Post by Lewis Post by Peter Moylan Post by Quinn C Post by Peter Moylan Post by Stefan Ram Post by occam
'Standard Life Aberdeen' is being rebranded as 'Abrdn'.
Modern English reduces and elides vowels in unstressed
syllables more than Old English. But this usually is
not reflected in writing. Otherwise, "model" might be
written as "modl".
"Brisbane" is usually pronounced using a "zbn" consonant cluster.
Is there a Brizbn to Melbn train service?
Not a direct service. You have to change trains in Sinny.
Post by Quinn C
I find the degree of reduction in the second name more unexpected.
Next weekend I'll be flying to Brisbane. It's 14 hours by train or 70
minutes by air, so the train trip is losing popularity.
Of course for the flight I'll have to drive to the airport (about 1
hour), and then pay a king's ransom to leave my car at the airport for
the weekend, but the plane still wins the competition.
Many years ago I took a train from Melbourne to Sydney (12 hours). I
wouldn't choose to do it again, but air fares were much higher back then.
I am surprised, that is a very slow train, or a very indirect route.
Driving takes less time than that (My friend in Melbourne says 10 hours,
with a stop for lunch, so about 9 hours total?).
Trains are supposed to be faster than cars, so I hear.
We only technically have trains in this country, however, and they have
to yield to coal trains (well, any freight trains) on basically all the
tracks in the US, so...
As I understand it, this is also Australia's problem--just about
anywhere that ENGLISH transport law was the basis for things, freight
traffic takes priority (understandable at this point, because no sane
person would ever take a non-"transit" passenger train if they had a
time-sensitive appointment at the end of the trip. Likely responsible
for the death of passenger service in the first place, though, even when
it was still only slightly more expensive than bus/motorcoach
transport). In addition, like the US, the rail infrastructure predates
the 1950s in most areas--Alice Springs>>Darwin being the exception, as
it didn't exist prior to THIS CENTURY--which means tight corners that
limit how far a train can run at top speed even if it WEREN'T being
placed on a siding to let freight run.
Then you add in that said top speed is likely nearer 80 mph than 110,
and you quickly get a rail route that likely takes even more time to
traverse in 2021 than it did in 1956. And the only way around it seems
to be a dedicated series of passenger-only mainlines that would only
ever be anything other than a white elephant if it became impossible to
legally operate a plane at speeds above a train's top speed.
Admittedly, if all aircraft ever had to be carbon-emission-free, that
might happen; I don't see a way to get the speed of a modern jet
aircraft without actively combusting things, and I'm not entirely sure
that even a jet aircraft burning pure hydrogen could be both safe from
in-flight explosion and have a cruising radius greater than 800 miles.
But right now I don't want to contemplate futures that would make Denver
go back to being equally REMOTE from just about anywhere rather than
equally convenient TO just about anywhere.
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!