FAST LANE: California's planned high-speed line, shown here in an artist's impression, will likely be the first true high-speed line to be built in the U.S. With more than $11 billion in financiing secured, construction could begin as early as next year.
Image: COURSETY OF CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY
In Brief
- Unlike Japan, France and other countries, the U.S. has no true high-speed train lines.
- A recent influx of federal money is spurring hope that long-planned projects could finally be built.
- Such projects include both steel-wheels-on-rails and magnetic levitation technology.
America is an absurdly backward country when it comes to passenger trains. As anyone who has visited Europe, Japan or Shanghai knows, trains that travel at nearly 200 miles per hour have become integral to the economies of many countries. With its celebrated Tokaido Shinkansen bullet trains, Central Japan Railway has for the past five decades carried billions of passengers between Tokyo and Osaka in half the time it would take to fly. A new Madrid-to-Barcelona express train runs at an average speed of 150 miles per hour; since its inception two years ago, airline traffic between the two cities has dropped by 40 percent. In contrast, Amtrak’s showcase Acela train connecting Boston to Washington, D.C., averages just 70 mph. That figure is so low because many sections of the Acela’s tracks cannot safely support high speeds, even though the train itself is capable of sprints above 150 mph. Think of it as a Ferrari sputtering down a rutted country lane.
There has been a recent push to change all this. Earlier this year the Department of Transportation announced the recipients of $8 billion in stimulus funding designed to spread high-speed rail across the U.S. The 2010 federal budget requests an additional $1 billion in rail construction funds in each of the next five years. And in 2008 California voters approved a $9-billion bond measure to initiate an ambitious high-speed rail network that would connect Los Angeles to San Francisco and, eventually, Sacramento and San Diego.
This article was originally published with the title Revolutionary Rail.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
40 Comments
Add CommentUS citizens should be glad that they have not had high speed rail foisted upon them in the presently available guises. Going at high speed on, or near the earth's surface wastes a lot of energy to air resistance which is proportional to the square of the speed. Travelling in pressurised vehicles inside evacuated tubes, or tunnels, removes much of the energy cost and ware and tare of conventional rail and road transport systems. Though beneficial in the longer run, maglev is not essential to a successful ETT system. The evacuated tubes can be more efficient in the use of structural materials, because a tube is a more rigid and stronger structure than a flat ribbon. ( Roads and railways require quite a depth of concrete or other strong base to support the surface or rails )
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn operation a vactrain system would be quiet, weather immune, and safe for wildlife.Presently railway rolling stock is several times more expensive than passenger road transports of comparable capacity and rail systems are heavily subsidised, whilst road transports are taxed beyond any fair assessment of their cost to the community. The late, great, American scientist and engineer, Robert Goddard, detailed technically feasible plans back in the 1940's, but then, as now, entrenched vested interests did all they could to rubbish the idea, because they knew, deep down, that it was and is the superior transport concept. The vested interests may have changed a bit, but the argument is the same. It would be prudent for the US to skip the expensive technical cul de sac of high speed rail and go straight to evacuated tube transport. If the automobile and aviation industries were involved in the development and construction of a standardised system linking all major towns and cities it would greatly boost both and the economy, but in a way that seriously addresses climate change and reduces it's perils.
Dear Mr. Brown, I realize the lead time necessary to issue a monthly magazine... but last week's San Francisco Chronicle ran an article announcing that despite billions in federal grants and state bonds the California high speed rail program is being put on hold. Residents near proposed right-of-ways are objecting to environmental issues. Also, delayed number crunching has found that a fare on the proposed train would have to be almost three times the price of an airline ticket, just to cover operating costs... with capital costs being picked up by taxpayers. Now the allocated money is being siphoned off for existing rail services.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe tube train idea is good and a company in our town of Goleta, CA is working on this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith regard to subsidies, private motor vehicle use is far more subsidized than rail.
See "America's Autos on Welfare" for references:
http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/articles/subsidies.asp
High speed rail pays for itself in Japan and in Europe and actually makes a profit.
