Yes, I know that the two trains are travelling in opposite directions. I had originally intended to break Vic’s response over panels 3 and 4 after “trick question” but wound up needing more space for the question than I intended.
I’ve been under compressed deadlines because of the need to get ready for and travel to/from C2E2, so I didn’t have time to completely rework this strip.
Trains are great for cargo, but need subsidies for passengers. Comfort & safety cost. Amtrak’s problems are because fares & subsidies aren’t affordable to make it better.
pabs, I just thought that the different directions was part of the joke.
Chuk, if I could find a high speed train to take me between Philly or DC and New Orleans, at a comparable fare, I’d take the train rather than driving or flying. As it is, I can drive there faster and cheaper or fly there cheaper and faster than taking the train.
PHYSICS IS PHUN
There is always an answer:
A. Traveling toward each other, using grade school math. rate = distance/time; t=s/v; or HS physics. Velocity1–Velocity2=distance/time. t=115miles/135mph; t=0.85hrs or t=51min.
B. Strictly using the original problem. t=24,786miles/135mph; t=7days, 15hrs, 36min.
(I did not google this)
Misng, I’m just saying, if we have passenger rail, comfort & safety are expensive, in either fares, taxpayer subsidies, or both. I prefer a tax on those who can afford a little extra comfort, with “cattle car” service cheap enough for everyone.
Railroads were once the GM-IBM-Exxon-Microsoft of the American economy, so naturally they became the first industry to be regulated. After about a century of ever-growing regulation and of subsidies for the competition (highways, airlines, and airports), the railroads could no longer compete, so naturally the goverment took them over.
It’s all part of the eternal pattern of interfere in the economy, create a problem, then use that as the excuse for more interference. Lather, rinse, repeat. Only the bureaucrats win; everyone else loses. (Then they unionized the bureaucrats, but that’s another story.)
oranaiche over 13 years ago
^ Ayuh.
So, when do they each run off into the ocean, killing all on board?
grapfhics over 13 years ago
a plot from the highway lobby
cdward over 13 years ago
Fairportfan2, that makes it a double-trick question. Ooh, those sneaky test writers.
Coyoty Premium Member over 13 years ago
This is Amtrak. Of course they’re going to collide. If they don’t derail first.
wndrwrthg over 13 years ago
So, what I gather is that never the train shall meet.
lewisbower over 13 years ago
When has Amtrak ever been on time?
The Old Wolf over 13 years ago
@wndrwrthg
TheDOCTOR over 13 years ago
TheDOCTOR over 13 years ago
MisngNOLA over 13 years ago
Opposite directions, Cleveland is roughly 80-90 miles north of Pittsburgh, the trains shall obviously collide in the SLOWPOKE comic.
(Note, there is no political meaning to this comment, just picked a random comic.)
Pab Sungenis creator over 13 years ago
Yes, I know that the two trains are travelling in opposite directions. I had originally intended to break Vic’s response over panels 3 and 4 after “trick question” but wound up needing more space for the question than I intended.
I’ve been under compressed deadlines because of the need to get ready for and travel to/from C2E2, so I didn’t have time to completely rework this strip.
runar over 13 years ago
Republican policy: If you can’t afford a car, you don’t deserve to go anywhere.
Paul Johnson over 13 years ago
of course the republican’s defunded it - no republican can stand 2 trains of thought on their one track mind
ChukLitl Premium Member over 13 years ago
Trains are great for cargo, but need subsidies for passengers. Comfort & safety cost. Amtrak’s problems are because fares & subsidies aren’t affordable to make it better.
MisngNOLA over 13 years ago
pabs, I just thought that the different directions was part of the joke.
Chuk, if I could find a high speed train to take me between Philly or DC and New Orleans, at a comparable fare, I’d take the train rather than driving or flying. As it is, I can drive there faster and cheaper or fly there cheaper and faster than taking the train.
garysnorton over 13 years ago
PHYSICS IS PHUN There is always an answer: A. Traveling toward each other, using grade school math. rate = distance/time; t=s/v; or HS physics. Velocity1–Velocity2=distance/time. t=115miles/135mph; t=0.85hrs or t=51min. B. Strictly using the original problem. t=24,786miles/135mph; t=7days, 15hrs, 36min. (I did not google this)
ChukLitl Premium Member over 13 years ago
Misng, I’m just saying, if we have passenger rail, comfort & safety are expensive, in either fares, taxpayer subsidies, or both. I prefer a tax on those who can afford a little extra comfort, with “cattle car” service cheap enough for everyone.
vldazzle over 13 years ago
Love it-Pab as I read as needed
pschearer Premium Member over 13 years ago
Railroads were once the GM-IBM-Exxon-Microsoft of the American economy, so naturally they became the first industry to be regulated. After about a century of ever-growing regulation and of subsidies for the competition (highways, airlines, and airports), the railroads could no longer compete, so naturally the goverment took them over.
It’s all part of the eternal pattern of interfere in the economy, create a problem, then use that as the excuse for more interference. Lather, rinse, repeat. Only the bureaucrats win; everyone else loses. (Then they unionized the bureaucrats, but that’s another story.)