning and evening run at capacity most of them don't
And that does not matter, they make most of the money at those peak times.
It goes right back to feeder lines for airlines. Most of those actually lose money. But keeping them open actually gets the airlines more money, as those feed other routes which are more profitable. It is the same principle that has busses run all day, even on non-peak hours. You need to lose money sometimes in off-peak service, in order to get people to use it during peak.
The problem is, the price is so outrageous that for cross-country, there is never any kind of "peak". And there has not been since 2001 when the air system was shut down for a week.
Like I said early on, it is all a matter of if you want a high priced service that tries to milk as much as it can from every single passenger, or a system that is affordable by everybody, therefore spreading the cost out among more individuals.
And that does not matter, they make most of the money at those peak times.
They don't make any money at any time. Again METRA's fares are not high enough to cover their operating costs. Tax dollars are subsidizing their operation even at peak times.
It might be fair to say they lose less money during those peak hours.
They don't make any money at any time. Again METRA's fares are not high enough to cover their operating costs. Tax dollars are subsidizing their operation even at peak times.
Once again, tell me a part of the transportation infrastructure that the tax dollars do not subsidize. Just one part, name me one that is not paid for by tax dollars.
I will wait.
Hell, about 5 years ago they spent over $105 million moving some truck scales so they could widen the I-80 in Fairfield. The total cost of that expansion in total was over $500 million, only to handle morning and evening rush hour traffic. And that is only a single 5 mile long stretch of freeway.
Most large cities are choking on traffic. And freeway expansions are expensive, very-very expensive. You are whining because they are spending $30 million, as opposed to billions in expanding freeway infrastructure?
Heck, traffic is so bad they just spent over $6 billion to replace half of one bridge. That one bridge cost could have covered the CC subsidy for 200 years.
Now tell me again, which is more efficient? Subsidizing a ral line that covers 2 million people for $30 million, or shelling out billions a year in trying to expand our already overcrowded freeways?
Rail transportation needs central cities to be effective. What you are missing is the accelerating decline of central cities as places of employment. The only growth industries in central cities are entertainment government and the government run health csre system. Everything else has left or is leaving. Native born Americans of all races have been leaving for decades with only (largely illegal) immigration keeping them from being ghost towns.
Even though we are moving into an era of permanent one-party rule with a command and control economy the government will not be able to reverse that reality.
Now tell me again, which is more efficient?
Out of all mass transit options (buses, air...) rail is the least cost-efficient.
Where commuter rail has been added to cities that haven't had it since the 19th century, it actually leads to a decline in total mass transit riders.
Why? Because rail has much higher fixed capital cost than bus service and when cities that add it end up with cost problems, they can't cut the debt service to pay for the rail capital costs, so they cut bus service instead.
But the bus riders were going places and coming from places not served by the rail line, so the rail line can't pick up those riders.
I will also admit, I probably have an advantage over you in this area. As it is something I have actually studied and used for decades.
One thing about living in places like LA and SF, I had to deal with what is probably the worst traffic in the country on a daily basis. And also why I no longer live in cities like that. Never will again.
And yes, several times I chose the mass transit, because ultimately it was faster and cheaper. I could stress in driving 90 minutes to work to downtown Baghdad by the Bay, or I could get on a boat and ride in comfort. Or I could travel 100 miles from the Mojave Desert for 2 hours (across an interchange that has collapsed twice in my lifetime), or get on a train and get there in the same time, but with a lot less stress.
And one thing about living in those areas for so long, I have seen the cost of expansion. I remember when the I-405 through the Sepulveda Pass was 3 lanes each way, with a wide dirt median in the middle. Now it is 6 lanes each way, and more congested than ever. And they have spent tens of billions to get it to where it is now.
And now most of those freeways are looking at becoming toll roads. Simply because they can not expand any more, and some way has to be found to relieve congestion. Think that will not cost money, both to the Government and people?