The US rail system was built in the 19th century and over a century later the track is still almost as crooked as it was then. At that time locomotives were weak as compared to now, heavy earthmoving equipment didn't exist. As a result the track followed the path of least resistance usually along rivers and other terrain that didn't require a lot of earth moving, bridges and tunnels. Most of these routes are still single track with sidings for passing. Can you imagine what our highways would be like if they were single lane even with just a few cars. Double track on major routes as a first step would result in a major improvement in speed and efficiency for both passengers and freight, without the high cost of new dedicated high speed track. Maybe help to get some trucks and cars off the roads. The next step could be to remove road crossings and straighten some of the track. By that time the price of oil may be high enough for high speed rail to become viable. It's nice to dream about the US having high speed rail, but we don't have the population density to support it. Another factor is that Americans like to live wherever they please which is spread out all over. Also we don't like our property taken unless it is for more roads. We can't even straighten the track between Boston and Washington. In countries that have high speed rail, cities are tight knit making public transportation more practical. In the US we have trouble getting our bus, train, subway, and airports connected. There is no central authority to coordinate any of this. Miami has a metro rail, but it doesn't go to the airport or Miami Beach. Atlanta's metro rail does go to the airport but it's a long walk. In most of the major European cities you can get off the plane and walk to the train station or bus stop. Try that at many of our airports, if bus service exists you may wait 30 min or more. Schipol Amsterdam airport, a former ship harbor located below sealevel, has managed to put a rail station under the terminal. I have ridden the Shanghai Maglev, even there with the high population density it is not profitable. Above 200 kph the ride was not smooth, maybe due to air turbulance near the ground. At the end of each run a worker cleans bug and bird splatters from the front of the train. I can hear the uproar now from the animal rights folks over this issue if a maglev was built in the US. We need to start by improving the rail we have, but no doubt we will blow a bunch of money that we don't have on glitzy high speed rail
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi SBGreen and Jerry Whiteaker.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJapan is one of the most densely populated countries in the world, and if they can only manage to have their high speed line wash it's face after decades of deployment and development, then the concept itself is suspect on economic grounds alone. I would treat European claims about profitability with extreme caution as those making the claims have a vested interest in showing that they spent large amounts of public money prudently. In UK the public purse has just shelled out over 13.5 billion dollars worth to upgrade the main line from London to Glasgow (460 miles ) and expect to reduce journey times by about an hour to 4hours 15 minutes.Fares are also expected to increase. Jerry's experience with the chinese maglev would indicate that it might be worth their while putting inside an evacuated tube.
Passenger numbers transported and high speed seem to be a bit counter intuitive. The safe distance between vehicles is known as headway and this distance ( or time ) increases with the average vehicle speed. So to transport more passengers over a reasonable time period, high speed transports have to carry more passengers per train. This applies to aircraft as well
Hi SBGreen - I had to break of for some tasks before commenting on American autos on subsidies. I checked out the site you quoted - thanks. The more reasonable estimates vary between 2.85 and7.55 US dollars per US gallon. Using today's currency conversions in the UK we are currently paying 4.55 dollars per US gallon in taxes. This is only the fuel taxes. Ownership taxes add more than 750 US dollars per car per year on average. The railway industry in comparison gets nearly 50% of it's annual turnover in monetary subsidies of one form or another, and where they are using electricity are paying no fuel tax. In the urban setting railway lines , marshalling yards, and interchanges take up much more room than their road equivalents, and handle fewer vehicle movements. It's all down to headway again. Headway on roads can operate safely with headways of seconds, whereas railways need minutes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn public transport on the road you have taxis at one end of the spectrum and large buses at the other. There is a lot of room in between for the creative and intelligent use of taxibuses and minibuses to provide what the customers want at reasonable cost and minimum inconvenience.
High speed rail's main competitor is short haul aviation, but it is probably not worth the high costs at distances more than 200 miles.
