Slashdot Mirror


Japanese Researchers Test Flying Trains

An anonymous reader writes "As an alternative to maglev trains, Japanese researchers are working on ground-effect vehicles. A ground-effect vehicle takes advantage of fast-moving air and uses some stubby little wings to fly just above the ground, like a maglev without the mag. This is a tricky thing to do, since you have to control the vehicle more like an airplane than a train: you have to deal with pitch, roll, and yaw and not just the throttle. A Japanese research group has built a robotic prototype of a free flying ground-effect vehicle that they're using to test an autonomous three axis stabilization system."

221 comments

  1. Problem: by MrEricSir · · Score: 0

    What happens if I throw a penny (or a rock) on the tracks?

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Problem: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the allegory here would be a cow fart.

    2. Re:Problem: by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      It would fly over it or you'd punch a hole in the thin aluminum fuselage of the traincraft.

  2. Solution: by Garble+Snarky · · Score: 2

    No tracks.

  3. I don't know what to say. by DWMorse · · Score: 1, Funny

    I, uh, hmm. Okay. In Bizarro World, do they also have Submarine Cars and Space Boats?

    --
    There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
    1. Re:I don't know what to say. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunno bout' Bizarro World, but I thought I saw that once in a Bond movie...

      Oh, and how about a hybrid approach? Start on wheels, then switch to ground-effect once the lift got high enough, with magnetic guidance (could use existing rails for that, since you are just pulling horizontally on it, and steel is magnetic).

    2. Re:I don't know what to say. by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

      Konichiwa and welcome aboard Space Cruiser Yamato DWMorse-san!

    3. Re:I don't know what to say. by simoncpu+was+here · · Score: 1

      A submarine car has already been made back in ~1998.

    4. Re:I don't know what to say. by digitig · · Score: 1

      I'm sure I remember one from 1961.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    5. Re:I don't know what to say. by Another,+completely · · Score: 1

      Way off on date. "The Spy Who Loved Me" came out in 1977.

    6. Re:I don't know what to say. by simoncpu+was+here · · Score: 2

      Hehe... You might find this video interesting... =)

    7. Re:I don't know what to say. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lay off my space boat dream creepoid!

    8. Re:I don't know what to say. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      magnetic guidance (could use existing rails for that, since you are just pulling horizontally on it, and steel is magnetic).

      Now that's a good idea: don't bother with powerful magnets to keep the thing levitated, but use relatively week magnets to keep the thing on course.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  4. Tracks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Where we're going, we don't need tracks.

    1. Re:Tracks? by Bahamut_Omega · · Score: 1

      Who said Back to the Future was the only flyable train? I would put forth a few more trains that treated time lines like actual tracks; Denliner & Zeroliner from Kamen Rider Den-O. All we need now are a few good imajin, an eccentric owner, plus a few other out of existence denizens.

    2. Re:Tracks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said Back to the Future was the only flyable train?

      er.... nobody? It's not a train either. It's not even a car. It's a movie.

  5. seems to occupy a lot more space by parallel_prankster · · Score: 2

    This one needs a wing span space, not as thin as current trains. But if this design saves a lot of energy, why the heck not. This is really like a low flying airplane which sounds like a cool idea.

    1. Re:seems to occupy a lot more space by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 1

      I can't see how it could save energy. At it's simplest, maglev requires two permanent magnets to provide the "lift" (or technically, the repulsion) and then some motor to provide the forward motion. This requires a motor to provide the forward motion and the lift.

      Or put another way, maglev must overcome the friction of the body. This must overcome the friction of the body and the wings.

      The only possible energy savings that I see is that the current generation of maglevs use superconducting magnets which require a refrigeration unit to remain magnetic. But (crossing my fingers here) future high temperature superconductors should be able to work at room temperature (i.e., the operational temperature of the train).

    2. Re:seems to occupy a lot more space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you know a lot about aerodynamics. Thanks for your insight.

    3. Re:seems to occupy a lot more space by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      They will run into problems with noise. In Japan noise concerns have limited train speeds since the first days of high speed rail in the early 60s, particularly around tunnels where there is a boom every time a train exits. One advantage of maglev is that due to there being no contact with the ground noise is reduced significantly, but adding prop or jet engines would seem to make this train louder than a normal electric one.

      France runs 500kph trains and the only reason Japan doesn't is noise. The latest generation bullet trains that do 300kph have a very unusual shaped nose designed to reduce noise.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:seems to occupy a lot more space by xaxa · · Score: 1

      France runs 500kph trains and the only reason Japan doesn't is noise.

      France runs trains at up to 320km/h, the speeds higher than that were only for a demonstration/recordbreaking attempt, where the noise doesn't matter.

      Living near a moderate-speed line (200km/h conventional trains go past) almost all of the noise seems to be wind, not wheels, but ICVWBW.

    5. Re:seems to occupy a lot more space by internettoughguy · · Score: 1

      ICVWBW == I could very well be wrong. ?

    6. Re:seems to occupy a lot more space by Mattsson · · Score: 2

      Yes, a ground-effect train would require more energy to propel at a certain speed than a mag-lev train of similar mass and size, but there are other areas where both energy and cost savings are made.
      It would require a lot of energy and cost a lot both to produce the materials needed and during the construction of a mag-lev rail network. A ground-effect "rail" is basically a concrete culvert. Takes much less energy, resources and money to build and maintain.
      Then we have the energy needed to, as you mentioned, cool the electromagnets and the energy needed to lift the train, since without power to the magnets, it will sit on the track, unless the lift is created by using permanent magnets...

      The biggest problems that I can see with ground-effect trains is that they'll have to bring the energy needed, just like a air plane.. A mag-lev train can be powered by the track itself.
      Also, a ground-effect train can not run slow, for instance while going through urban areas or for other reasons. Well, it can, but then it's running on wheels and will probably use more energy than a regular train. A mag-lev is still energy-efficient at 30 km/h.
      There is also the issues with how well it handles snowstorms, or even regular storms.

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    7. Re:seems to occupy a lot more space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ICVWBW == I could very well be wrong. ?

      Yes, exactly. ICBW = I could be wrong.

    8. Re:seems to occupy a lot more space by cptdondo · · Score: 1

      I don't know about saving energy, but the tracks would be cheaper to build. Maglev tracks require magnets in every inch of rail; that's a lot of technologically complex stuff. This looks like it needs a concrete trough; something we can build with an extrusion machine if needed. (Look them up; they make extrusion machines for bridges; why not this?)

      Lots cheaper and simpler. It will require lots of room and it will be ugly, and there are other issues - trash, water, etc - but that could all be handled somehow.

    9. Re:seems to occupy a lot more space by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Almost all the drag is air friction on these trains. About half of that air friction is from the wheel bogies. So loosing them will save you a bit. I follows that the things that contribute most to the air friction also contribute most to the noise, so you get a saving there.

      However friends that have gone on the maglev in china said its is *not* quiet.

      Also you can reduce friction by going slower. Going 70% the original speed will halve the air friction. Again it follows that this is also quieter.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    10. Re:seems to occupy a lot more space by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

      The biggest problems that I can see with ground-effect trains is that they'll have to bring the energy needed, just like a air plane.

      No it won't. It's only floating on a cushion of air a few centimeters above a track, just run 2 electric rails in the track and drop a pickup arm to make contact with the rails.

      Something the weight of a train, I can't see it bobbing up and down very quickly, I doubt it would even need to be an actively positioned arm, just something with a pivot and a spring pushing the arm down to ensure a good contact.

      And thats the painfully basic approach, with sufficent spatial control you could have magnetic propulsion with a linear motor in the same way as a maglev but without needing to embed permanent magnets in the track for lift.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    11. Re:seems to occupy a lot more space by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 1

      An extruder? Like this:

      http://www.jovian.com.au/contents/media/Extruder.jpg

      I'm just kidding, but I agree with what you're saying - the tracks would be cheaper to build. And to the earlier poster who asked about the performance of this train in wind or rain, as long as you're building half of a concrete tunnel, you almost might as well build the other half and not have to worry about most storms.

    12. Re:seems to occupy a lot more space by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Living near a moderate-speed line (200km/h conventional trains go past) almost all of the noise seems to be wind, not wheels, but ICVWBW.

      What they ought to do is make hardened airtight train cars, and propel them with mag-lift through tunnels, but remove air from the tunnels -- make them a near-vacuum, so there would be no wind or friction.

    13. Re:seems to occupy a lot more space by cptdondo · · Score: 1

      Sort of except much bigger...

      http://www.made-in-china.com/showroom/rogersluoluo/product-detailGMkJqRbyCehL/China-Bridge-Fabrication-Machine.html

      The one I was looking for is made by an Italian outfit but my google-fu is weak today....