The Capital Corridor (Sacramento to SF) is $25 each way, $200 a week, or $500 a month. A lot of people do that commute, because it is actually cheaper than driving. I took the ferry to SF for the same reason. After factoring in gas, bridge tolls and parking, it was much cheaper to take the boat to work
Those fares make make the trains cheaper than driving, but that doesn't mean they are enough to cover the cost of operating the train even if the train is at capacity.
And they aren't really at capacity. Sure, the passenger cars might be full, but passenger cars are light and the locomotive could probably easily handle a lot more passenger cars than they typically run even during peak hours. Freight trains routinely run hundreds of cars. 40 or 50 passenger cars would be nothing, even with just a single locomotive.
Those fares make make the trains cheaper than driving, but that doesn't mean they are enough to cover the cost of operating the train even if the train is at capacity.
And they aren't really at capacity. Sure, the passenger cars might be full, but passenger cars are light and the locomotive could probably easily handle a lot more passenger cars than they typically run even during peak hours.
It is always going to be a trade-off. And I am not saying they are not subsidized, all transportation is. But where would you rather they spend the money?
now this is all numbers prior to the pandemic. But they ran 8 trains a day, at 90% occupancy. From Sacramento to San Jose. Annually around 2 million individuals taken off of the roads.
Less congestion, less backup at the bridges (you are talking 2 bridges each way), less parking, a lot less infrastructure. Less wear and tear on the freeways, less law enforcement and accidents on the freeways with 2 million less annual commuters, that all adds up. And once again, the new expansions have been put on hold because of the pandemic, ridership has fallen sharply.
But no, the locomotives actually can not handle many more cars. These are trains specifically made by Siemens for light rail purposes, and use nowhere near the fuel or have the pulling capacity of traditional locomotives. And running 40-50 passenger cars would be absolutely stupid.
There is so much involved, but to put it simply, you just can not do that. No train is going to be running 40 to 50 passenger cars, they simply can not. To begin with, a major factor is power. Passenger cars pull power, something that freight cars do not. You would literally be hooking up an additional 2 or so locomotives, to do nothing but act as generators to power those cars. Idiotic, and inefficient. Even more so when most trains run at 10% capacity or less. Are you really wanting to hook up even more empty cars, for... some reason?
Also, there are simply no passenger stations designed to handle trains that long. Freight trains can be as long as they need, nothing on them is on a tight time schedule. Sitting at a switchyard for hours until a line is free is just part of how they operate. That is why they are bulk carriers, not used for routine freight.
You seem to have a lot of huge gaps in how businesses operate. Heck, I bet you are not even really aware of where some of the biggest growth and money making parts of the train industry are, are you?
Here is a clue. It is tied to another old and slow bulk carrier system, one that is even older and slower than trains. Tom Hanks was in a movie a few years ago that featured one.
But where would you rather they spend the money?
Where you get the most bang for the buck, and rail is almost always going to be the least bang for the buck
Freight trains routinely run hundreds of cars. 40 or 50 passenger cars would be nothing, even with just a single locomotive.
Freight trains also take more than a mile to stop. And then there's the scheduling issue: just how many places can a fifty-car consist get out of the way for a large express freight train to go by?
DBActive
1/9/2021, 12:53:01 AM
@Dominions Son
. . . it was unprofitable before the government got directly involved
No. The government controlled fares, controlled routes, controlled schedules through the ICC. A change to any of these required ICC approval.
The two statements are not mutually exclusive. It could be true that passenger rail was not profitable AND any change required ICC approval. I do not personally know, but it is conceivable that the freight railways wanted out of passenger rail because it was profitable - but less so - than freight. I think I recall that not all the railways immediately turned their passenger service over to Amtrak.
I think I recall that not all the railways immediately turned their passenger service over to Amtrak.
Amtrak was created in the first place because a not insignificant number of carriers had abandoned all passenger service and others had cut way back before the creation of Amtrak.
The problem isn't so much that passenger rail can't be operated profitably in an absolute sense, it's that it can't be operated profitably at fare levels that are price competitive with air travel and/or inter-city buses.