When you talk about the Madrid to Barcelona line, best talk in money and you'll get answers you can build on. Tarragona to Barcelona (as an alternative example) costs me close on 7 Euros return. In the UK at the same time of day, bought in the same way, the Swindon to London train (roughly the same distance between two major cities) costs 116 Pounds (say 130 Euros). As you say, the secret is in the subsidy and why it is paid. Why; - so as not to overload a motorway? - so as not to hav to build another airport?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGo overnight Barcelona/Saville and the journey is cheap, the food is good and the train stops for 5 hours in a siding while you get some sleep! It just doesn't need to go that fast - and you get there fresh and ready to do a days work, not looking like a dog's dinner having had to get up at the crack of dawn.
My point is that everybody says "it's got to be fast!" I know that makes the maximum profit for the manufacturer, but I suggest it's got to be comfortable, convenient, clean, and above all do the job the client wants and not some manufacturer's sharholder's idea of what would be a spiffing wheeze generating a lorra dividend.
In the UK we have an idiot Minister (ex-Minister perhaps) who wants to build a line from London to Brimingham (say 100 miles) for �30B. It will take about 20 minutes off the journey time. Oh, great!
Incidentally, and harking on about the UK, Isambard Kingdom Brunel's timetable between London and Bristol has (AIUI) only been beaten once when the HS125 was introduced but they quietly abandoned that timetable when the couldn't achieve it reliably.
And since most of these high speed train sets can't be broken down or added to, you end up with passengers packed in like pigs in filth in rush hour and empty trains flying about for the rest of the day.
Think it through, Uncle Sam, speed is not the issue.
I'd guess that if you moved the entire world's high speed rail lines you could build a fairly good network from LA to Seattle, serving a population maybe 10-20% of that now being served. It'd probably never make a profit, either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour post is so backward and full of hyperbole and non-facts I don't where to start.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith the recent volcanic eruption in Iceland European air travel was stopped.
Because Europe has a well integrated network of rails their economy and people kept moving.
Please check Blueprint for America - Beyond the Motor City, it vividly shows how Detroit declined as its rail systems were removed and people had to rely on automobile travel.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/reports/on-the-road/home/1010/
I can only speak for what I tested. In Italy, Milan to Rome takes from three to three and a half hours on the fast line. The cost of such a ticket is 90 euros if you buy the same day, if you buy two weeks ahead you get a 15% discount, 30 days ahead and the price drops to 39 euros. The same trip on a low cost airline ( from Milan ) is between 40 and 70 euros the two ways but you have to get to the airport in Milan and in Rome ( which adds money for the taxi/train/parking and time ) . The flight itself is about 1 hours and something, to which you have to add check-in and check-out. Going by car costs about 87 euros ( tolls and fuel ) and the trip is about five and a half hours ( if you don't hit traffic or tailbacks ) .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe distance ( car & train ) ride is about 570 Km ( 354 Miles ).
This has brought in a lot of competition and we are expecting plane fares to lower by at least 15 % and is reducing the traffic ( at least car traffic ) by a good 10% on the long distance trip.
The way I see it is a good combination between money and comfort ( and going a little green can't be that bad right ? )
Passenger Rail never makes a "profit" - in measurable ways. It does add in many indirect ways to the economy of the regions it serves. For one example well integrated rail systems take cars off the road, helping to lessen traffic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRail is much more efficient (in terms of energy per passenger mile) than auto or air traffic.
There is much more HS rail in the world than just what would serve L.A. to Seattle. France, Spain, Germany, Japan obviously have HS rail. But so does China, Korea - even Turkey has some HS rail.
The U.S. is just woefully behind in mindset and will power when it comes to HS rail.
Look at HS rail implementation in Spain. People were skeptical about it but it passed a vote. Now it would cause a huge uproar if anyone even suggested removing it. The economies of both 'ends' have benefited enormously.
candide - I stand corrected: the HS rail lines of the rest of the world might cover California, Washington and Oregon, OK - throw in Arizona and Nevada, too. Due to the much lower population density far fewer people would be served, and passenger seat utilization would likely be reduced. I'm sure those who could use the service would be very happy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo provide a HS rail service that could meet a significant portion of nation's transportation needs would require an enormous technological investment without commensurate benefit. The same can be said for Western China, Siberia and Uzbekistan, not to mention Antarctica. HS rail is not a viable solution for all environments.