    14. Re:seems to occupy a lot more space by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      This looks like it needs a concrete trough; something we can build with an extrusion machine if needed. (Look them up; they make extrusion machines for bridges; why not this?)

      Such a thing wouldn't even be new; they already make concrete sewer pipes that big. All you'd need to do is cut them in half (or rather, mold half a pipe in the first place).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    15. Re:seems to occupy a lot more space by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      ...particularly around tunnels where there is a boom every time a train exits.

      I wonder if you could solve that by changing the shape of the tunnel exits, like maybe with a gradual funnel shape instead of a hard cut-off?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    16. Re:seems to occupy a lot more space by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They have put baffles on some of the tunnels in an attempt to do that, or used sound barriers at the side of the track.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    17. Re:seems to occupy a lot more space by AragornSonOfArathorn · · Score: 1

      ICVWBW == I could very well be wrong. ?

      ICBMCTW == InterContinental Ballistic Missile Coming This Way

      --
      sudo eat my shorts
    18. Re:seems to occupy a lot more space by demonbug · · Score: 1

      The biggest problems that I can see with ground-effect trains is that they'll have to bring the energy needed, just like a air plane.

      No it won't. It's only floating on a cushion of air a few centimeters above a track, just run 2 electric rails in the track and drop a pickup arm to make contact with the rails.

      Just stick with overhead catenaries like normal trains; should be flexible enough to handle the minor variations in altitude you would encounter, and you avoid the electrocution hazard if someone wanders onto your track.

      I'm actually more interested in the efficiency of an electrically-driven propeller vs. electric traction. I would think electric traction would be significantly more efficient, but maybe not enough to overcome the losses associated with wheels on tracks.

    19. Re:seems to occupy a lot more space by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      just run 2 electric rails in the track

      So your solution to not running an electric maglev track is to run a non maglev electric track? What does this get us again? A flying train needs vastly more energy to stay aloft whereas maglev needs only propulsion (assuming perm mags for levitation) for frictionless movement (air friction is the same for both). Flying trains have jets or props or whatever that have to interact with the air as well.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    20. Re:seems to occupy a lot more space by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

      Well for one thing, it gains us not having to lay permanent magnets every foot for a 100 mile journey

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    21. Re:seems to occupy a lot more space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The obvious analogue to draw from is gun silencers.

    22. Re:seems to occupy a lot more space by onefineline · · Score: 1

      I can't see how it could save energy. At it's simplest, maglev requires two permanent magnets to provide the "lift" (or technically, the repulsion) and then some motor to provide the forward motion. This requires a motor to provide the forward motion and the lift.

      Or put another way, maglev must overcome the friction of the body. This must overcome the friction of the body and the wings.

      The only possible energy savings that I see is that the current generation of maglevs use superconducting magnets which require a refrigeration unit to remain magnetic. But (crossing my fingers here) future high temperature superconductors should be able to work at room temperature (i.e., the operational temperature of the train).

      I don't claim to actually know what I'm talking about, but from the article: "...but there's still a lot of wind drag that crops up between the bottom of a maglev train and its track that makes them less efficient (which combined with other problems make maglevs very costly)."

    23. Re:seems to occupy a lot more space by Kulilin · · Score: 1

      France runs 500kph trains

      No, not really. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV) France's TGVs run at a top speed of 320 km/h, not 500 km/h. 320 mph is fairly close to 500 km/h so that's probably the source of the mistake.

      The latest generation bullet trains that do 300kph

      Pretty much the same as France's TGV.

    24. Re:seems to occupy a lot more space by eivinsi · · Score: 1

      500 kph is the speed record for TGV. With passengers they also do about 300 kph.

  6. A bit OT but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe this will be the way we finally get flying cars.

    1. Re:A bit OT but by Dr+Max · · Score: 1

      Ground effect principle really works best for flat surfaces like over the water, similar to a hovercraft it creates a pocket of air beneath it, but instead of using a skirt, it flies by the forward movement forcing air under the craft and its low position to ground preventing it from escaping out the side.Ground effect only works (an extra 50% lift compared to normal wings at a higher altitude) at half of your wingspan above the ground so in order to clear a small hill of say 5 meters you need a wing span 10 meters long; may as well finish the job and build a plane (however you would be getting good fuel economy if you kept it that close to the ground). So cars aren't a good candidate for a ground effect vehicle but a boat flying over small waves or a train traveling a fairly flat route are good options.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    2. Re:A bit OT but by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      ...works best for flat surfaces like over the water...

      Well, if you actually knew about water you would know that, on this planet, it isn't really flat. The only spot you will find flat water surfaces is on lakes (which accounts for about 10% of global water surface). The turbulences of the open seas + turbulences in air pressure created even by the smallest wave movements, when something is moving above them very fast, make using ground effect notoriously difficult since the under-body has to sustain very heavy punishment in case of actual grounding.
      This is why there is no such thing as small or medium ground effect transport on land or sea since for smaller objects you have to be too close to the ground to generate the effect in the first place leaving no space for surface deviations (or small pebbles for that matter).
      This is why there are no ground effect super freighters either because the bigger you build them the harder they fall.

      ground effect sounds nice but if I'm going to dream about a form of transportation that is purely academical I'd choose ftl or mater through data relay ;-)

      --
      -- no sig today
    3. Re:A bit OT but by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      On another note I should have read the whole post!

      --
      -- no sig today
    4. Re:A bit OT but by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      The only spot you will find flat water surfaces is on lakes (which accounts for about 10% of global water surface).

      - I think you WAY overestimate the amount of non-ocean water on this planet.

    5. Re:A bit OT but by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      -I think you are right

      --
      -- no sig today
    6. Re:A bit OT but by teh+kurisu · · Score: 2

      I thought the problem with ground effect super freighters was that it was very hard to land them in anything other than water, and once you'd landed them in water you had to expend so much energy getting them back out that in the end it wasn't really worth it.

    7. Re:A bit OT but by Dr+Max · · Score: 1

      They had to use rockets to force enough air under the wings of the big ekranoplanes just to get them out of the water.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
  7. Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been putting ground effects on Japanese vehicles for years.

  8. Unless the walls are completely transparent by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    the view would totally suck

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  9. I fail to see the point.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As cool as this idea sounds, is it really a reliable mode of conveyance? I envision this causing more problems than it hopes to solve. Actually, what problem is this solving? The fact that our trains don't fly yet?

    1. Re:I fail to see the point.. by Garble+Snarky · · Score: 2

      High speed rail without expensive high powered magnets, maybe?

    2. Re:I fail to see the point.. by bluemonq · · Score: 2

      300+ mph without all the expensive and fragile magnets required for maglev trains, while still powered by overhead electrical lines.

    3. Re:I fail to see the point.. by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      It helps solve the lack of flying cars. I don't care if it has to be fueled by puppies and orphans. I want a flying car.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    4. Re:I fail to see the point.. by Dr+Max · · Score: 1

      Not going to help the flying cars department. Unless we built new roads everywhere that were flat. I explained in more detail above.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    5. Re:I fail to see the point.. by Professeur+Shadoko · · Score: 2

      300+ mph without all the expensive and fragile magnets required for maglev trains, while still powered by overhead electrical lines.

      AFAIK a good part of the trouble they had when running the french TGV to >550km/h speeds was related to the overhead electrical lines. Waves propagating along the line and preventing a good contact between the line and the train.

      Plus with this kind of train, there is no ground connection. So they would need two overhead electrical lines.

    6. Re:I fail to see the point.. by indre1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's all about bringing the Caspian Sea Monster back to life on dry land!

      You have been warned.

    7. Re:I fail to see the point.. by Fizzl · · Score: 2

      I'm actually now designing software which calculates the parameters for the hardware that supports the power lines.
      It's amazingly precise and complicated. Even at 200km/h tracks, the tolerances where the line should be in the sky are in millimeters. For example, there should be enough tension to hold the line almost straight, but not quite straight. You have to let it hang just enough so the that the weight of the line holds it firmly to the receiver on the train.
      You have to account for tilted rails in turns. You have to move the line over the rails in a zig-zag so as not to stress the receiver from one point only. Then you have to account for turns, where the train goes on a nice radial track, but the line moves straight from pole to pole.
      Etcetc... It is very interesting and perhaps the most math and physics hard project I have ever been involved in in my +10 year development career.

      Anyway, it makes my mind boggle to even think how precise the electricity feed line has to be installed in some 500m/h tracks.

