Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 January 9

= January 9 =

Could anyone identify this city for me?
This is the picture in question. http://www.city-photos.org/_rss/4054877.jpg

AlmostCrimes (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Moscow, that ship thing is Peter the Great Statue  meltBanana  04:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Military terms or language
When a soldier in the military says, "The enemy is five clicks down the road", what is the distance of a "click"?71.53.237.28 (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've only ever heard it used as a synonym for a kilometre. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  04:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, a click is a kilometer/kilometre. Dismas |(talk) 04:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * See also the article on klick. ---Sluzzelin talk  04:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That is also used as a synonym of kilometre by non-military people, at least in Canada. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In Perth, Australia, I have occasionally heard it used as a speed. Ie one might be doing "100 klicks" on the freeway, but I've never heard "klicks per hour". Mitch Ames (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would Americans be using metric: kilometres rather than miles? 92.15.24.111 (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * American scientists widely use the metric system in keeping with the rest of the scientific community -- well, most of the time. The military has used metric since the late 1950s, likely to reduce with armies from other countries. Canada began metrication in the 1970s, but it was stopped and partially reversed in the mid-1980s, so they use a mixture of both systems. Xenon54 (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose that operating in Western Europe, the US Army would have to use the existing metric maps. Using miles and yards on a metric map can be done but is a whole lot more difficult than using kilometres and metres. The maps available for Vietnam would have been surveyed by the French, so the same applies there. I suspect that maps of the USA continued to use US measurements for quite a while longer. Maps of the United Kingdom were not metricated until the mid 1970s. Alansplodge (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

IPO
I want to understand in the simplest manner how a company makes shares for itself without lessening the current owners' ownership -- unless, of course, that is what an IPO will do. So when Facebook, for example, has an IPO and Mark Zuckerberg currently owns let's say 25% of the company, how can he retain 25% of the company? If whoever now owns whatever percentages of the company get that much in stock to equal their current ownership level, how are there any remaining stocks for sale? Perhaps I'm confusing everything, and that's where I'm lost, but I read the IPO article and it didn't really help me at all on this. Thanx.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 04:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He doesn't. That's the downside of an IPO. Of course, you could have two classes of shares in which the A class has 1,000 times the votes per share as the B class. That would allow the existing management to maintain control of the company even with a minority of the equity. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  DRosenbach  ( Talk 18:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that although the percentage of ownership decreases, the value of ownership will not, if the IPO is priced correctly -- because the money brought in by the IPO is distributed across all the shares that exist. Looie496 (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you explain that a bit more please? And could you just sell off as many non-voting shares as you like, and therefore sell most of the company but still keep control of it? 92.15.24.111 (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Suppose I own all 100 shares of MyCompany and its assessed value is US$1,000,000. My shares are worth US$1,000,000.  Suppose I perform an IPO and issue 200 new shares.  In some perfect world, the market would agree with the assessed value and would pay US$2,000,000 for the 200 new shares.  This is because at the end of the day of my IPO day, my company, already with US$1,000,000 in value, has an additional US$2,000,000 in the bank.  My 100 shares are now worth one-third of US$3,000,000, which comes to US$1,000,000 &mdash; no change.  To your second question, yes, this is possible, but it makes large investors likely to value the shares less.  One significant company with a structure like this is Ford Motor Company.  Our article does not discuss this for some reason, but a criticism over time is that the Ford family still controls a much larger share of the voting shares than the economic shares would indicate.  (This link states the Ford family controls 40% of the voting shares.)  The pension funds (which are some of the largest investors in private companies) are always complaining about this, because less voting power means they have less ability to pressure Ford's board into replacing the CEO or making broad strategy changes if the pension funds deem it appropriate.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm very intrigued by the idea that simply by doing an IPO, the business gets an extra $2M (in your example). Is there anything I can read about how this pans out in practice rather than just in theory? Why isnt every business doing this? Why cannot a business raise an unlimited amount of money? Thanks 92.15.3.168 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You only raise as much money in an IPO as people are willing to pay. The goal is to price an IPO as high as possible while still having it oversubscribed (that is, more demand for the shares than are shares available). If it becomes apparent that there isn't enough demand, the company may cancel the IPO. Remember, the downside of an IPO is that you effectively lose control over the company. Even if you keep most of the equity or votes, there are still lots of laws intended to protect minority shareholders. You can't just do what you want after you go public. And it costs money to do all the stuff you have to do as a public corporation. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the company's management does get to do almost whatever they want with the money, subject only to any of the corporation's bylaws' restraints on the CEO's power and the CEO's fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of the shareholders. To the point of every business doing this, if a buggy whip company were founded tomorrow by DRosenbach and was able to file to raise US$2 million in an IPO, I don't think any investors would be found who would be interested, since CEO DRosenbach would be sure to start spending the US$2 million on making buggy whips, which won't ever sell, so the investors would conclude no profit would eventually occur at all.  Side note: DRosenbach's company would not really be able to file for an IPO because of the inability to find a securities underwriter (and that article section, amazingly, tries to cover the topic in only 5 sentences).  Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Queen Victoria's Succession to the throne of England