Keep in mind that, conversely, densely populated smaller countries cannot feasibly offer in-country high speed aviation services due to shortage of real estate for airport facilities and short flight legs. For them HS rail makes much more sense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI recall riding some of the routes in Japan that were not long enough to allow the train to reach maximum speed.
@jtdwyer -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is lower population density in the Western US, but HS Rail typically "connects" one population center to another. And, yes HS rail is not appropriate for every place or even every rail system.
Commuter rail serves areas with many stops. HS Rail and commuter rail are very different - as in France where both are used.
Imagine an L.A. centric HS rail, that had lines to: San Francisco, Portland Ore and Seattle. Another line might go directly to Las Vegas. There would not be intermediate stops, or at least very few.
Basically these lines would be replacing/duplicating Air routes. Especially for shorter air routes or crowded sky locations HS rail has proven to be an effective, fast and efficient method of transportation.
Similar HS rail lines could link other cities with high traffic "routes" to various other cities.. HS Rail is not meant to be a mesh, intra-city transit or commuter network. All these types of rail transport have their roles and can work together, as Europe has done.
The HS Rail in Spain and France works this way and has been very successful.
I'd like to see somewhere not tied up with idiots build an ifrastructure based upon zeppelins and high-speed trains.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...and then move there.
I'm convinced the people who are making these policy decisions don't even understand the problems. Yet they are proposing solutions. The government is operating under the assumption that more people don't use rail because it just isn't fast enough. Wrong!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are two massive problems that for some illogical reason the government fails to notice but will instead spend billions of dollars in waste because they refuse to solve:
1. Scheduling start-to-finish is impossible by rail. Just try it. Try and schedule anything interstate by rail. You will quickly see why rail doesn't work and why people don't use it. Unlike Airline bookings, which can handle a solution of scheduling from start to finish a user must schedule each leg of the journey. It is a nightmare to travel by rail because the scheduling (even though the technology is available) is done in such a piecemeal fashion as to make it infeasible.
2. Population density and ridership doesn't justify rail infrastructure yet. Solve 1 and you may well solve 2. Incidentally, you can solve 1 without spending billions of dollars, then once you have ridership levels will be such that you can solve 2 and justify additional investment in infrastructure.
I'm convinced the people who are making these policy decisions don't even understand the problems. Yet they are proposing solutions. The government is operating under the assumption that more people don't use rail because it just isn't fast enough. Wrong!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are two massive problems that for some illogical reason the government fails to notice but will instead spend billions of dollars in waste because they refuse to solve:
1. Scheduling start-to-finish is impossible by rail. Just try it. Try and schedule anything interstate by rail. You will quickly see why rail doesn't work and why people don't use it. Unlike Airline bookings, which can handle a solution of scheduling from start to finish a user must schedule each leg of the journey. It is a nightmare to travel by rail because the scheduling (even though the technology is available) is done in such a piecemeal fashion as to make it infeasible.
2. Population density and ridership doesn't justify rail infrastructure yet. Solve 1 and you may well solve 2. Incidentally, you can solve 1 without spending billions of dollars, then once you have ridership levels will be such that you can solve 2 and justify additional investment in infrastructure.
candide - Europe is a wonderful place to visit, but their transportation solution is not so well suited for the US. I've been to Japan several times, I've lived in Germany and their trains are really nice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe US could cherry-pick the coincidentally most profitable airline routes and build HS rail. I suggest that as a result, airlines would quite likely fail, eliminating HS transportation services for the rest of the country.
Most of my family's roots in this country were in the RRs & I have fond childhood memories of riding in the engine and blowing the horn. Did you know the old cabooses had wood burning stoves? I don't see the necessity or even benefit for HS trains except in the Northeast corridor where right of way for additional rail facilities would be very difficult to come by. Besides, do you think the experience would be as pleasant as it is in Europe? Pour me a glass of wine, please.