    8. Re:I fail to see the point.. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The small boy inside every geek is very very jealous of your awesome train set!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:I fail to see the point.. by radtea · · Score: 1

      Plus with this kind of train, there is no ground connection. So they would need two overhead electrical lines.

      Why would the second wire have to be overhead? What's to stop this thing from dragging a ground-strap? It would have exactly the same friction running on a wire below as above, and if the concrete trough this thing would likely run in was even moderately conducting it wouldn't need an actual rail or wire for grounding at all.

      Mostly, I'm curious about your thought process here, because this is the kind of channeled, associative thinking I see humans engage in all the time. Why did you think "This kind of train does not have a ground connection, so rather than drag a ground below they MUST put a ground wire above?" How does that kind of thinking work, exactly? What prevented you from thinking, "A ground wire below would have exactly the same frictional effect as a ground-wire above, and hey, if the 'track' is even a bit conductive you wouldn't even need a wire, just a conductor dragging along much like a conventional train."

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    10. Re:I fail to see the point.. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      How does one go about finding a job like that?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    11. Re:I fail to see the point.. by BeansBaxter · · Score: 1

      The Caspian Sea Monster is dead??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8Nu94khHoo

    12. Re:I fail to see the point.. by Fizzl · · Score: 1

      Well, I work for a software company that works with different industries. I was asked to make an estimate for an quote. We won the deal and here we are. :P

  10. Ekranoplan have existed since the 60s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Ekranoplan have existed since the 60s by bluemonq · · Score: 1

      Okay then. Make it carry 1500 people and operate it in urban areas as rapid transport and you'll have one-upped these guys.

    2. Re:Ekranoplan have existed since the 60s by holmstar · · Score: 1

      "these guys" haven't achieved your example yet either.

  11. But Most Importantly by Nukedoom · · Score: 1

    ...will you be able to do a barrel roll?

    1. Re:But Most Importantly by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Only if Slippy is in trouble.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  12. Ok by ShooterNeo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So if you look at the article, doing it this way does NOT eliminate the track. There's still a complex track that the train runs in - that U shaped concrete trough that you can look at in TFA. The walls of the trough prevent gusts of wind from shoving the train around. The control system would have to be extremely precise, and able to react very quickly to events like a big gust of wind. I would guess the 'train' car has wheels.

    Advantages - the track doesn't have coils or magnets in it. But one glance reveals that it's still an extremely expensive, complex effort to build the track - probably millions of dollars per mile.

    Disadvantages : in every respect, it's still a high speed train. The ground effect trick is to achieve faster speeds without magnets, that's all. If you board one of these, you have to be going to a specific destination all the other riders are going to. Every stop slows it all down. Most of the time you save on one of these you lose due to waiting to board the train, walking to the train, etc. And you're crowded in with the public.

    And while you eliminate the need for coils in the track, you have to use even MORE concrete and steel to make the cage visible in TFA, and you now need an extremely high performance control system in the train that needs to work for the train to not crash.

    In short, it's a terrible idea. What we need are cheap robotically controlled cars that run on a switching network that go from starting point directly to individual destination. These cars don't even need to be all that fast, and could use conventional technology (except perhaps using capacitor banks and frequent charging points or something...but conventional tires, road, etc...we'd use the road network we already have and install fencing and barricades and bridges so no pedestrians can ever enter the streets)

    1. Re:Ok by Micklat · · Score: 1

      What you describe (robot taxis) sounds somewhat sensible for in-city traffic. Aren't high-speed trains meant for cross-country traffic? Particularly if the robot taxis aren't very fast, as you suggest.

    2. Re:Ok by bluemonq · · Score: 1

      First off, concrete is cheaper than magnets. You'd need the control system anyways to run a maglev train. And when you're talking about a trunk line that's already moving hundreds of thousands if not millions of people on a regular basis, it doesn't matter that everybody is going the same route. No, you've got it half right: combine the two. Have a high-speed trunk line and then the cheap switching cars branch off from major stations.

    3. Re:Ok by PIC16F628 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Conventional (wheel on rail) Trains have far more advantages than a individual car for most journeys:

      1. Very low energy consumption because of metal to metal rolling friction. Car tyres bend to become a plane of rubber in contact with sticky tar causing very high friction. Yes, the packet switching analogy is nice and best for computers but not for people. Because people will use the car more and more. See the bad points below.

      2. A thousand cars driven by thousand individuals has a far bigger probability of accident simply because 1000 minds are involved without any central oversight. Who knows what these minds are doing on the road. A train is centrally controlled with professional crew.

      3. When you have a car and the road is free and there is parking space, you will use it to go the next street to buy milk. In effect we will use a hammer all the time for all the jobs because the hammer is easy to hold and use. The moment public transport has to be used, you will make a trade-off analysis and use it only when required. Saves the planet, saves your limbs from degeneration.

      4. Trains uses far lesser space. Compare a 8 lane highway with a two-lane railway track. Not only do cars need lot of space while moving, they lot of space at both origin and destination. Since destination can be anywhere, you need lot of space everywhere. What a sheer waste of resources.

      5. You can be a zombie in a car or enjoy relaxing and eating and sleeping and reading and listening in a train.

    4. Re:Ok by RobbieCrash · · Score: 1

      I would imagine this would be used to replace current mag-lev trains and conventional trains, not cars. The destination point is senseless.

      --
      Keep on knockin'
      https://robbiecrash.me
    5. Re:Ok by ShooterNeo · · Score: 2

      But that's just it. You can't go down the street to Walmart for some groceries without a car. Even if there were buses, they are full of just anyone - including scary people that the American public has been conditioned to fear. (yes, I know rationally that that scraggy guy who smells funny is probably not an axe murderer or rapist...but does a woman bringing her 2 kids know that? This is why no one rides the buses unless they can't afford anything else)

      And we've spent uncountable amounts of money creating a whole country based on cars. Sure, if most people lived in multi-story apartment dwellings, you could drastically reduce the residential land areas of a city and the number of starting points and destinations for a bus or train network. The suburb didn't exist before the car. All that sunk money - all those streets and all those houses - represent a cost that cannot be thrown away. America is a rich country, but even America couldn't afford to demolish all it's existing infrastructure in favor of public transit using conventional technology.

      Hence my robot taxi idea. Robot cars cannot function with known software methods if other human drivers and pedestrians are allowed onto the roadways. But if we surrounded every roadway used by the robot taxi network with fences (including a barrier on top), with automatic sliding doors at boarding/disembarking points, we could use robotic cars with conventional software driving them. The roads would all be explicitly marked with RFID tags in the pavement, a special material would mark the lanes that would be easily to detect by the car's sensors, and every vehicle on the road would have several markings on the front, back, and sides to make them easy to detect. So each vehicle would know exactly where it was, the distance to the nearest car, and so forth. A single chip solution would run all of the software (with a redundant system on a chip or two checking for errors).

      So if you lived on a little used side street, the nearest stop might be down the street a bit. If you wanted to go shopping, you'd request the car that picks you up to have room for a shopping cart. (you'd either bring your cart from home or rent one from the store). If you didn't feel like walking, you could ride a motorized wheelchair right to the pickup point and summon a taxi that was designed for it. Multiple private firms would be in charge of the interior fixtures and cleaning of the robot taxis, so there would be differing grades of service - from a leather lined 'executive class' robo taxi that the supplier has cleaned between each passenger to a vinyl lined 'economy class' taxi that is cheap.

      You'd specify your destination ahead of time, and the transit routing computer would make sure there was space for your entire trip on each segment of road at that future moment in time. (for example, if a 1 mile segment of road had the capacity to hold 500 vehicles between 5:05 and 5:07 it would increment the number of vehicles allocated to that segment by 1). If there was no possible route that you could take that would not delay other riders, you would be offered a car pool option or charged a higher rate. If you had a medical emergency you could get priority routing straight to a hospital.

    6. Re:Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disadvantages : in every respect, it's still a high speed train. The ground effect trick is to achieve faster speeds without magnets, that's all. If you board one of these, you have to be going to a specific destination all the other riders are going to. Every stop slows it all down. Most of the time you save on one of these you lose due to waiting to board the train, walking to the train, etc. And you're crowded in with the public.

      Also, it isn't designed to drive underwater. Except, no, like your points that's irrelevant. Saying that "it's a train" isn't a disadvantage. What they're looking for is a train. They want to replace existing trains. With another train. Saying that what you want is a car or a submarine or a frying pan and that this isn't designed for those purposes says nothing about whether this is a step forwards in train design. Do you realise that people do in fact use the existing trains?

