Cup of Coffee

December 20, 2017: Hopeless Romantic

64 Comments

Today's my 14th anniversary. I'm working from 8 to 4, then have to watch a wrestling show at 7 so I can host a podcast on it for the website that pays me. Then I have to do another wrestling podcast.

The Milkmaid and I are celebrating tomorrow.

64 thoughts on “December 20, 2017: Hopeless Romantic”

  1. Mrs. A and I have celebrated numerous anniversaries apart. I've often said that the secret to our successful marriage is that we don't spend a whole lot of time together.

    1. There's a newlywed in my department who could easily be my own son, though he's more even-keeled. I told him about today and he said I kind of lucked out being married to someone so understanding; I said if your marriage reaches fourteen years, surely you've both picked up a healthy amount of understanding along the way.

      Citizens' mileage may vary, of course.

      I segued from that into telling him some of the many bizarre stories that happened at our wedding reception and the hotel afterward. It was a very eventful day, and not just for the two of us. Not bad for a small-town wedding.

    1. The second. Great exchange.

      Neither of the birds I look for at the corner was there this morning. One (Song Sparrow) was on the nearest corner of Cancer Survivors Park. The other (Clay-colored Sparrow) has either died or moved on (it's been 2 weeks, I need to get over it).
      There's also a different good one (Lincoln's Sparrow) on the corner of 3rd and Marquette, often under the parking kiosk.

    2. Thanks for the pen. I don't use gel pens much.
      My company stocks "Uni-ball Onyx" and I've grown to like them lots. Their ink is water-soluble, so for someone who writes and types at the same time a lot, it makes cleaning up my marked-up wrist pretty easy.

      1. You're welcome--I hope you like it!

        I am trying to envision how you write and type at the same time, but I can't quite figure it out.

  4. The one and only customer in my department right now is a guy who comes in and relentlessly begs for discounts well below cost, no matter what he's buying. He refuses to understand that retail stores are not flea markets. These guys are the absolute worst.

    1. Just as bad as a few guests of mine that complain their drink is way too weak, and ask for a new one with "don't be afraid to burn that a little bit". I always want to ask where they work. Then respond with "Oh, you are a banker? Don't be afraid to put a little extra cash in my next change order bud!"

  5. Sheenie gave me a book called "Killing Malmon" for Hanukkah. It sounds exactly like a Survivor challenge (which is why she bought it): it's a bunch of short stories compiled from the internet in which the only requirement was that somewhere in the story, the author had to "kill Dan Malmon."

      1. From what I've seen, it was previously owned BNSF track on the American Lake subdivision which wasn't being used and was refurbished by Sound Transit and created a nice ~14 mile bypass of a longer route. So not new track, but newly worked on yes.

    2. Seems like the operator missed the signs or otherwise failed to yield to them, right? I think it's too bad we don't take rail more seriously. With some additional funding, the line could be legitimately high speed and include more safeguards against operator error.

      The Vancouver-Seattle-Portland-San Francisco-LA corridor is not so different from the main line of Japan's shinkansen rail from Shin-Aomori through Tokyo and Kyoto down to Hakata and Kagoshima-Chuo. I have to imagine that some non-highway commuting options could help relieve some of the pressure on traffic and housing prices in those areas. A good complementary project to creating such a high-speed rail corridor would be to add in a modern power line along that corridor--often in the spring, supply of electricity from hydropower so outstrips demand that wholesale electric prices in the NW go negative. If there was more capacity on the Oregon-California border, that power could serve customers in California that are currently paying higher rates.

      1. We do take rail more seriously. UP alone has already spent $2.3B on PTC, and the other RR likewise. From what I've read PTC was supposed to go live on this track next spring. I've read some questioning the safety consciousness among Amtrak, and can't speak to that, but it does seem that these sort of operator error-looking events tend to involve passenger trains.***

        ***my opinions only, and no way the opinions of my employer

        1. I'm not questioning the safety as much as the general lack of ambition in the country (not the people running the rail, either).

          China has rail that goes 217 MPH, Japan has rail that goes 200 MPH, same as high-speed lines through England, France, Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands. Spain and South Korea have lines going up to 190 MPH. Italy, Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia have lines going 185 MPH. Uzbekistan, Switzerland, and Turkey have lines going 155 MPH. And the best the US can do apparently is 150 MPH on a single line--and this so-called "high speed" line between Seattle and Portland had a max speed of 79 MPH. If we had taken the space race this seriously, we never would have even gotten a man to orbit the Earth, let alone reach the moon.

          We could have a 2-hour train from Minneapolis to Chicago that would effectively be a lot faster than the 1.5-hour flight that takes half an hour to board (after arriving at least a half an hour before that for security), half an hour to taxi and deplane, and then requires 30-minute ride from the airport to downtown. But apparently we don't care to be that ambitious.

          1. People tend to ignore the scale of high-speed rail. The urban centers in Europe and Japan, for example, are much closer together (and larger) than those in the US. In addition, high-speed rail would require standalone track not shared with freight, and that expense isn't easily swallowed.

            btw, that route in the NW is not considered "high-speed"; 80 mph is standard maximum passenger speed on freight rail rated for that. UP does have track around Peoria on the Chicago-StL route rated for something like 112 mph now which will be part of the Chicago high-speed hub.