Perhaps someone out there can explain why succession to the throne of England went to Queen Victoria and not to Ernest Augustus I of Hanover. He was the next male in line after all of his older brothers died (two of whom were kings- George IV and William IV). Please refer to the following link from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_monarchs%27_family_tree Since all of his older brothers had died, and had not produced any male heirs to the throne, wouldn't he be the next king? Queen Victoria was the child of one of his deceased brothers, The Duke of Kent, and a female. Why would the throne go to her when Ernest Augustus I of Hanover, the direct, legitimate MALE offspring of George III, was still alive?Xeyedcat (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In brief, because he was not next in line. That is simply not how British Primogeniture (male-preference primogeniture) works. It isn't about exhausting all male options first. Look at it this way: the current line of succession to the British throne shows you that Charles's sons are next in line after him, before his brothers. He doesn't have to take the throne before he dies for them to be before his brothers in the succession: if Charles died tomorrow, William would be next in line and the new Heir Apparent. If Charles had three children, let's say William, Winifred, and Harry, and he died tomorrow, the line of succession would go: William (Heir Apparent), Harry, Winifred, Andrew (Charles's brother), Andrew's daughters (in order of age), Edward (Charles and Andrew's younger brother), etc. As you can see, the fictional Winifred would come behind her brothers, but still before her uncles. And, in the real line of succession, Beatrice and Eugenie come before Edward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.214.50 (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In the British primogeniture system, the direct lines are exhausted before moving to the junior lines. In other words, brothers come before sisters, but they ALL come before uncles or cousins.  So, let's say that we have the following family tree (fictional):
 * King Andrew (M)
 * Bertrand (M)
 * Charles (M)
 * Ernestine (F)
 * David (M)
 * Francis (M)
 * If Andrew dies, and no other children are born, the succession goes
 * Bertrand
 * Charles
 * David
 * Ernestine
 * Francis
 * This is because a) David is younger than Ernestine, but as a male, gets to succeed BEFORE her (that is, males in the direct line, come before females in the direct line of the oldest son) b) Though there is a living male descendant of Andrew (his younger son Francis), Ernestine comes first because we must exhaust the line of the oldest son of Andrew BEFORE moving on to the lines of any younger sons of Andrew. I hope this makes sense.  -- Jayron  32  19:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So not only does Bertrand come before his younger brother Francis, so do his children? Does this extend to their children as well, and so on? Assuming Ernestine has a daughter, and all of Bertrand, Charles, David and Ernestine die before her, does she then inherit the crown, even if Francis is still alive? J I P  &#124; Talk 19:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your first question is correct. If Bertrand were to have children, they would come immediately after him in the succession, and before Charles.  Bertrand's sons would come before Bertrand's daughters, but ALL of Bertrand's sons and daughters as a group would come before Charles.  For your second question, yes.  Ernestine's children would come before Francis, so even if Ernestine had only daughters, they would succeed before Francis.  In the British primogeniture system, once a person is in the line, their children all come in the line immediately after them, and before anyone else, ordered sons before daughters, oldest before younger.  -- Jayron  32  19:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, the present queen had an uncle – Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (1900–74) – who would have been king in 1952 if the rule were "exhaust all nearby males first". —Tamfang (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Question (Divorce)
what is the process for a divorce in the state of California? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marztech5 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC) what is the process for a divorce in the state of California? In 1998, I had paid for a divorce decree in the Modesto court house and followed all that expected of me. I found out that in 2010 that I am still married to my first wife. In 2005, I had married my new wife, we have three children together. When I had applied for a marriage licience at the Hemet court house, the courts examined my devoire decree and had issued my wife and I a marriage licience. Now I found out that a long time friend is in the same situation. I tried to have others do it for me and that didn't work, so I would like to learn how to do it for myself. There is almost no information on how this process really works, which leaves the residents of California very vulnerable. --Marztech5 (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marztech5 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but we are not permitted to give legal or medical advice (and that's what an answer to this would be). Looie496 (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed the question and added the template. I concur with Louie496's assessment, and advice the original question asker to seek a lawyer to get answers to questions like this.  -- Jayron  32  19:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've undone the deletion, because I don't think that was the proper thing to do here. The original original question, "What is the process for a divorce in the state of California," is acceptable. Asking the RD to respond to one's personal legal situation is not. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Nolo Press publishes a self-help guide for uncontested divorces in California (link); they also publish a general guide which covers divorce in the United States in general (here), presumably with less detail; I have no personal experience of either book, but some of Nolo's other books have proved to be excellent. It's my understanding that some people of limited means file uncontested divorce paperwork with the assistance of a paralegal alone (a Google search for "california divorce paralegal" finds any number of paralegals offering their services in this regard). Contested divorces, and cases where the custody and maintenance of minor children is an issue, most often require parties to engage lawyers. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

How to get to John o' Groats?