    7. Re:Ok by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Let's suppose I want to go from Houston to Austin. I just get in my car, and from my driveway to my destination takes ~3 hours. (assuming I don't try to travel during rush hours, or I start at the outskirts of Houston)

      This 160 mile journey consumes about $21 of fuel each way (28 mpg) plus about that in depreciation and future repairs on my car. So $40, each way. If I want to go somewhere else in Austin I could just drive there in a few minutes.

      Suppose a high speed train line existed between Houston and Austin. Would it make sense? First of all, Houston is 60 miles across. I would need to take a 20 or 30 mile journey just to get to the starting point for the high speed train. I'd have to wait on a bus (15 minutes +), ride a bus (average speed 30 mph), and get to the station. Most likely a high speed train would not run more than every 15 to 30 minutes, so I have to wait for a train. If I use a taxi at any point in this journey to save time, the cost goes up enormously, I might note. How much is a high speed train ticket? No idea, but I have a feeling I wouldn't save money.

      So after waiting on a bus to get to the train station (~1 hour), waiting for the train (lets say 30 minutes), I start on the journey. Suppose the train goes 200mph, and including speed up and slowdown takes 1 hour. Ok, so I am there. Now I do the same thing in reverse to reach my destination : several buses. Another hour gone.

      So this trip has taken more time, even in a best case scenario. And at my destination, I don't have anything I couldn't carry with me. No large toolkit or a lot of supplies or anything large.

      If my labor is worth $20/hour (a livable wage in USA), the extra time I had to waste destroys any money I saved.

      For longer distances, planes of course rule the trip..even with TSA goons slowing everything down. For shorter distances, it's even more in favor of cars.

      Conclusion : the reason high speed trains won't work is because there is no way to get to the train station that won't waste more time than just driving to your destination.

    8. Re:Ok by ryanov · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First of all, no one should shop at Walmart period. It is a soulless evil company at all respects that hurts all of us on a daily basis. Second of all, thanks to their tax cheating ways, no one lives down the street from a Walmart anyway. There are plenty of grocery stores in reasonably built areas that are walking distance. Many of them even deliver.

      Second of all, you absolutely can buy groceries on foot -- ever heard of a cart?

      Third, sunk money? All of the road maintenance and fuel and costs to the environment are on-going. Slowly moving to a model that makes economic and efficient use of space will save money in the long run.

      Really, all of your problems have been solved already: people not living in places that are less dense than streetcar suburbs. Raise the price of gas over time, people will move, and we don't have to deal with all off this robot cockery.

    9. Re:Ok by RobbieCrash · · Score: 2

      You are aware that Japan has a very large network of transportation trains, many of them high speed, as does much of the rest of the world outside of Texas, right?

      You driving your car, along with 1,000 other people driving their cars from Austin to Houston uses orders of magnitude more energy than 15 busses and 2 trains to transport the same 1,000 people the same trip.

      Additionally, a commute from the outskirts of Toronto, where I live, to downtown central takes ~2 hours during rush hour, that same trip takes 40 minutes on the subway, so even shorter distances can be more efficient.

      --
      Keep on knockin'
      https://robbiecrash.me
    10. Re:Ok by ryanov · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're missing piece is the price of gas. Gas is artificially low now, which changes the price and which, since it's not taxed to the degree that it should be, stunts growth in mass transit partially because that money could fund transit and partially because no one has to use the train and so there is not enough demand for more service.

      In your scenario, in a better case, your high-speed line would be augmented by low speed (but still fast) trains and light rail, all of which shorten the distance and the amount of time required to travel. Also, even in your current case, if you can avoid the bus, you can travel during trafficked periods because you are unaffected. And, in your current case, if that's a trip you make often, you probably live more proximate to the train.

      Additionally, I have carried a lot of stuff on trains before.

    11. Re:Ok by nhtshot · · Score: 2

      I live in a place that HAS high speed trains (south China). I also drive. The train is great for a trip to Guangzhuo (80km) or Shenzhen (72km). Driving to either of those places is a pain in the butt and the train is pretty cheap (about $8).

      There are places that they work. I've also spent a fair amount of time in Japan. The high speed trains there also work great.

      All of the previous posts about suburbia are correct, but you have to look at the big picture. Not everyone lives in suburbia. I'm not an advocate of forcing people to abandon the suburban life, but there is a third option. South China has huge sprawling megalopolis type cities with a smattering of high speed rail connecting them. Overall, it's pretty efficient. Most people, when looking for a residence here, specifically ask how close it is to the train station.

      With all of that being said, it will probably NEVER work in the US.

    12. Re:Ok by WegianWarrior · · Score: 2

      So basically what you are saying that since it's a bad idea for the US to implement this, it's a bad idea for everyone? You know, different countries and cultures have different needs and priorities :)

      Maybe it really is a bad and impractical idea for the US to implement a system like this, even if the US as a society really should look into ways to reduce their dependency on conventional cars - if nothing else than for the fact that the rising gas prices means the average american uses more and more of his disposable income on fuel. Perhaps your idea for a automated taxi cab system is just the right thing to do that, I don't know.

      But perhaps flying trains is a great idea for Japan, since people there already uses public transport to a large degree for their every day travel? If they can shift more people faster using less energy and with a lower investment in infrastructure, more power to them. From their point of view, it's probably a much more sensible idea than a huge fleet of tiny robot taxies hogging up their roads.

      Different strokes for different folks - just because an idea won't fly where you or I lives, it don't mean it's an bad idea.

      --
      Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    13. Re:Ok by opinionbot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wholeheartedly agree that for trains and walking / cycling would be an excellent alternative. I own a car, but haven't driven it for over 6 months as I simply haven't needed to: walk to work (20 mins each way), walk or cycle to the shops and take the train for longer journeys.

      Whilst driving can be enjoyable, there is nothing fun about motorway (freeway) driving. For long distances I'd much rather be in a train where I can walk around, stretch my legs, have a table to do some work on, even use Wifi on many of them. If I need a car where I'm going, hiring one at the other end is often pretty cheap.

      Unfortunately, this is possible because I live close to the middle of town within walking distance of public transport. The dreams of living in bigger houses with individual transport far from the unwashed masses which the GP seems to object to, have lead to sprawling suburbs where it's almost impossible to walk anywhere. Either it's simply too far or because the planners assumed everyone would drive and made pavements (sidewalks) which end in 4 lane highways.

      The options are then pretty limited: develop better, greener individual transport, or large-scale demolition and rebuilding in higher density areas which can be served more efficiently by public transport. Don't think the second one's going to be all that popular...

    14. Re:Ok by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      You're talking of your own particular use case, with a reasonable income and assets. Now imagine someone who doesn't have a car, but needs to travel that same journey - a student, or a labourer with a family in Houston and work in Austin; it's a heck of a commute, but cheaper than moving the whole family. High-speed rail offers a quicker alternative to a bus service, one not affected by or contributing to congestion from private transportation.

      As others have mentioned, Texas isn't necessarily the best example of where high speed trains would delivery the most benefits, and your case of using a car is also not available to everyone. Public transport provides a public good that isn't necessarily measured in purely economic terms.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    15. Re:Ok by dakameleon · · Score: 2

      With all of that being said, it will probably NEVER work in the US.

      It depends - I think there are certainly areas of the US where it can work, and areas where it's unlikely to. A high-volume sector like Boston-New York-Philly-Washington DC could definitely be a target for upgrading to high-speed rail, much as Japan's main Shinkansen line is across the densest part of Honshu, connecting Hiroshima-Kyoto-Osaka/Kobe-Nagoya-Tokyo. A plane might be able to carry 200 passengers, a train 10 times that easily - so there's a pay-off point with speed and capacity of the trains with high-density and high-volume routes.

      The best example I can cite with personal experience is the Eurostar from London to Paris. A tube to Kings Cross-St Pancras, onto the Eurostar in about 20 minutes, and a 2.25 hour trip to Paris Gare du Nord is far easier than a onerous trip out to Heathrow (1 hr from central London), a 2 hour check-in buffer, 1 hour flight to CDG and then transport into Paris' centre.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    16. Re:Ok by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      haven't driven it for over 6 months

      Your car battery is probably dead by now. Better check it just in case you do decide to drive, and find you can't.

    17. Re:Ok by Rakishi · · Score: 2

      But that's just it. You can't go down the street to Walmart for some groceries without a car.

      Why not?

      This is why no one rides the buses unless they can't afford anything else

      No one rides the bus because is 90% of America the bus doesn't go where you want it to go, when you want it or in reasonable time. In places like NYC where it does most everyone is perfectly fine taking public transportation.