            1. Tokyo to Nagoya is 220 miles, there are only 5 stops between the stations on the Shinkansen. Seattle to Portland is 173 miles, you could easily have stops in Tacoma, Olympia, and Vancouver, WA along the way. Seattle to Vancouver, BC is 143 miles, you could easily have stops in Lynnwood, Everett, Bellingham, and Richmond, BC along the way. No, you wouldn't want to have high-speed rail between Bozeman, MT and Salt Lake City, UT, but there are plenty of places in the US where it would be a fantastic alternative to flying or driving. It would cost money, but it also costs money to operate airports and to build and maintain highways. We live in a country with the highest GDP in the world. We could have nice things if we wanted them.

                  1. I experienced one like that recent news story: I was traveling from Tokyo to Akita with 青ζ˜₯18きっぷ, something I do not recommend. I must have transferred 8-9 times alone on that trip without a single issue. Once, I saw notices all over a station that one of the trains (not mine) was 3 minutes late. Big flashing red letters on boards everywhere with deep apologies.

                    About a year after coming back, I was picking up someone from an Amtrak. In response to my incredulous "did you say six hours late!?", the guy on the phone was like, "well, yeah," and hung up, like "what'd you expect?"

              2. Tokyo and Nagoya are significantly larger than Seattle, Tacoma, and Vancouver. Still, the traffic is bad enough that it would make a nice alternative. We took Amtrak from Portland to Seattle when we vacationed there, and Vancouver made good use of their city rail system; not sure if it was the large asian population.

                1. They are larger, but that's also the busiest high-speed rail line in the world--the cities don't need to be that large for high-speed rail to be worthwhile. Also, when the line was started--in 1964--the cities were not as large (though Tokyo was still huge.) Putting in high-speed rail along Portland-Seattle-Vancouver back in 1964 would have been complete overkill, but these days it would make sense and I highly doubt the traffic is going to get better the longer they wait to improve alternative forms of transportation.

                  San Francisco and LA are a better analog population-wise. Hopefully CAHSR doesn't have any major set-backs in development, but even at 220 MPH, they'll be about 95 MPH slower than the Chuo Shinkansen will be by then.

                    1. I'm sure that would be great for Vegas. Personally, I'd rather do an hour train ride than an hour flight, given all the general hassles, and Vegas would be a somewhat good train destination since for the most part you don't need a car once you get there. I don't think LA would get much out of that particular partnership, though.

                      I'd be interested in seeing a list of the busiest flights in the US that were non-connecting flights between cities less than 400-600 miles apart. To me, that's where you would hit a kind of high-speed rail sweet spot--the flight is short but all the hassles associated with flying make the travel time a lot higher, so high-speed rail could potentially be a lot faster. Plus you would introduce some competition to keep the airlines honest in their pricing and services offered.

                    2. I think the problem is most cities aren't adapted (or adopted) for foot traffic or rapid transit. For instance, and LA - San Diego would be great, but anywhere you pick in LA for the station is potentially an hour or more away in any direction from where you might be originating from.

              3. pretty much what Rhu has said. Right-of-way ain't cheap (and we pretty much gave all the long-haul RoW to the RRs, along with a LOT more land, as incentives to invest to create the systems in the first place). Low population densities. Widely spaced urban centers.

                the NE Corridor is densely populated and has money-making intercity rail, at least in terms of farebox recovery > 100 pct. Most of the rest of the passenger rail in the country is below or well below 60 pct farebox recovery. (distinct from light rail)

                true high-speed rail requires a huge capital investment for buying RoW, and engineering and building dedicated track. Shared track means being subject to the largesse of the freight RRs who own most of the track and who naturally are most interested in moving their own traffic. (I don't mean that pejoratively).

                as a nation, we chose to invest in highway systems for passenger vehicles (and freight trucks). Lots of flexibility in delivering people where and when they choose, as opposed to when the RR chooses. That also drove subsequent urban/suburban growth. Building hub-and-spoke rail systems to serve those population patterns is daunting.

                1. Contrary to popular belief, passenger trains are always given a high priority on freight track. The problem is, we have the busiest and most successful freight system in the world, and that means lots of traffic. Without dedicated lines, there are going to be delays where trains have to park-and-pass. There's no getting around it (pun not intended).

                  1. Yes, I know. I also know that there is plenty tension between commuter rail systems (for example) and freight. By definition, this happens in congested areas.

                    But my main comment really was about the (relatively) fixed nature of rail networks compared to auto travel as an alternative mode. You just can't get there from here without hitting various connections. That is true of auto roads as well, but the consumer has much, much more control over the route via auto than via rail, and much, much, much greater likelihood of being able to travel from start to end without changing modes.

                2. I thought daunting was our thing?

                  β€œBut why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard…”

        1. Not only that, but now he’s back to playing his home games in a dome with artificial turf, except it’s on 34 year old knees & ankles this time.

    1. Here's the complete list of minor league managers and coaches. One I hadn't heard is that Joel Skinner will be the new manager at Rochester. Mike Quade will be a roving outfield instructor.

  10. The Gophers have signed a Top 25 (according to ESPN) recruiting class in football. It remains to be seen if and when this translates into wins and and major bowl games or even playoffs, but this is unprecedented in the era of ranking recruiting classes.

    2. I remain skeptical about Fleck and Co. "coaching them up" but at least he is getting good players.

    1. I saw the 8:00 start time and there was no way I was going to be able to stay up to watch, what with me recovering from one of the nastiest colds I've ever had, so that's good to hear. I see that Wiggins is still butt, though.

      1. But Thibs knows it now, so he keeps Wiggins firmly planted to the bench for most of the fourth quarter

        1. Two reserves with 20+ minutes! And 5 from MGH! Progress.

          Jimmy (star)(star)(star)(star)(star) Butler. Already one of my favorite T-Wolves ever. KG, of course, blots out the sun, but in the non-KG division, he's moving up fast.

Comments are closed.