@jtdwyer -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe US, to date, has not done rail well, except maybe in the early days when it was leading edge transportation.
I see more than a few locations in the US where HS rail could be useful, the NE corridor being one. L.A. - S.F another. There are many cities in the U.S. that could use a regular quick way to get to another nearby city. As it is now people will not make the trip at all because air is too expensive - takes too long - is too much of a hassle.
I do not see airlines failing, because of rail - though maybe price competition between HS rail and Air travel would pull people out of their cars. All three, auto, air and rail can complement each other if planned and built correctly. Part of the problem in the US is that we talk it to death and then do nothing.
In addition wouldn't it be a strategic advantage to have a second mode of transportation IF anything happens to air travel, like ash clouds for example?
I also think it would be a bit of a "if you build it they will come" proposition - like in Spain.
Unlike Japan, France and other countries, Americans aren't packed like sardines into tiny land areas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut, don't worry, the environmentalists, for the greater good will be more than happy to relocate you. For the planet. And the vast estates they live in? Well, protecting the world from you is hard work; why begrudge them a little villa to de-stress from the burden of saving the world.
candide - Not to disagree entirely, but I think you should examine the financial status of the airline industry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, I apologize for being so rude: I should have offered to refill your glass. My Japanese friends know how uncivilized I am, coming from Muskogee.
@scots engineer, I heard about this concept in the 80's in high school. It sounded like an interesting idea and still does. But the question of technology isn't necessarily what is technically feasible, but what is financially feasible. I can't imaging tunneling under the US would be cheap. When you consider the great lengths railways go to to reduce grades for conventional rail in order to reduce running costs, it would certainly appear that the problem increases manifold when trying to build a massive subterranean tunnel system. Still, it is worth considering.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisre: HomerPoet, scheduling should not be an issue. America doesn't have a good database, but Europe does: http://www.bahn.de/i/view/USA/en/index.shtml That's the German Rail's website, which can schedule train, bus, ferry or any combo thereof trips across the entire continent including Siberia. If they can do it, why can't we?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi Robert Schmidt - thanks for your comments. 2 points
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1st tunnelling costs are now comparable with road or rail construction costs and get cheaper per unit distance because quite a lot of the cost comes in assembling the tunnel boring machines.
2nd Not all of the tube need be underground.a twin tube (one for each direction ) could be made from prefabricated parts and when assembled would be self supporting over quite large spans. How expensive that would be would depend very largely on the scale of the enterprise and when automated production methods could be employed.
For the problems of congestion and traffic produced in the main by work commuting , A fleet of minibuses and taxibuses transporting the bulk of the routine passengers on the most congested routes atpeak periods, with those who insist on using a private car on these routes at those times paying a hefty premium which is ring fenced and helps subsidise the public transport system might be a workable solution . In any event the number of passengers per vehicle ,the headway between them expressed in time, and their average speed ( including stops ) defines the capacity of the route. Road vehicles have much shorter safe headways than rail and more able to cope with the wide variety of journeys undertaken. Hi SBGreen please post some more details about the firm in Goleta CA.
Hi Candide - when i first read your comment I hadn't realised that it was me that was guilty of hyperbole and quoting non facts. Could you be more specific and state what is exaggerated and non factual?. This is a scientific Journal and I would defer to superior data and concept. From where i sit I can see both the A9 main trunk road and the main twin tracked railway line north to Perth and beyond, and at any time of the day there is traffic on the road, but many minutes pass between trains. It is factual that one railway coach costs about 1million sterling whereas buses cost about a quarter of that per seated passenger.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@scots engineer -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry to be so abrupt, I should have added a heading like above.
The idea of evacuated tube travel is right up there with the Jetsons technology. Yes, in theory removing the air from a tube would reduce drag and make things more efficient.
You post acts like HS rail should not be adopted because ETT is right around the corner. In fact there is NO ETT anywhere today.