      But if we surrounded every roadway used by the robot taxi network with fences (including a barrier on top),

      And where would you place these magical roadways? In what empty space? Which roads would you block to existing traffic? How would you get with cross traffic?And are you aware of how bloody expensive this would be? And how ugly? NIMBY wouldn't let that get within 500 miles of them. And the first time idiot gets killed by a robotic taxi the lawsuits will kill the whole thing. Not to mention lack of street side parking, street side drop off and so on. Essentially makes the whole street near useless for all the people and businesses already on it.

      Seriously, this is about the most idiotic proposal I've heard in a long time.

    18. Re:Ok by Splab · · Score: 2

      I find it ironic that you claim a major disadvantage of trains is the amount you can carry and then you go on talking about flying.

      Having high speed trains to major cities is a good idea, better for environment, you can carry more and you are way less constricted than on an airplane.

      I'll grant you your example it doesn't make sense, but what if you wanted to go across the country? Airports are generally out in the boondocks, central train stations are quite often centrally located, less groping, better facilities, you can carry more and a train going 400 km/h isn't going that much slower than an airplane and it is a heck of a lot safer.

    19. Re:Ok by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Doesn't Walmart, more than pretty much any company, pass the savings to customers?

      It has a mere 4% profit margin, compared to many companies they're a saint.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    20. Re:Ok by xaxa · · Score: 4, Informative

      Let's suppose I want to go from Houston to Austin.

      I've not been to Houston, but just 18,000 people used Houston's Amtrak station last year. For comparison, 16,000 people used the station in a village of 1,200 people in the English countryside. The nearest big city to that village, Birmingham (pop. 1M, 2M in the conurbation), has several large stations. The largest had 25.3 million passengers last year. Less people used a train in all of Texas combined than my local suburban station, which isn't even open at weekends.

      I think you'll find there is demand for trains (of all kinds) in many settlements all around the world. Fortunately, most people don't reject solutions that don't satisfy 100% of the population.

      I just get in my car, and from my driveway to my destination takes ~3 hours. (assuming I don't try to travel during rush hours, or I start at the outskirts of Houston)

      This 160 mile journey consumes about $21 of fuel each way ...

      My parents live 100 miles away. The journey by public transport takes two hours (I allow 40 minutes to get from my house halfway out of London to the appropriate main station, the inter-city journey takes 1h10, and I like to arrive 10 minutes before the train departs) and a little walking (10 minutes). Driving, according to Google, takes 2h5. That's correct -- off-peak on a Sunday. Usually it's nearer to 2½ hours on a Sunday, or 3 hours + any other day. (The train is "normal" speed, about 110mph.)

      I've no idea how much the fuel costs -- I don't own a car. My parents will take the train to visit me if it's one or two of them, but if they bring my younger brother they'll drive. I always take the train, owning a car would be a huge expense for the tiny number of journeys I'd make with it.

      (Commenting on the rest of your post: if Houston built high speed rail, there'd probably be intermediate stops a few miles out (e.g. 5, 10, 20 miles) which you could travel to instead of going all the way to the centre. Even if you live on the wrong side of town [like I do for visiting my parents], the railway going in the other direction should connect to the high-speed station.
      30mph average for a bus is way too high, assuming you're including stops. That's a decent speed for light rail. 10mph is more like it. For a huge city like Houston, buses only every 15 minutes would be pretty crap. Buses near my house are more frequent than that all night.
      If transport is reliable, you wouldn't have to wait more than a few minutes for your train. You plan to leave at the appropriate time to make the connection. How much spare time you allow depends on the cost of taking a later train [here, booking for a specific train saves money] and the time you have to wait if you miss it.
      Many destinations would be within a short walk of the station.)

    21. Re:Ok by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Walmart's huge buying power gives it an incredible advantage over its suppliers. They may only make 4% profit; but the farmers are making a lot less than that.

    22. Re:Ok by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      The best example I can cite with personal experience is the Eurostar from London to Paris.

      That's cheating slightly, because you can't drive from London to Paris without taking either a ferry or the channel tunnel. Well, you can, but you wouldn't necessarily want to.

    23. Re:Ok by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The control system would have to be extremely precise, and able to react very quickly to events like a big gust of wind.

      Or, you know, an earthquake.

      Has everyone else got the memory of a goldfish?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    24. Re:Ok by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Really, all of your problems have been solved already: people not living in places that are less dense than streetcar suburbs. Raise the price of gas over time, people will move, and we don't have to deal with all off this robot cockery.

      Thank you for making the decision for me and my family on where we will live. It's such a relief knowing that people like you, who are so much more smarter than little old me, are out there protecting me from myself.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    25. Re:Ok by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Your car battery is certainly dead by now

      FTFY. He'll be lucky if the battery isn't completely useless by now, maybe if he's driving something really old and simple like a Willys Jeep that doesn't have a million little gizmos draining the battery. If it's a car designed from the '90s onward, he might as well pick up a new one right now.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    26. Re:Ok by khallow · · Score: 1

      When you have a car and the road is free and there is parking space, you will use it to go the next street to buy milk. In effect we will use a hammer all the time for all the jobs because the hammer is easy to hold and use. The moment public transport has to be used, you will make a trade-off analysis and use it only when required. Saves the planet, saves your limbs from degeneration.

      So we shouldn't use a vastly flexible tool for other uses because you think of it like a hammer? That's really short sighted. Automobile don't have a fixed use. Nor should they. And trains or other public transportation don't help you with those short shopping trips so this argument is pretty much irrelevant. I notice you also ignore that cars are flexible point-to-point travel. Sure, they use extra space than trains or buses do, but you get so much more out of it.

    27. Re:Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that's just it. You can't go down the street to Walmart for some groceries without a car.

      And there is the explanation for the American obesity rates.

      Seriously, how the fuck do you think the REST OF THE WORLD does it?? Yes, it involves something called LEGS and WALKING to the store to get necessities of life. That's how BILLIONS do it today, except of course, if you are apparently an American and want to get to your Walmart.

    28. Re:Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mebbe in Japan, but O for Five in America outside of big cities for the vast majority of people. Also, your premise is screwed. Roads are not free, we pay taxes and fees to use them.

      Point 5 of yours... Around here, Zombies use mass transit. The Living drive home, stereo and ac blasting (even if in a traffic jam), yak on the phone as loudly as they want, scratch where it itches, eat a snack or drink a coffee that's conveniently in the cupholder.

      So:
      Dear Mass Transit, we need to break up. Yes, I flirted with you in Germany, but drew away because you were so controlling, and high maintenance. Over time, I came to realize what you truly are: You're the expensive offspring of bad city planning and Government that wants everyone's movement controlled. I need my space. Sorry, no, can't drive you home, but the S-bahn should be out there in another 42 minutes.

    29. Re:Ok by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      No you are wrong. And you are right.
      Japan has good mass transit. They also have car companies. It is not a one size fits all. I would like good mass transit to go to work but I will still want my car to go shopping.

      1. Yes you are right but tracks do not go everywhere and are not practical in low density areas.
      2. He wanted automated cars. The idea does have some merit. I think a good step would be smart roads. To give an example from experience. Last night it took my wife and I 30 minutes to go a mile because of an accident. Had we known about the accident a short detour would have save a lot of fuel and time.
      3. So you want to force people to do what you think is best. If there was a store I would probably walk over to the next block to get milk since I go for walks all the time just to walk. Too bad that there isn't one. When I did live near a small store I would often ride my bike unless it was raining, late at night, or just too hot for words. I suggest that instead of trying to force people we make it easier for them to walk or ride a bike. Side walks and bike paths will do a lot for that.
      4. Again you act like one will eliminate the other. Look at all the roads in Japan. Trains help but will not eliminate traffic. You do not run trains tracks to peoples homes and you do not have them criss crossing a city. Subways are super expensive and take a very long time to build.

      There is no one solution. Places like Chicago and New York have pretty good mass transit at least when I was there for work. London's tube also was pretty good. Yet each of them had cars as well.
      I would say the ideal solution will vary from place to place. High speed rail makes sense in a few places in the US. Say between Boston, New York, Philidelpha, Pittsburgh, and DC. Yes I know Amtrack sort of does and it is the only part of Amtrack that is profitable. On the west coast I can see it between San Diego, LA, San Fransisco, and Las Vegas. In Texas between Houston and Dallas. I live in Florida and I have to say I am not real upset that they killed the Florida High Speed rail project. It was corporate welfare for Disney and the other theme parks. The first leg was from Orlando International to Disney and International driver. Odds are that would have been the only segment built IMHO.
      What I would like to see more of are trolleys. Maybe fuel cell powered or natural gas powered hybrids so you can get ride of the over head wires and or hot rails. Up till the 50s they where very common in many US cites and worked really well. The investment would be less than subways and they can be made very attractive. And while not as low in CO2 emissions as one using overhead wires they would be more green than a bus. Also being attractive, quite, and not requireing ugly over head wires should make them easier to get past the niby objections and might actually get people to use them.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    30. Re:Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it still a hovercraft if it's full of wheels?