If the railroads set fares high enough to earn a profit, they would have lost too much business to the airlines and inter-city bus services. They can't make a profit running empty passenger cars around.
Basically, the airlines and Greyhound were eating the passenger railroad's lunch.
Amtrack hasn't been well managed and hasn't helped the situation much, if any, but Amtrak was created in the first place because the private carriers were bailing out of passenger rail because it was unprofitable before the government got directly involved.
Actually, some lines were more profitable than others. They did not buy them all out, many continued to run their own service. But it was either-or. Either you continued to do it yourself, or sold it all. And most simply sold all of their lines, profitable or not. And it was not that it was profitable or not, it is simply that freight was more profitable because it requires less overhead.
Heck, we saw a revival during the era of John Madden, as he refused to ever fly and often took the train when the Raiders were playing games on the road. And Amtrak built a platform right at the stadium at Anaheim Field which got a lot of use back then.
Like it's Amtrak's fault that passenger rail is uneconomical and can't pay for itself.
I dare to say yes. If managed right trains should almost always be cheaper than air travel and be able to compete: https://www.dw.com/en/trains-vs-planes-whats-the-real-cost-of-travel/a-45209552. Definitely if you take climate damage costs into account, something that is always 'conveniently' forgotten with air travel.
A noticeable thing from the link: the sometimes huge difference between what a ticket costs and what it should cost to represent the trip. Of course there are routes that are very difficult and expensive because of the geology. That's where airplanes could be cheaper.
It's an interesting article with multiple comparisons like travel time, costs/prices, and CO2 emissions.
It's funny how comparable they are for long distances: travel to a station or airport is mostly the same, both need tickets, both need check-in, both need booking, travel from a station or airport to your destination is mostly the same.
If managed right trains should almost always be cheaper than air travel and be able to compete:
Comparing subsidized rail fairs with unsubsidized air fares and saying rail is cheaper is not a fair comparison.
Where did you get the idea that air travel is not subsidized? If they had to pay the same taxes on fuel as you at the pump operating costs would sky rocket, pun intended :) Subsidies for rail are a drop in the bucket compared to the tax advantages given to air lines.
If they had to pay the same taxes on fuel as you at the pump
Fuel taxes are (allegedly) meant to cover road costs. Airlines don't use the roads, so they have no reason to pay for their upkeep.
Now, paying for airport upkeep is another matter. However, I believe airlines pay to have service to the various airports. (Some, no doubt, get deals as the government tried to lure carriers to one airport in favor of another, but...)
Fuel taxes are (allegedly) meant to cover road costs.
That was a long time ago. Nowadays it's just a convenient cash cow. One reason why the fuel for air planes is hardly taxed at all is 'tactical': political and military reasons.
That article compares ticket prices, not actual operating costs. When I talk about rail not being economical, I don't mean it costs the passenger more, I mean it can't be operated profitably at unsubsidized ticket prices that are price competitive with air travel. That is, the operating costs of passenger rail are much higher than the operating costs of airlines.
Rail ticket costs, even/especially in Europe, are government subsidized and are insufficient to cover even just operating costs of the railroads (then you have to get in to the massive difference in capital costs, rail is at least an order of magnitude higher).
Sadly, when people look at the subject of comparing rail to air travel costs they often forget about the huge government subsidy of the air travel network. To do a fair comparison of the two systems you need to take into account the entire infrastructure needed for the systems. While the railroad tracks and control systems are usually costed into the rail operations the cost of the construction and maintenance of the airports is rarely included, nor is the air traffic control system construction and maintenance costs included in the figures. That's because the majority of the airport and air traffic control are picked up by various government organisations and thus greatly subsidised. The other aspect is the freight aspects of both should be included in both to provide real figures to compare.
The problems with both, especially rail, is the past over control of the systems imposed by the governments making the passenger services not that profitable for rail services in many cases. That means the companies drop the unprofitable services.