Imagine the NY City subway system as an ETT system. They can barely keep it running the way it is - now the system would have to be air-tight (even to a 50% vacuum) ? The coaches would also have to be air-tight so people could breathe. Then there would have to be tremendously complex engineering at every stop to allow people to enter and leave QUICKLY in a non evacuated area, then a transition back to an evacuated area?
ETT would not get any easier if it is for a single point to point (non-urban transport) either, because a longer tube is more likely to leak, break and would be hugely expensive - not to mention security risks in the world we live in today.
Regular rail has NIMBY issues now, imagine what ETT (either above ground or below) would have?
You said construction would be more efficient in the use of structural materials - how so? Current tunnel technology is hardly efficient as is and now it would have to support a vacuum?
I think we'd sooner have a tunnel under the Atlantic from NY to London than any public passenger ETT rail travel.
Hi Candide - Thanks for getting back so quickly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObviously ETT would not be suitable for low speed frequent stop applications, but then neither is high speed rail, or aviation. Tunnels bored for roads in Norway are quoted in some places at about £10 million per kilometer. This would seem to be about right as the Glendoe hydro Electric scheme next to loch Ness has over 16 kilometers of tunnels, an underground cavern for the generators and a dam all for under £150 million. Resisting one atmosphere of pressure is not that much of an engineering challenge, most car tyres handle double that. It also gets easier the smaller the diameter of tube ,or tunnel you construct . The French TGV is just under 3metres in width, so a comfortable vehicle could fit within a 3.5 metre diameter tube, and that could be constructed with corrugated galvanised steel only 1.2 mm thick.That may not be the cheapest, or best choice of material but gives some idea of what is required. The US scraps more than 12 million vehicles every year and just 10% of the steel from that represents enough steel for 4,000 kilometers of double tube per year. A longer tube may be more likely to leak, but if it did , caution would dictate that sections could be made to shut off so that only the faulty section would need re-evacuating when the leak was sorted. As for nimbyism, unlike normal or high speed rail it would not be noisy or damaging to wildlife and would be less at risk from terrorism than the many high voltage power lines criss crossing most countries. True there are as yet no ETT systems in existence, but that is not a good reason not to seriously consider building them.
As I said in other comments, a tube is a strong structure which uses materials more efficiently than a flat bed , or ribbon. There is a lot of reinforced concrete in the sleepers of a high speed rail line, and they sit on a deep bed of quality aggregate, which has to lie on well engineered and drained foundations.A double tube, where one runs above the other is a very strong structure, capable of supporting itself over quite large spans, thereby greatly reducing the foundation works required. ETT does not HAVE to be rail, or maglev ( though that would be the ideal ). ETT may not be just around the corner but it is coming, eventually, and still makes more sense than high speed rail as a long term investment. I must show some ignorance here - what is Jetsons technology?
To big to fail. To fast to stop. To Airlines merge to form world's largest Airline. We make claims we want to change things and over and over again its the same old rat race over and over again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi Candide - just as an aside about complex door systems. On at least one of the London underground lines, barriers prevent people getting onto the lines and the doors in these barriers open in line with the train carriage doors when a train stops in the station. All that an ETTsystem would require is that these types of doors were capable of resisting the pressure before the air was allowed into the airlock.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@scots engineer -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"All that an ETTsystem would require is that these types of doors were capable of resisting the pressure before the air was allowed into the airlock. "
That is no simple task. I have seen many transit systems, from London, Paris to New York (and more). The reliability and technology on these systems varies, but adding an "air tight" requirement before a train would proceed is, IMO, well beyond capabilities now.
Expense is another consideration, with coaches costing millions as it is. Ventilation systems would become exponentially more complex for the tunnel and the coaches.
With all that how could it possibly even approach breakeven expense for just operating costs?
As I said before the theory is nice, but the practicality and reality of having any ETT system is many, many decades into the future.
IMO this is no reason to put off a reasonable, ground based HS rail system.
