What I wish governments would spend money on is faster train systems. Wouldnt it be awesome to be able to take a train (underground or otherwise) from NY to LA in one day?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
British Flying Taxis Start Production Within Five Years!
- Thread starter chanoc
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
agreenster said:
Good grief!! Some math whiz get busy... how fast would that be? Just seems scarier on the ground than in an airplane for some reason. I'd get sick looking out the window! LOL!
agreenster said:
Assuming 2800 miles done non-stop in 8 hours (something I could live with), you are talking about 350mph+ along dedicated track. Economically you would have to add stops (and miles) to hit areas that make sense.
It makes better sense to come up with "trains" between more localized population centers (NYC-DC, LA_SFO, and the such) that cuts down the time and cost. Acela is fast, but out of reach of many people (NYC-DC).
Chip NoVaMac said:
If you add stops (to pick up and unload) then you have to go faster to make up for the lost time. Also, faster to add the detours to other cities. (To stay within the 8 hour time frame) That gets you up to 400 mph?? How fast is an airplane traveling? 500 mph?? Wow... that's a fast train.
MacDawg said:
I think with stops and routing to other cities you are looking at 500+ mph.
Something I did not address with a 300 to 500mph "train" is the impact on those that are in the "right of way". Economics tells me that such a "track" would need to be used at least every hour or two to provide a profit.
So why not put wings on it and call it an airplane?? 
What is the advantage of making it a train anyway?
Edit: Can you keep it on the ground at that speed? Without having it 'attached'?
What is the advantage of making it a train anyway?
Edit: Can you keep it on the ground at that speed? Without having it 'attached'?
MacDawg said:So why not put wings on it and call it an airplane??
What is the advantage of making it a train anyway?
Edit: Can you keep it on the ground at that speed? Without having it 'attached'?
Or accept that it would take more then 8 hours. More like 30 hours and you could move a lot more cargo then any plane ever could. Also it could be way more luxurious then a plane. Say more like a cruise ship.
agreenster said:
That would be great. Though I remember reading some years ago that decades ago GM? bought all of the track lines that were around so that they could not be developed into faster trains (so that it could not hurt the automotive industry).
Forget about flying-taxi-cars........when are we going to get hoverboards, power laces tennis shoes, and automatic drying jackets
And of course Bif and McFly battling it out.
Bleh, instead of JetPod/AirTaxis just give me a decent rocket backpack and then you wouldn't need to worry about where to land. Even on the roof of your building
Trains are fine, but they'll always be too expensive - even if we're able to do a MagLev and get 400MPH out of them...
D
Trains are fine, but they'll always be too expensive - even if we're able to do a MagLev and get 400MPH out of them...
D
Mr. Anderson said:I think you're right about the automation aspect of these things. We won't see them until they're able to fly themselves - because if left to humans, it would be a disaster in the making. And plenty of people would get killed....imagine FUI (flying under the influence)
D
I wanna do a loop
Better yet, I wanna play Annakin Skywalker (no, I'm not jumping )
Five years seems a bit soon to me. I'm still waiting to see the massive changes the Segway was supposed to make for transportation.