Sadly, when people look at the subject of comparing rail to air travel costs they often forget about the huge government subsidy of the air travel network.
Which is still and order of magnitude lower than the cost of rail infrastructure, which itself is mostly government subsidized.
Yes, airports are expensive and generally government built/operated, but then so are train stations and track costs as much as $2 million per mile. And that's for normal rail.
http://www.acwr.com/economic-development/railroads-101/rail-siding-costs
https://reason.org/commentary/on-high-speed-rail-look-at-the-costs-and-results-before-you-leap/
And Amtrak's own estimates for replacing its existing Northeast Corridor with true high-speed rail work out to over $500 million per mile.
Which is still and order of magnitude lower than the cost of rail infrastructure, which itself is mostly government subsidized.
Nope, air travel gets huge tax advantages, especially the ridiculously low taxes on fuel compared to what you pay at the pump. I couldn't find hard numbers but I doubt rail gets more advantages than air.
I couldn't find hard numbers but I doubt rail gets more advantages than air.
The only passenger rail that exists is directly run by government funded entities. Everything is paid for by the government.
Amtrak can't even cover their operating costs just from fares, much less their capital cots, which are much higher than for the airlines. And that is just as true of every other passenger rail system everywhere in the world.
Nope, air travel gets huge tax advantages, especially the ridiculously low taxes on fuel compared to what you pay at the pump. I couldn't find hard numbers but I doubt rail gets more advantages than air.
There are about a dozen taxes and fees levied on air travel. A per passenger fee, landing fees, a tax on fares, a 20+ cent per gallon federal tax on fuel plus state and local taxes, airport access fees (rent),
Here's a sample ticket:
Sample Round-Trip Itinerary Sold January 1, 2021: Peoria (PIA) – Raleigh/Durham (RDU) via Chicago O'Hare (ORD)
Base Airline Fare $235.91
: Federal Ticket (Excise) Tax (7.5%) 17.69
: Passenger Facility Charge (PIA) 4.50
: Federal Security Surcharge (PIA-RDU) 5.60
: Federal Flight Segment Tax (PIA-ORD) 4.30
: Passenger Facility Charge (ORD) 4.50
: Federal Flight Segment Tax (ORD-RDU) 4.30
: Passenger Facility Charge (RDU) 4.50
: Federal Security Surcharge (RDU-PIA) 5.60
: Federal Flight Segment Tax (RDU-ORD) 4.30
: Passenger Facility Charge (ORD) 4.50
: Federal Flight Segment Tax (ORD-PIA) 4.30
Total Taxes 64.09
Total Ticket (Fare + Taxes) $300.00
Taxes as % of Fare 27%
Taxes as % of Ticket 21%
Plus the taxes not directly paid by the customer like fuel and landing fees.
Rail ticket costs, even/especially in Europe, are government subsidized and are insufficient to cover even just operating costs of the railroads (then you have to get in to the massive difference in capital costs, rail is at least an order of magnitude higher).
It is subsidized in the US also. But the difference is that they no longer even try to make money, it is like they want it to die.
I remember about 4 years ago when I had to go to Florida for a 5 day training course. I got my orders, and went through the process to get my ticket. And out of curiosity, even travel under military orders I could not take the train. It was over 4 times what flying would cost, and they simply would not pay that.
When they can not even give reasonable rates for government employees traveling on business, you have a problem. As it is essentially a "Government Operation", to me it should make sense that travel on the system should be encouraged, even mandated when practical.
Paying American Airlines or United to fly government employees from LA to SF, or New York to Atlanta makes absolutely no sense, when the government essentially owns the trains that do it already.
Like it's Amtrak's fault that passenger rail is uneconomical and can't pay for itself.
Actually, at one time it was. Then they managed to fuck it all up.
In the late 1970's and early 1980's, there was a bit of a "rail revival", mostly brought on by it featuring in movies like Silver Streak and Trading Places. And you had the Rail Pass, which was a huge success. You could get it from 14 to 90 days, and could just hop from train to train as much as you wanted during that time.