In a country as big and with so wide distances as the USA, a fast train network can be a good advantage for people, however in some european places, it just added another dependency issue from the main cities, and a reduction in overnight stay expenses, not good for many peripheral towns economies. The effect is having such things as Hattusa, the Hitite empire capital, named in the Bible: "the city of the heights", coming back
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi Candide - Perhaps I was being simplistic with my example of the doors - sorry. However it does show that synchronised door systems do exist. I am uncertain if the railway industry could build airtight doors, given that they seem to need so much money to manufacture something as mundane as a metro car, but It is common knowledge that the aircraft industry have ben doing it for passenger aircraft, large and small, for over fifty years. An ETT passenger vehicle would probably have more in common with an aircraft fusilage than a metro car.We'll probably never agree on ETT, but seem to share some misgivings about the cost of rail hardware.The point about rigorous, and expensive maintenance of high speed rail systems was well made in the magazine article -especially about it growing exponentially with speed. US has an impressive record in big projects ( hoover dam, manhattan, and apollo, to name just some ) and a quantum leap forward in transportation that is consistent with environmental and economic goals would seem a more reliable route out of recession than appeasing a financial sector who do not yet fully appreciate the errors of their ways. Much clearer distinctions need to be made between investment and speculation and the risks in both adequately underwritten, and not transferrable without full disclosure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with scots engineer comment above. Larry Edwards did the cover story about vacuum tube trains August, 1965. I met him about 10 years ago and no progress had been made with his idea. The utility and efficiency of steel wheels and rails is at their best in the tube train driven and slowed by externally applied air pressure. Or props or rockets as is that 6000MPH rocket sled in New Mexico (slowed by water scoops).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReply to Scots Engineer comment 5/5/10 2:50 PM
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe idea of above ground culvert-type pipe which can hold a vacuum and span ditches is good but the thickness of 1.2 mm is too thin. I have been meaning to find my design manual from Contech to see what it takes to hold a vacuum. Secondly, we need to think about a scaled-down version of a train, more like the width an height of a small two-passenger plane or large roller coaster. A single tube would initially be enough for a test run of maybe 10 or 20 miles from downtown to an airport in 10 minutes to get everyone's attention.
Chicago has many miles of deep tunnels for drainage that are used barely once a year and these tubes would be watertight. The terminals would be expense since the tunnels are down about 300 feet, like parts of the London tube stations.
Hi terymc2 - you are correct if you take the weakest grade of steel, which for a 3.5 metre diameter tube and a safety factor of three works out at about 3.3 mm. But there are grades of steel and processing methods than can give more than three times more strength. I suppose it would be down to the costings. Reinforced concrete has good compressive properties which might make it better, if there were a good external coating to combat porosity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisResponse toSb Green
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease tell me more about the company in Goleta, CA that is doing something with vacuum tube transportation.
Part of AMTRAKs Cardinal runs at 90 mph, and I think that is fast enough. We should slow down and enjoy the scenery. With laptop computers, cellular telephones, and videoconferencing centers, high speed transportation is not needed, possibly except for going more than 2000-3000 miles. Still, I went from WV to CA on a train and found the three days each way fast enough. We live so fast that we do not take time to listen to God speaking to us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHigh speed rail works in Japan because there are 53m people separated by 340 mi in metro Tokyo and Osaka. The population of the bay area and LA basin are not quite 28m and they are separated by 520 mi. I would also like to see an estimate of the amount of carbon produced to construct a mile of high speed rail.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi Toonces- you may not have read the full article in the magazine , but the author quotes the track maintenance as requiring 3000 deployed every night all year round. Quotes in the British press put the cost of a high speed line from London to Birmingham ( 120 miles ) at 12 billion pounds sterling ( or about four times the price of a motorway ). High speed rail will get fewer people to their destination faster. The faster you go on a high speed line the only way to maintain passenger numbers is to make the trains bigger. The more recent Japanese trains are wider and longer for exactly this reason.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI couldn't agree with you more. Tube transport has many fine aspects that are rarely considered - but when you mention to people, it's like when Goddard mentioned space rockets: they think you're just being funny. Oh well ... their loss.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this