    31. Re:Ok by stdarg · · Score: 1

      First of all, no one should shop at Walmart period. It is a soulless evil company at all respects that hurts all of us on a daily basis.

      Yes, Walmart is so much more evil than all the small stores that 1) don't provide health insurance, 2) hire illegal immigrants at below minimum wage 3) charge higher prices and carry less selection.

      Second of all, thanks to their tax cheating ways, no one lives down the street from a Walmart anyway.

      The Walmart nearest to me (within biking distance) is, oh, 2 blocks away from a large neighborhood.

      There are plenty of grocery stores in reasonably built areas that are walking distance.

      Most of the grocery stores in this country are large national chains. How exactly are they different than Walmart, either economically or "morally"?

    32. Re:Ok by stdarg · · Score: 1

      In some countries, like Pakistan, the government subsidizes the price of gas. There, it's artificially low.

      In what sense is gas artificially low in America?

    33. Re:Ok by radtea · · Score: 2

      So basically what you are saying that since it's a bad idea for the US to implement this, it's a bad idea for everyone?

      I think he's saying that his part of American society is based on paranoia and class warfare, and they like it that way.

      Furthermore, most of American society is fundamentally evangelical: they believe everyone should be like them. Their paranoia extends not only to the "other" in their midst, but to anyone anywhere in the world who is the least bit different from them.

      Not all Americans are like this, mind. I took the city bus in LA on occasion when I lived there (the only white person in the city who didn't have a car) and the ridership was 100% Hispanic/Latino. Even the ads were in Spanish. But while I got some odd looks--I think most of the regular riders had never seen a white person on the bus before--there was no hostility or evidence of the paranoia and xenophobia so prevalent in some other parts of American society.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    34. Re:Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok your disadvantages don't make any sense. A high speed train is a very *good* thing. Cars are a very poor replacement for properly implemented trains - especially high speed ones.

      Same Destination?
      First of all, high speed trains run along major routes, so chances are that you will be going to the same destination as the other riders. If not, you take another train. If you are going on a safari to the wilderness, well, you rent a jeep.

      Every Stop Slows it Down?
      Why yes of course, that's why high speed trains don't stop much! That's also why normal trains have local, express, super express, etc.

      You will lose the time you save?
      Not likely. First of all, nobody walks to a high speed train, unless they just happen to live within walking distance to a very major station. You take the normal train to the high speed tran station. For example, from my house to Tokyo station takes me about 30 minutes. Waiting to board the train would take you on average 1-2 minutes for a normal train, 5-10 minutes for the high speed train. As for the public.. they are the same ones on the bus, or in other cars on the road, I am not sure what your issue with them is. High speed trains generally also have reserved seating, and homeless smelly people don't tend to take them (though they seem to be mainly a US phenomenon anyway). As for losing the time you make up.. let's see.. I can DRIVE from Tokyo to Kobe in like 8 hours.. or.. I can take the train there in 2.5 hours. There is simply no contest once the distance is large at all. Over smaller distances you have to deal with traffic and parking, so cars only beat trains when you want to go from point A to point B where both A and B are far from the nearest station.

      But hey don't feel bad, every once in a while I am running late for something, and I get this stupid thought "what if I took a taxe instead!" Invariably it ends up taking much longer than the train would have (and taking a less predictable amount of time as well), and costing me much more. Oh well.

    35. Re:Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how far the auto parts store is from his house. Hope he can walk there and doesn't mind carrying a heavy lead acid battery all the way home.....

    36. Re:Ok by ustolemyname · · Score: 1

      Don't be ridiculous. Farmers are screwed no matter who they sell to.

      Corporations? Try to pay as little above costs of production as possible.
      Individuals? Increase in rates doesn't nearly compensate increase in effort.

    37. Re:Ok by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I don't know, I see written all the time about how decreased costs won't effect price at all, blah blah blah.

      The evilest of corporation (according to many) appears to be evidence that this is not the case.

      I doubt it's Walmart that makes a farmer's margins go down, as i would bet pretty big money that Kraft (and many others) is a larger consumer of produce. Selling a commodity with essentially limitless supply (in the US there is more than enough food) that requires toil to produce is hard work with very little profit.

      I personally don't like Walmart, I find the stores too large, the clothing crappy, and the ambiance dreary, but they do use the economy of scale, crappy product, and cheaply lit stores as a way to charge less to consumers who are more than willing to take the savings in exchange for the crummy products in a dreary store.

      Driving down profit margins is good for the economy, and the consumer, as it increases the money to be spent on other things.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    38. Re:Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >First of all, no one should shop at Walmart period. It is a soulless evil company at all respects that hurts all of us on a daily basis.

      No, it's a great company selling quality products that always has happy people working there on a daily basis. See what I did there? I can make groundless assumptions too.

      >Second of all, thanks to their tax cheating ways, no one lives down the street from a Walmart anyway.

      Interesting, of the two in my city, both have people living only the distance of the parking lot away. So, that's busted. Use google maps and search for Walmarts in Kitchener, ON.

      >Second of all, you absolutely can buy groceries on foot -- ever heard of a cart?

      Yes. They are generally stolen from grocery stores and dumped around apartment buildings, making the place look like a dump.

      BTW: Did you know that, at least in Canada, Walmart offers much better benefits than most companies paying the same wage level? When I was being paid within 20% of minimum wage, ALL the jobs I had included ZERO benefits. Walmart included a comprehensive healthcare benefit. They also paid the going rate for the type of labour required, not much more, and not particularly less, which is evident from the fact that people seem to work there for quite a while and remain happy.

      I understand that in the US Walmart is basically the modern day equivalent of a slave cotton picking farm (or at least they are portrayed that way), preying on the weak and helpless and making them work until they're dead, and basically vomiting on cities, but up in Canada, I've not seen that. Unfortunately, the stigma of them basically running the equivalent of a Chinese Sweat Shop labour powered retail store in the US has encouraged uninformed citizens to try to force them away (at the citizen's own cost, because Walmart fights them, as they should). Once Walmart actually makes it into town, though, the people in the city are happy to shop there and quickly realize that Walmart (Canada) actually doesn't suck and is way nicer to work for than many other discount retail chains (Dollarama, Zellers, etc) and the bigoted fervor goes away.

      >Third, sunk money? All of the road maintenance and fuel and costs to the environment are on-going. Slowly moving to a model that makes economic and efficient use of space will save money in the long run.

      Trains and public transport make no sense for most of North America, and especially Canada, which I am using an an example as I live there. The average population density in Canada is 3.3 people per square kilometer. Maintaining public transport for that population density would be an environmental nightmare. In fact, the difference between the median and mode of population vs. landmass are so distinct you could never expect to provide a solution that works for both. It is similar in the US, although less extreme.

      The robot taxi idea, though, isn't all that great for many places. The fact is that because North America presents such population extremes (and always will if you like to eat) multiple solutions must exist. That means some places have roads. Some places have buses. Some places have trains. And there's very good reasons why each would exist, very strongly indicated by population density.

      I'm only so interested in this because my city is getting a train soon, if the city councilors push it through. We don't need it now, and won't need it for another 20 years. The idea is to think forwards. Unfortunately, like so many forwards thinking ideas, the placement of the train will instead push low-income population into the centre of the city (as it is already, but far more concentrated) turning it into even more of a ghetto, and leave the "suburbs" of the city to be filled with people using cars because they have enough money to afford the cars, and therefore enough money NOT to live in the dump. This could be solved by having a track that visited more than 10% of the city's population, but it's like the Monorail in the Simpsons: Once you get morons up in arms that they must have it, come hell or high water the bad version of it will be implemented.

    39. Re:Ok by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

      ... and then the cheap switching cars branch off from major stations.

      In Tokyo, they call those "feet".

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    40. Re:Ok by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Once, I asked about the train ticket from Houston to Austin. The bus was $19, Southwest Airlines discount fare was $79, and I was hoping for something better as I was a broke college student and I hated the bus. I called Amtrak. Guess how much the fare was? $119. I was floored. Just for shits and grins, I asked the nice lady on the phone the schedule. "Oh, the train comes next Tuesday," she said brightly.

      Next Tuesday, huh? OK, at that point I had learned everything I ever needed to know about Amtrak. I never bothered with them again.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    41. Re:Ok by bluemonq · · Score: 1

      In Japan, they call it JR.

