XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: robban@clubtelco.com   
      
   On 3/02/2014 9:15 am, J. Clarke wrote:   
   > In article , john@jfeldredge.com   
   > says...   
   >>   
   >> On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 16:00:22 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> In article ,   
   >>> droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com says...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> In article ,   
   >>>>   "John F. Eldredge"  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 23:42:51 -0800, David Friedman wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 1/30/14, 1:30 PM, Leszek Karlik wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Rapid rail is pretty nice in densely populated countries, which I   
   >>>>>>> guess is why China is so keen on it.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> China as a whole isn't that densely populated, although parts of it   
   >>>>>> may be--it has a large population but also a large area. Its   
   >>>>>> population density is about 2/3 that of Germany, a little over half   
   >>>>>> that of the U.K.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> However, the eastern part, particularly the southeast, is VERY   
   >>>>> densely populated, and therefore well suited to rail traffic.  The   
   >>>>> northwest, by contrast, is mostly scantily-settled desert.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> People need to stop confusing cause and effect.  Trains don't only   
   >>>> start making sense *after* a population has exploded, but they were   
   >>>> often the *reason* the masses could get to far off lands in the first   
   >>>> place!  Any country that still has an interest in mobility that scales   
   >>>> is *not* going to go car-centric, self-driving or not.   
   >>>   
   >>> Please provide an example of "far off lands" that were settled _because_   
   >>> of trains.   
   >>   
   >> Well, parts of the western USA would qualify, but in large part because   
   >> trains were the only mechanized overland transportation available at the   
   >> time.   
   >   
   > Which parts of the western USA were settled primarily by train and not   
   > by horse and wagon?   
   >   
      
   One would assume that those towns that were temporarily the railhead and   
   thus the target of the cattle drives would have increased their   
   populations. Whether those people stayed there after the rail advanced   
   is another question - we know what happened to gold mining towns. Those   
   massive cattle drives only lasted a short while too once the rail took over.   
      
   --   
   Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England   
                       1972-now W Australia   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)