The Problem With Fast Trains: What Happened to Hovertrains?

alfadog

alfadog

Final Approach
Joined
May 3, 2010
Messages
5,057
Location
Miami
Display Name
Display name:
alfadog
This is one reason I love YT. I was a teenager when this was current affairs and missed it entirely...

 
Well we have a bullet train planned here on the left coast.. Billions over budget, not running and if ever completed will go first from Bakersfield to Merced.. lol
Projections say it will have little ridership and will lose money.
 
It's not clear from the title but these were a series of hovertrains as in "cushion of air" that were prototyped in France, England, and the US. The most progress was made in France where the prototype train had not one but two gas turbines, a turbofan for propulsion and a gas turbine compressor to provide the cushioning air. More recently, when we think of "hovertrain", I imagine most of us think of maglev.
 
I worked on a maglev project many years ago. Sorry to say but it never got off the ground ha, ha. The economics don't work in the USA. The train needs to go where the people are and the ground needed for the project is too expensive because hey, the people live there. Our project was a rail from Norfolk to VA Beach but with all the stops and real estate costs, it didn't make sense and now they have a light rail which is, you guessed it, loosing money.
 
1RTK1 said:
Well we have a bullet train planned here on the left coast.. Billions over budget, not running and if ever completed will go first from Bakersfield to Merced.. lol
Projections say it will have little ridership and will lose money.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's just me, but I look at that 'project' and wonder just how much you could improve commercial air travel and public transit to get to airports in California for the same 100 billion(or whatever the number is now).
 
I think airplanes will beat fast trains for transporting people every time. The problem with trains is they must ride on tracks, which are hugely expensive to install and maintain. Once tracks are in they are impossible to move for changing times and demographics. With an airplane if a route becomes unprofitable, you stop flying there and fly somewhere else. With a train, you can stop going somewhere but it is tougher to go somewhere else without spending huge amounts of money on tracks.
 
I rode on a maglev train from Seoul to the southern part of Korea. 200 miles per hour and you couldnt feel a bump. Extremely quiet too.

The US is a third world country compared to many Asian countries when it comes to advanced technology.

I would take that over commercial flying medium distances any day.

Choice of an express bullet train from San Francisco to LA vs flying out of SFO TO LAX? I bet 60% would choose the bullet train.
 
Lndwarrior said:
Choice of an express bullet train from San Francisco to LA vs flying out of SFO TO LAX? I bet 60% would choose the bullet train.
Click to expand...

Do the math for what just the land would cost for a 100' right of way from LA to SF. Ain't cheap, and some landowners (and/or environmental groups) will fight you tooth and nail, adding to your expenses and delaying your project.

The difference in some Asian countries (e.g. China) is the central government owns all of the land and has the right to relocate the tenant. Meaning they can acquire land for infrastructure projects pretty quickly and at a relatively low cost.
 
When I lived in London, UK, I took the Eurostar to Paris and back several times. Infinitely more civilized way to travel compared to commercial air. And faster point-to-point as it went city center to city center.

Don't understand why Boston, NY and DC aren't already linked. Especially given what a TSA PITA it is to board a plane these days.
 
GRG55 said:
When I lived in London, UK, I took the Eurostar to Paris and back several times. Infinitely more civilized way to travel compared to commercial air. And faster point-to-point as it went city center to city center.

Don't understand why Boston, NY and DC aren't already linked. Especially given what a TSA PITA it is to board a plane these days.
Click to expand...

Boston, NY and DC are linked, with an expensive Acela train that has issues enough of the time to make it not reliable as a mode of transportation when you need to be there.
 
kyleb said:
Do the math for what just the land would cost for a 100' right of way from LA to SF. Ain't cheap, and some landowners (and/or environmental groups) will fight you tooth and nail, adding to your expenses and delaying your project.

The difference in some Asian countries (e.g. China) is the central government owns all of the land and has the right to relocate the tenant. Meaning they can acquire land for infrastructure projects pretty quickly and at a relatively low cost.
Click to expand...
That, plus the fact that labor is less expensive, and people don't own as many personal cars, percentage wise, as those in the US. My first choice would be driving myself from SF to LA.
 
GRG55 said:
Clearly the TSA is concerned someone is going to hijack an Amtrak and drive it into a building. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

They did extensive research using the movie silver streak. :rolleyes:
 
GRG55 said:
Clearly the TSA is concerned someone is going to hijack an Amtrak and drive it into a building. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol:

But seriously, before 9/11, the tracks between Gallup and Flagstaff had been tampered with, as in a rail was removed and the safety device bypassed, 6 different times. It never made the national news. And a train was never destroyed. It is thought that whoever was doing it simply gave up because they were not able to kill a large amount of people by crashing an Amtrak train.
 