After reading the article about John o' Groats, I have speculated with the idea of actually visiting it. I have visited Nordkapp, which is almost the northernmost point in mainland Europe, so I'd like to visit the almost-northernmost point of Great Britain as well. So how do I actually get to John o' Groats? I don't have a driver's license, so my own car or a rental car is not an option. Is there a railway or bus connection to John o' Groats? I don't know if John o' Groats has its own airport (Tromsø in Norway does) but I guess it does not. In terms of economy, should I fly from Finland to London and travel to John o' Groats from there, or to some nearer airport in Scotland? J I P &#124; Talk 19:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a bus from Inverness: . -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did a quick Internet search on how to get to Inverness, in order to get on that bus. It turns out that a direct flight from Finland to Inverness costs about the same as a flight to London and a train trip to Inverness, but I guess a direct flight is faster. The bus connection from Inverness to John o' Groats seems to be direct, so if I decide to ever go on the trip, this is perhaps the best option. J I P  &#124; Talk 20:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The same website Mwalcoff linked has details of all buses from Thurso and Wick: - but do check, as these haven't been updated since 2009.  Be warned, there's very little to see in John O'Groats; the main attraction is the ferry to Orkney. Warofdreams talk 20:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There's at least a shop and a hotel at John o' Groats, which is a lot more than there is at the actual northernmost point of Great Britain. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW there's also a train service (four times a day) from Inverness to Thurso and Wick, and Wick Airport. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Orkney is worth a visit. Heart of Neolithic Orkney is a UNESCO world heritage site there. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You might find it cheaper to fly to a larger Scottish airport - Blue1 starts a Helsinki - Edinburgh service in April. The train can take you as far as Wick or Thurso, or you can fly from Edinburgh to the aforementioned Wick Airport.  It should be easy to get a bus or taxi to John O'Groats, though I'm surprised would want to go there (in my opinion, a more challenging place to visit would be Cape Wrath with its lighthouse and no shops selling tourist crap).  Astronaut (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * www.travelinescotland.com (note the one 'l' in the middle), is the main public transport search site for Scotland. It also covers the rest of the UK via the other travel line sites. CS Miller (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not an answer, but a bit of extra trivia. Lots of people do charity walks from Land's End to John o'Groats, and if you look up the walking route on Google Maps, it tells you to take six ferries, including one to France. :) --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  02:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to point out that the northernmost point of Great Britain is Out Stack, but it's even less inviting than Dunnet Head, which is the most northerly point on mainland Britain.--Shantavira|feed me 13:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Great Britain is "an island situated to the northwest of Continental Europe.." (my emphasis). Out Stack is the northernmost point of the British Isles. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and indeed of Britain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ... but not of Great Britain. See Terminology of the British Isles for the whole sorry saga.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Department store with the most floors
Which department store has the most floors? --84.62.210.80 (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It was the J. L. Hudson Department Store and Addition, with 23 above-ground retails floors and two in the basement, but it was demolished in 1998. Still searching for the current record holder. The world's largest, Shinsegae Centum City, clocks in at a measly eight.Clarityfiend (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This claims there's an 18-storey one (plus a basement floor?) in Taiwan, but I can't make out any details. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Which department store in Japan has the most floors? --84.62.210.80 (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Marshall Field and Company Building in downtown Chicago has twelve above and one below-ground floor. So you need to beat 13. It was once the largest department store in the world. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The building has 13 floors, but are all 13 dedicated to retail space? A store is a continous area of retail space, and the size of the store may be somewhat smaller than the size of the building housing the store... -- Jayron  32  16:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Berjaya Times Square has 10+1+1(G+LG) floors in the main retail space part. I don't know if you can say it's all dedicated to retail space since it includes an indoor theme park and perhaps more importantly various head offices in the retail space part. I'm not sure if all floors have what can be considered retail space although the 10th floor (food court and cinema) and LG does. You can see a shop directory here, I guess a question is how much retail is needed in a floor for it to be counted? The building itself is significantly higher. Nil Einne (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Which department store in Japan has the most floors? --84.62.209.181 (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please? would be nice... gaz hiley .co.uk  10:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A simple search for 'department store japan most floors' finds one allegedly with 15 floors (although I don't understand how you can start at B2 and go all the way up to 14 but only end up with 15 floors unless they completely skipped 4 or something without even a 3A or one of them lacks retail space but this wasn't mentioned) . However no claim is made that it has the most floors Nil Einne (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Kansas, in area, compared to other states, pre 1912
This book says Kansas is the thirteenth state in area, but Kansas is now 15th. in size. The book was published in 1912. Assuming that one state is Alaska, what accounts for the other? Albacore (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * New Mexico and Arizona both joined the Union in 1912. Both are bigger than Kansas.  If the book was written before both joined, you'd expect Kansas to lose 3 positions (those two and, as you say, Alaska).  If it was written after both, you'd expect it to lose only 1 (again Alaska).  For the state to lose 2, the book would have to be written (and I appreciate that there are potentially big delays between books being authored, typeset, printed, and distributed) in the six week period between the accession of NM and before that of AZ. Hopefully there's a smarter reason than that... 87.115.125.162 (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hawaii, also 1959? A bit before August 4, 1961:)  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia gives Hawaii's area as 10,931 sq miles, making it much smaller than all the states in question. I guess the book could be counting using some other measure of area, taking into account some particularly ambitious definition of Hawaii's territorial waters? 87.115.125.162 (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ooops, sorry! --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I note that the book's value for Kansas' area (82144 sq miles) and our value for Kansas' area (82277 sq miles) do not match. As such, I expect the difference is in consideration of water area or some other value.  We note that Kansas is 0.56% water, but Michigan, at 97000 sq miles, is a whopping 41% water due to Lake Michigan.  So my best guess is that Kansas drops from 13th in 1912 to 14th in 1959 (due to Alaska, as above) and possibly another spot depending on how you treat Michigan. &mdash; Lomn 13:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not just our share of Lake Michigan but our large shares of Lake Huron and Lake Superior as well. See File:Michigan.svg. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Time between Logan airport and Back Bay Station
We're going to be travelling in Boston this summer and one point of our journey is getting from Logan airport to Back Bay Station to catch a train to New York - does anybody have any idea (roughly) how long it takes on the subway to get from the airport to this station? ny156uk (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * MBTA's journey planner is here. For an arbitrary weekday I just plugged in, it estimated 39 minutes using the Blue Line. 87.115.125.162 (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * From the airport you have to catch a (free) shuttle bus to get to the Airport subway station. Then the correct routing by subway is the Blue Line as far as State station, then the Orange Line.  The actual travel time isn't a lot, but the need to wait for three vehicles and make two changes will slow you down (and the way State station is laid out, you have to walk about a block inside the station between trains).  39 minutes sounds like it's in the right range, but it might be a bit low, especially if it doesn't include the shuttle bus.


 * An alternative is the Silver Line express bus, which you could take directly from your airport terminal to South Station, where your Amtrak train originates. Being devoutly of the rail persuasion myself, I have not tried this and am not sure how long it takes, but I expect it would be more convenient. --Anonymous, 05:57 UTC, January 10, 2011.


 * The Silver Line is very fast and about as reliable as rail. It travels through tunnels a good portion of its journey and generally does not have to contend with traffic except in the terminals. It's truly faster IF it lets you avoid switching trains (e.g. before the Silver Line, I used to have to go Red > Orange > Blue > Shuttle to get to Logan; now I go Red > Silver and I'm done; it's quicker and easier). BUT I would note that South Station and Back Bay are not the same thing at all, and that there are trains at both, and presumably the OP meant the Back Bay when they said it and not South. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not the same station; I said South Station is where the train originates. There is no reason to go to Back Bay to catch the train unless it's more convenient to get to.  Well, coming from the airport by subway you'd need three trains to get to South Station and only two to get to Back Bay, so it is more convenient.  But by Silver Line bus, South Station is more convenient, with no changes required.  --Anonymous, 07:06 UTC, 1/11/11 (or 11/1/11, or...).