    42. Re:Ok by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, wagons or hand-carts work well for transporting loads like that. :D

    43. Re:Ok by ryanov · · Score: 1

      I don't have an original link for this, but I found it after a little bit of Googling. I'm sure I could find an official report if I looked harder:

      "This report by the International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA) identifies and quantifies the many external costs of using motor vehicles and the internal combustion engine that are not reflected in the retail price Americans pay for gasoline. These are costs that consumers pay indirectly by way of increased taxes, insurance costs, and retail prices in other sectors.

      The report divides the external costs of gasoline usage into five primary areas: (1) Tax Subsidization of the Oil Industry; (2) Government Program Subsidies; (3) Protection Costs Involved in Oil Shipment and Motor Vehicle Services; (4) Environmental, Health, and Social Costs of Gasoline Usage; and (5) Other Important Externalities of Motor Vehicle Use. Together, these external costs total $558.7 billion to $1.69 trillion per year, which, when added to the retail price of gasoline, result in a per gallon price of $5.60 to $15.14.

      TAX SUBSIDIES - $9.1 to $17.8 billion.

      The federal government provides the oil industry with numerous tax breaks designed to ensure that domestic companies can compete with international producers and that gasoline remains cheap for American consumers. Federal tax breaks that directly benefit oil companies include: the Percentage Depletion Allowance (a subsidy of $784 million to $1 billion per year), the Nonconventional Fuel Production Credit ($769 to $900 million), immediate expensing of exploration and development costs ($200 to $255 million), the Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit ($26.3 to $100 million), foreign tax credits ($1.11 to $3.4 billion), foreign income deferrals ($183 to $318 million), and accelerated depreciation allowances ($1.0 to $4.5 billion).

      Tax subsidies do not end at the federal level. The fact that most state income taxes are based on oil firms' deflated federal tax bill results in undertaxation of $125 to $323 million per year. Many states also impose fuel taxes that are lower than regular sales taxes, amounting to a subsidy of $4.8 billion per year to gasoline retailers and users. New rules under the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 are likely to provide the petroleum industry with additional tax subsidies of $2.07 billion per year. In total, annual tax breaks that support gasoline production and use amount to $9.1 to $17.8 billion."

    44. Re:Ok by ryanov · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected on the proximity. Around here, and most places I've seen, that is absolutely not the case.

      As for Walmart:
      http://news.change.org/stories/8-reasons-we-should-fight-to-keep-walmart-out-of-our-major-cities

      How is it different? When you are a company that makes BILLIONS and BILLIONS, it is a little different to provide inadequate health insurance or recommend that your employees take government assistance or any of the rest.

    45. Re:Ok by ryanov · · Score: 1

      If that's where you want to live, you should have to pay for it. Right now it costs you less to live out there even though it costs the government more.

      Thank YOU sir for being one of those assholes who gets all "No guvment gon' decide where I live" over a simple statement of the fact that an exurban lifestyle is a drain on the whole economy and is not fair to the more denser areas that have to the likely considerable weight of the car exurbs along financially.

    46. Re:Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that's just it. You can't go down the street to Walmart for some groceries without a car. Even if there were buses, they are full of just anyone - including scary people that the American public has been conditioned to fear. (yes, I know rationally that that scraggy guy who smells funny is probably not an axe murderer or rapist...but does a woman bringing her 2 kids know that? This is why no one rides the buses unless they can't afford anything else)

      The guy may not be an axe murderer, but he probably has a few parasites and/or a communicable disease that you don't want. BTW, suburbs existed prior to cars.

    47. Re:Ok by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I just looked it up. $44 -- sounds like good value for the 12-hour trip ;-).

      London to Sheffield is 166 miles by road. By train (2 hours 8 minutes) if you book in advance with a non-flexible miss-it-you're-screwed ticket it's as little as £12 each way (you can get that fare tomorrow very late at night, or at a convenient time in a couple of weeks. The price gradually increases as the train is booked up). One-way tickets valid on any train without booking are roughly £60 off-peak, £100 peak-time, with returns costing the same amount -- British rail ticket pricing makes no sense whatsoever, and can be moaned about if you're bored of moaning about the weather/football. There are various offers and deals, especially when travelling off-peak. Continental Europe generally has cheaper fares, but less-frequent service. Trains to Sheffield are every 20-30 minutes: http://traintimes.org.uk/stp/shf/1200/monday The trains have WiFi, power points, a snack bar, drinks trolley, wheels, windows etc.

      A bus (we call a long-distance bus a coach) is £10-20 non-flexible, I can't see flexible fares. It takes 4h20m. According to adverts I see everywhere these tickets start at £1 or £2.

      267km @ 6L/100km (40 mi/US-gal) is 16L of petrol, costing £22 (plus wear and tear, parking, congestion charge during a weekday). Google says the journey takes 3 hours, it will be significantly more at busy times (especially the London end).

      There are no scheduled flights for such a short distance.

      I remember when I was a child going into an Amtrak station with my parents, who asked how much a train journey cost (I think to New York -- my dad didn't want to drive there). It was ridiculous, so my parents asked how much the bus cost. The ticket seller said she wouldn't sell a family with nice children tickets... in the end we drove to a station at the end of a subway line, and took the subway in.

    48. Re:Ok by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Why can't you drive your car to the train station?

    49. Re:Ok by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Your eyes are brown, I bet.

      Living where I do in the suburbs doesn't cost anyone else anything extra. I telecommute, so I use the roads minimally; the sewer system here was built out decades ago and works great; there's less pollution, less crime, and far less trash than in the major city to the south of me; and the major highway I use the most is a toll road, so I pay for it every time I do have to go somewhere.

      But nice talking out of your ass there.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    50. Re:Ok by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      I was giving an example where a train route is superior to a flying route; the driving alternative is 450km or thereabouts, and there's no chance you could beat or match the train even if there was a bridge/road tunnel across the Channel.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    51. Re:Ok by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Believe what you want, but you're not correct.

  13. wait what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    did anyone catch the
    - using to test an autonomous three axis stabilization system
      autonomous

  14. Still haven't learned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm surprised they would create something like this in Japan; you'd think after all those Godzilla films they'd know better than to re-create the Caspian Sea Monster.

  15. I'm not a railroad engineer by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    But wouldn't the money be better invested if they designed trains that can swim instead of trains that can fly?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:I'm not a railroad engineer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But wouldn't the money be better invested if they designed trains that can swim instead of trains that can fly?

      Not after the Fukushima incident, they're still leaking and dumping highly radioactive water into the ocean and underground rivers.

  16. Too much. by lsdi · · Score: 1

    Just add those wings to the conventional maglevs, it would reduce it's weight in high speeds and it's energy consumption.

  17. A fatal weakness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A wind gust hitting the right spot will lift the whole train off track while running at full speed.

  18. Missing Canada tag by a_hanso · · Score: 1

    This story is missing the Canada tag. Because, you know, this story is about trains and Canada has trains.

  19. Nice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Flying skate and flying cars now, please.

  20. Great! The worst of both worlds! by toygeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its not too often you see researchers combine technologies and come up with less than the sum of their equal parts. Imagine, a transport that can crash AND derail. Woo!

    1. Re:Great! The worst of both worlds! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you meant WOOHOO! Chugga chugga WOOHOO!

    2. Re:Great! The worst of both worlds! by ZoCool · · Score: 1

      :D You got it in one! This ex-airline pilot has her toes curled up in horror at the number of probable problems . . . At high speeds . . . With no-where to go! The Russians have spend many years trying to master this technology, no doubt because of the promise, but their efforts have produced prodigiously expensive-to-run, and amazingly complex, devices. Now mouldering. Given current computing speeds there is the probablity that stability augmentation will be up to the task of constraining the suggested mass in the tight confines of the concrete channel - but Ooo Aaah! The potential for dramatic failures! Save resources. Teach people to fly -- themselves. Grow us a decent pair of wings, and it's all good! ?

  21. Energy supply? by MacroRodent · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This might be a good idea, if they can figure out how to supply electricity to power the flying train. Tricky, because there is no ground contact, unlike a regular train, and the track itself does not propel it forward, like a maglev track does. Otherwise it has to carry its fuel, which might negate the advantages of the idea.

    1. Re:Energy supply? by Hermanas · · Score: 1

      Why can't they still do it like the electric buses do? An overhead cable with a connection that moves with the train.

    2. Re:Energy supply? by art6217 · · Score: 1

      I guess they want to resign from the wheels because of friction, noise, wearing out and maintenance. Special wheeled pantographs would likely have all of theses properties much much lower, and in an emergency could also be used as one--time spare wheels, just to brake.