PaulS said:
I think airplanes will beat fast trains for transporting people every time. The problem with trains is they must ride on tracks, which are hugely expensive to install and maintain. Once tracks are in they are impossible to move for changing times and demographics. With an airplane if a route becomes unprofitable, you stop flying there and fly somewhere else. With a train, you can stop going somewhere but it is tougher to go somewhere else without spending huge amounts of money on tracks.
Click to expand...
It depends on the region. The USA, I tend to agree with you with a few exceptions (Boston to Wash DC, maybe the west coast). Europe is a different situation. Last year I went Madrid to Barcelona, 300 KPH (162 knots) the whole way and smooth, very nice. Last week I took the ICE and a local train from Frankfurt to Biberach, and again from Dusseldorf to Frankfurt airport. not quite as fast as the Spanish train, but faster than driving. I doubt flying would have been faster, certainly less convenient.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
It depends on the region. The USA, I tend to agree with you with a few exceptions (Boston to Wash DC, maybe the west coast). Europe is a different situation. Last year I went Madrid to Barcelona, 300 KPH (162 knots) the whole way and smooth, very nice. Last week I took the ICE and a local train from Frankfurt to Biberach, and again from Dusseldorf to Frankfurt airport. not quite as fast as the Spanish train, but faster than driving. I doubt flying would have been faster, certainly less convenient.
Click to expand...

Much travel in Europe is pretty short distance. Over there, 50 miles is a long way; i have coworkers whose one-way commute is longer than that.

For rail in the U.S, look at routes like Atlanta to Dallas, or Chicago to St. Louis, plus the proverbial NYC to LA . . . . Aint gonna happen, even at 162 knots . . . .
 
Hank S said:
Much travel in Europe is pretty short distance. Over there, 50 miles is a long way; i have coworkers whose one-way commute is longer than that.

For rail in the U.S, look at routes like Atlanta to Dallas, or Chicago to St. Louis, plus the proverbial NYC to LA . . . . Aint gonna happen, even at 162 knots . . . .
Click to expand...

Exactly. The NE Corridor is about the only place it makes sense. Boston to DC with intermediate stops and maybe a few branches.
 
Zeldman said:
Well, sir, there's nothing on earth like a genuine, bona fide, electrified, six-car Monorail! What'd I say?
Monorail!
What's it called?
Monorail!
That's right! Monorail!
[crowd chants 'Monorail, Monorail']
Click to expand...

Is there a chance the track could bend?
 
I worked with a guy that went to France for a trade show. He was jet lagged and fell asleep on one of their bullet trains.

He eventually made it back home and told me, “You have no idea what it’s like to miss a stop until you oversleep for 30 minutes at 200mph.”
 
Ghery said:
...However, you are correct, once air travel is shut down, water traffic is the only way to get from Seattle to Anchorage.
Click to expand...

Huh??? :confused: o_O

upload_2019-5-12_21-49-56.png
 
I was on the TGV last month and we maxed out around 190 MPH. That's on conventional rails (albeit setup for such speeds). The Acela the NE corridor only manages less than half that over much of its route because the various bridges and roadbeds aren't quite up to it. I think the maximum peak speed it ever can obtain is about 135. Of course, the feds made the thing engineered to be able to withstand slamming into a freight train because the tracks aren't dedicated which cost it a bit. This is the relic of the Amtrak-Contrail crash back in 1987 in Chase, MD where the Contrail guys were smoking pot and taped over the sonalert that warned them they were blowing through signals. My fire company was one of the first on the scene for that mess.
 
PaulS said:
Boston, NY and DC are linked, with an expensive Acela train that has issues enough of the time to make it not reliable as a mode of transportation when you need to be there.
Click to expand...

If the Acela had a dedicated right of way, it wouldnt have half the problems it does. Most of the delays are related to either signaling on the 150year old Pennsylvania RR tracks or the other slow-poke trains they share the ROW with.
 
Only way high speed rail would work in the USA is if we got rid of all cars. It's just too spread out, and you would have to hub and spoke it, and that's going to just not be convenient at all. You could probably get by with Class B city to Class B city, but then if you want to go from ATL to LAX, you're going to have stops in Memphis, Dallas, Phoenix...and who's going to do that? Nevermind trying to get from Oxford, MS to Des Moines.
 
alaskazimm said:
Don't forget the Alaska Highway - though I think the Inside Passage is prettier.
Click to expand...

GRG55 said:
Huh??? :confused: o_O

View attachment 74056
Click to expand...

Either of you aware of public transportation on the Alaska Highway? Sure, you can drive your car (or pickup, or RV) on the road, but for getting to Anchorage by public transportation without an airline, water seems to be the only other option.
 
1RTK1 said:
Well we have a bullet train planned here on the left coast.. Billions over budget, not running and if ever completed will go first from Bakersfield to Merced.. lol
Projections say it will have little ridership and will lose money.
Click to expand...

And I am sure those projections are over-optimistic, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top