 * May I ask why you are taking the train? It is a very expensive and very slow way to get to New York from Boston. It is probably much slower than you realize. It will take you about as much time as taking a bus would from South Station, and cost you ten times as much. For reasons that are unclear to me, the train system in the northeast is entirely ridiculous in terms of its reliability and its cost. Just putting that out there, as someone who has made the trip many times before...! The new bus lines (Megabus, Bolt Bus, etc.) are all pretty comfortable as far as bus travel goes (electrical outputs, WiFi, bathrooms, reasonable amount of space) and are much cheaper than Amtrak. They would probably add no more than an hour or two to your trip. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Trains are a lot nicer than buses. You can get up and walk around if you want. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And on the Northeast Corridor they're substantially faster, as 98 states himself or herself: "no more than an hour or two" is a big difference on a trip that length. It's most other North American passenger railways that are relatively slow.  --Anonymous, 05:45 UTC, January 10, 2011.
 * Anyway, I'm just suggesting, from experience: avoid the rail in the northeast. It costs about as much as flying does and takes about as long as a bus. Just to indicate what I'm talking about: the Acela Express, the fastest one, can do it in 3.5 hours, but at a cost of $95-$110 each way (at least on some sample weekday I chose). The Northeast regional takes 4 hours at $67 each way. (That's right—the "high speed" rail saves you... 30 minutes! At a cost of nearly double most of the time.) A direct flight from Logan to JFK on Jetblue costs $39 (sorry, that's just a sale they're having at the moment) $69 each way and takes a little over an hour. A ticket on Bolt Bus costs $15 and takes 4 hours 45 minutes. Megabus costs $13 for a trip of 4 hours 15 minutes. Do you see what I'm indicating? It's very hard for me to see the utility of the train. Nobody I know who travels between Boston and New York opts to take it. All of this assumes, of course, that the Amtrak will be on time, which it will not be. (The flights usually are, though the extra hassle of airport security can add an hour if you have to go through it again. The buses usually leave on time but arrival depends very heavily on the traffic in the last mile or so of the trip, which can be brutal. However, it is very scenic — much more scenic than the train — for that last hour into Manhattan.) Anyway, it's your trip! Do what you feel. I'm just pointing out that, as a Bostonian who makes that trip once or twice a year, the train is really the odd way to go. Don't get me wrong: I wish rail service was a competitive option around here. I love the European model of getting around. But for reasons unbeknownst to me, it isn't very workable here, in my experience. (Of course, if you're not going to NYC, the prices and times are different. But there are probably buses anywhere a train is going.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the train is an efficient means of travel when one considers the time for a flight to NY is not just the time in the air - but includes security time, and the wonderful ride from Laguardia into the city on a $20 cab ride. The half hour flight can easily take three hours :) and cost as much as the train. And if the person is actually trying to get to, say, Stamford CT, the train beats the plane if one is starting from the vicinity of Logan.    I would point out, however, that South Station is a preferred station - it is to Boston as Grand Central is to NY, and Back Bay is like 125th St. Collect (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to say that on my trip to the US I took the Acela Express from Boston (South Station) to NYC and found it excellent - punctual, comfortable and remarkably quiet. The price seemed reasonable at the time. I can't recall precisely what it was now, though it was booked some way in advance. Would also thoroughly recommend the Silver Line in Boston for getting to/from the airport. the wub "?!"  19:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Just curious... if you are flying into Logan, why not change your ticket to fly into an airport closer to NYC? Astronaut (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi - thanks for all the answers. Looks like need to allow maybe an hour and a half to be able to make the switch comfortably. Mr 98 / etc. - we're getting a bus up from NY on the way 'out' to Boston and spending a couple of weeks there (well there and Cape cod) and we thought it would be nice to get a train on the way back. Not worried about how long takes as such - only timescale need to be certain about i getting from the airport (where my rental car is booked) to Back Bay Station where our train is booked, sounds like 1.5 hours will be a reasonable allowance for this. Thanks for the help everyone, much appreciated. ny156uk (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 1.5 hours should be more than enough, especially since trains don't have security lines. Best of luck! --Mr.98 (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)