And then the amenities. Dining car, smoking car, and it was normally just a little more than a bus would cost, and less than flying. In 1983 I took it many times, from Camp Pendleton to get home on weekend liberty.
But then they started putting more restrictions on the pass, to where today it is an absolute joke. The 15 day pass only covers 8 segments, each is a transfer to a different train or bus route. And you must make reservations in advance for each one, and costs almost $500.
And the smoking cars and dining cars, all are long gone. So why even bother to take the train anymore? To get from where I am now in Oregon to New York, would take a bus and 2 trains, and over 3 days. At almost $500 regular fare.
Why in the hell would I do that, when I can fly there in 9 hours for $140?
There is a huge market for train travel, but they have killed the system by charging more than the market can bare, and removing the very amenities that would attract a lot of passengers.
Want to see a large chunk come back? Bring back smoking cars and an affordable pass system. I would love to take the train again, but today it is a nightmare. My son took the train several times to visit when I was stationed in El Paso, and he said it sucked. Having to stand on the platform to smoke when they made one of their stops, the only food was cold sandwiches for $10 each. Stops being anywhere from 5 minutes to an hour and a half.
And the train was never even close to half full. That alone makes me wonder why in the fuck they demand advance reservations for the pass.
In that era, most long distance train travel required multiple trains.
I didn't bother with that level of detail. I simply wrote:
He had to change trains several times as they sped west through the country.
Boyd changed trains for the last time in Jefferson City, Missouri.
That train took him to Oklahoma City where he caught a Greyhound bus to Lawton, OK.
Ahhh, Fort Sill. My last trip there, I flew to OKC, then took a bus.
During the war, rail then bus would have been the routine, unless it was movement as a unit. The military at that time still had a substantial amount of rolling stock of their own, and if a unit was being moved they might likely have taken the entire trip on an Army train.
Ahhh, Fort Sill. My last trip there, I flew to OKC, then took a bus.
Well, Lawton, OK, outside of Ft. Sill. My guy actually has to report to Camp Bowie in Texas, but he's stopping off in Lawton on the way.
Also check history about Route 66 As a child we went by bus through Ok. to Tucson. I recall waking up passing petroleum plants all lit up.
Lee Child (or his editor) in Jack Reacher books capitalizes Marines and Navy, but not army.
Not using "army" in the general sense like "It was a big army,", but more like "The Marines were… while the army was…"
Any idea why?
In the context of this discussion, what does "professional army" mean?
As I would understand it, well trained volunteers rather than poorly trained conscripts.
As I would understand it, well trained volunteers rather than poorly trained conscripts.
Nope, that is not it.
A "Professional Army" is something very much different. Composed of a significant number of individuals who have made the choice to pursue that as a career, not just a single enlistment or for a conflict.
For example, one huge difference is the NCO Corps. The Soviets really did not have one. In most militaries like the US and UK, NCOs were professional soldiers, generally with over 4 years of service. The Soviets however, simply selected individuals who showed proper support for the Party, and sent them through another school to become a Sergeant.
In reality, they had no more experience than those they led into combat. And this can be seen in how the Germans trained their snipers.
When going against Soviets, they would first target officers. This is because they were generally the ones that pushed their men into combat. They had the most training, which was once again not much more than those they were leading.
When going against US-UK forces, the snipers typically targeted the NCO first. They knew they were the most experienced member of the platoon. In fact, in most cases the Sergeant was more a leader of a platoon than the Lieutenant was. Shoot the Louie, the Sergeant just continued on as before. But shoot the Sergeant, then you removed the most experienced leader in the unit.
Also, in the US military, after early 1942, everybody was a draftee. The ability to go down to the recruiting office and enlist was removed. The only ones allowed to actually "enlist" had critically needed skills, like pilots and medical training.
You could still go to the station, but all that did was select the branch of service you wanted to enter. You then went home, and waited for your number to be called in the draft.
