Hero Cops Escort Cellphone Loudmouth Off Train

Yes, This is great first we have the SEALs killing OBL then this there is faint Ray of justice here. To any PC individuals out there who think this was excessive have never had the pleasure of a load mouth on a cell phone in a crowded train.

How could have gone on for 16 hours? I know she's a woman, but that's still a long time.

She's an American black from Oakland. For the uninformed, that means she's not only loud, she's from an entitled class of people who think that just because they're from a minority group that they have a special license to be a$$holes whenever they want.

Now, watch for the predictable accusation of racism because the people on the train didn't want to listen to her screaming at the phone.

Hopefully the train erupted in an ovation of 'AWWWW-yeah's' and 'BAMMMMM!'s' after her banishment.

So she brought a couple of spare batteries with her, to be able to talk for 16 hours?

Either that or she plugged her phone in. Amtrak has A/C outlets on thier trains.

They must have stopped at every hick town along the way because there's no way any train should have taken 16 hours to get from Oakland to Salem, Oregon.

Must be more of that infamous Amtrak service that makes taking Greyhound look preferable by comparison.

Sometimes on my bus home from work there's a magic moment. Everybody shuts, the bus roars along at the limit and 40 to 50 people doze off. That's a city that works.

Could be what's called a milk run. Via rail does 'em too. Heck I could drive from Windsor to TO in almost the same amount of time as the train.

Sorry, but that's about right. Amtrak service from California north sucks out loud. My mom once took Amtrak from Olympia to Sacramento and it was scheduled to take 22 hours and it ended up being eight hours late and the Amtrak staff at the station told me that this was not the worst they'd seen.

The problem is that Amtrak mostly runs on rails that belong to freight companies and the freight traffic gets priority.

Under these conditions it's no wonder effective passenger rail travel is essentially dead in North America.

My favourute shitty train service story involves the Newfie Bullet. Back around WW2 it was somewhat famous. However, it was also notoriously late due to breakdowns and weather ie: snow.
On one such trip the train was stopped(can't remember if it was weather or mechanical) when a pregnant woman asked the conductor how long they were going to be as she was 9 months pregnant and close to show time.
The conductor kindly informed her that she should not have got on the train in her condition.
To which she replied, "I wasn't this condition when I got on the train.

On another forum I'm defending high speed rail for California from morons who think that airlines and highways are just fine and that California's existing infrastructure which is overtaxed with 40 million people will be fine with the 70 million people we're projected to have by 2050.

Effective passenger rail is on a come back for the simple fact that many metropolitan areas are built out and there's no place for them to build additional highways or airports. The only option left for growing capacity is rail. Add to that the fact that with air travel security anymore being what it is - high speed rail for trips of up to 500 miles is actually faster - point to point - than air is.

The other advantage of high speed rail is that it runs on dedicated rails and does not share a right of way with freight.

As high speed rail becomes profitable with increasing populations I expect to see private industry moving into it. A Texas project was going to happen but lawsuits funded by goddam Southwest Airlines killed it and set a precedent, for now, that is keeping private money out of the high speed rail business.

On another forum I'm defending high speed rail for California from morons who think that airlines and highways are just fine and that California's existing infrastructure which is overtaxed with 40 million people will be fine with the 70 million people we're projected to have by 2050.

Effective passenger rail is on a come back for the simple fact that many metropolitan areas are built out and there's no place for them to build additional highways or airports. The only option left for growing capacity is rail. Add to that the fact that with air travel security anymore being what it is - high speed rail for trips of up to 500 miles is actually faster - point to point - than air is.

The other advantage of high speed rail is that it runs on dedicated rails and does not share a right of way with freight.

As high speed rail becomes profitable with increasing populations I expect to see private industry moving into it. A Texas project was going to happen but lawsuits funded by goddam Southwest Airlines killed it and set a precedent, for now, that is keeping private money out of the high speed rail business.

Commuter rail works great in Vancouver, but I'm pretty sure it's subsidized. Our city-to-city passenger rail system (VIA Rail) costs as much as a flight. Never figured that one out.