    3. Re:Energy supply? by art6217 · · Score: 1

      Or, they could be used as regular wheels as well, at lower speeds, when the wings are not enough, just like in the case of a regular plane.

    4. Re:Energy supply? by complete+loony · · Score: 1

      Turn the U shaped track into a big rail gun? Or at least near stations...

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    5. Re:Energy supply? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    6. Re:Energy supply? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the UK and Europe, at least, overhead lines are widely used to power trains - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overhead_lines. I would think a similar system could be adjusted to work with this "flying train".

    7. Re:Energy supply? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Induction coils. The same system they use for pad chargers or the proposed wireless electric car chargers. It's not hard to get the system to work over several feet. Even if the ground effect vehicle operated beyond the induction field all you have to do is use a drag pole that would run inside the field. Not unlike the old electric trains only you avoid physical contact. It's really not all that different than an electric motor works as the rotor cuts through an alternating electric field. A little closer to the mark are the tests they ran dragging a long electric cable through the upper atmosphere. Instead of using the Earth's magnetic field you are creating your own. You actually loose a fairly low percentage of the power so it's an efficient system. It'd take a lot of wire for the coils but you avoid the rare earth magnets which are the biggest expense of maglev systems.

    8. Re:Energy supply? by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      You could possibly pull power from lines above it like some rail lines do. Of course then you are introducing an element of friction, but it should be small if done right.

    9. Re:Energy supply? by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 1

      Easy, just stick a small nuclear reactor on board. What?

      --

      Shift happens. Fire it up.
    10. Re:Energy supply? by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      So...turn the U-shaped track into a mag-lev track...?

    11. Re:Energy supply? by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Overhead wires, like on conventional railways?

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    12. Re:Energy supply? by complete+loony · · Score: 1

      No, you could still use the ground effect for lift. Just thinking you could use something like an aircraft carrier launch system to get the "train" moving again after a station. Of course it wouldn't be cheap to build...

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    13. Re:Energy supply? by carvalhao · · Score: 1

      You can have the entire train flying and a contact point dragging along.

    14. Re:Energy supply? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Current Shinkansen trains get their power from an overhead line. This can presumably do the same thing.

  22. Hover Train! by android.dreamer · · Score: 1

    Heck yeah! I've been waiting for decent hover technology for years. Back To The Future 3 predicted correctly!

  23. They already by rossdee · · Score: 1

    tried floating trains, but that didn't work so well...

  24. Its an ekranoplan by damburger · · Score: 2

    This is clearly a derivative of an old Soviet vehicle. They never got much use of of them because they require a perfectly flat surface in order to work properly, hence the Japanese building a specially made track for it.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    1. Re:Its an ekranoplan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few WIGs are used around the world as island hoppers. They can actually fly quite high off the ground/water, but use more fuel when they do.

      Big heavy bombers and freighters also use WIG just to get off the ground. That is why their wings are swept down. Once they are airborne, they try to slowly gain speed in order to get out of WIG and climb further to their cruise altitude.

    2. Re:Its an ekranoplan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Ekranoplan seemed viable enough, politics made sure it never got much use though.

    3. Re:Its an ekranoplan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they could fly trains over aqueducts

  25. Obligatory citation by havana9 · · Score: 1

    But the conductor on the flying train in a black foggy alien and the passengers are a tall blonde mysterious woman and a street urchin?

    1. Re:Obligatory citation by kvezach · · Score: 1

      No, but one of the passengers is a Belgian detective, and then the train gets stuck in a snowdrift.

  26. Movie Fans by lopaka1998 · · Score: 1

    Don't these "researchers" have anything better to do than watch Back to the Future, Part III? I mean really - a flying train... Give me a break!

  27. Would this really use jets? by kyle5t · · Score: 2

    In the graphic showing the concept for the final vehicle, the train appears to use jet engines. Is this really how you would do it? I thought that jets were pretty much dreadfully inefficient unless operated at altitude.

    1. Re:Would this really use jets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No. They are ducted fans driven by electric motors. The tips of the vertical stabilisers have small pantographs that contact the underside of the lip at the top of the track walls. It's mostly in Japanese, but you can get the idea from some of the pictures here (e.g. this image)

    2. Re:Would this really use jets? by MacroRodent · · Score: 1

      Thanks, the second picture nicely answers my question about how to supply electricity to the train.

    3. Re:Would this really use jets? by hitmark · · Score: 1

      So mainly it is done as a way to remove the friction of wheels vs track?

      And it seems that any kind of track switching on these would be troublesome, so are we talking dedicated tracks between two high volume locations?

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
  28. I have a better idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just raise the rear of the cars up. That way you are always going downhill.

  29. Similar to previous french technology from the 50' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Similar technology, same name :

    France, mid 60's :
    http://aerotrain.net/English_Index.html
    http://aerotrain.Fr
    http://www.luftkissenzug.de (german)

    USA's : 70's
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU_xXw2_1-U&feature=related

  30. already invented: pneumatic post by kubitus · · Score: 1
    it will come to the recognition that a sort of pneumatic tube system will solve all their problems.

    .

    Then it will really mean it, when someone says: I'll ride the tube ;-) ( greetings to London )

    1. Re:already invented: pneumatic post by zevans · · Score: 1

      England had vacuum railways in the 1840s. (Croydon and South Devon from memory.) One of IKB's madcap schemes.

      --
      "... and more and more now there are all kinds of electronic goodies available" -- Pink Floyd 1972
    2. Re:already invented: pneumatic post by hitmark · · Score: 1

      May have a point, and i think there are already concepts out there for just such systems.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
  31. Boring by scdeimos · · Score: 2

    Russians have been playing with huge ground-effect transports, Ekranoplans, since what - the 1960's? There's plenty of WIG (Wing In Ground effect) boats around. Hardly new stuff that needs a lot of research.

    1. Re:Boring by Splab · · Score: 1

      The research isn't into how to use the ground effect, the research is into how to stabilize the object autonomously.

    2. Re:Boring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure of the practical value of this aerotrain concept, but it's certainly not a well explored area. The question here isn't the how or why of ground effect--we've known that for a very long time. What we don't understand well are the dynamics of a long and flexible system with multiple, mutually interfering, wings in ground effect. This is a complex and highly non-linear modeling, simulation, and control problem which has not been well studied. A test article is exactly what's needed to validate existing models and test practical robust control systems for this configuration. I don't think there's any doubt that such an aero train could lift it's weight and travel with reasonable efficiency at high speed. The doubt is whether or not such a system can be safely controlled.

    3. Re:Boring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but NOW we have the hardware and the knowhow to calculate the pitch/yaw/roll within microseconds, i bet there are people here on slashdot that know how to make that happen. Hell if calculated precisly enough you could run the damn thing on a road

    4. Re:Boring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that simple--even the most robust control theories require some a priori knowledge of the dynamics of the system in order to guarantee acceptable stability and performance. It seems simple: vehicle is banked too far to the left, then roll right and vice versa. However, you're almost certain to destabilize the system and could easily get into a catastrophic roll oscillation in doing so. You need to know how much and how long to apply the counter-roll command in order hit your target without overshooting, taking too long, or using too much energy "over controlling." That requires understanding of the vehicle dynamics, especially when they're likely to change as the vehicle is loaded differently, operates at different speeds or at different heights above ground.

  32. already invented: pneumatic tube post by kubitus · · Score: 1
    Pneumatic tube post will be the solution.

    The power to build the air cushion beneath and on the sides can be produced converted within the craft in contrast to the old pneumatic tube model.

    The air for the cushion will be sucked in on the front, reducing the drag.

    The technology of electric pickups for high speed trains is there.

    I think the construction cost for a length of big tube is less than for a Maglev track!

    1. Re:already invented: pneumatic tube post by Linker3000 · · Score: 1

      Typical! You wait ages for a post to point this out and then two arrive together!

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
    2. Re:already invented: pneumatic tube post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see what you did there... +10, Sir!

    3. Re:already invented: pneumatic tube post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sorry, there was a leak in the wall just in front of the first post, and it took a while for me to fix it.

  33. already invented: pneumatic tube post by kubitus · · Score: 1
    Pneumatic tube post will be the solution.

    The power to build the air cushion beneath and on the sides can be produced converted within the craft in contrast to the old pneumatic tube model.

    The air for the cushion will be sucked in on the front, reducing the drag.

    The technology of electric pickups for high speed trains is there.

    I think the construction cost for a length of big tube is less than for a Maglev track!

  34. Why? by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

    Honest question: What benefits would this have over mag-lev?

    1. Re:Why? by MacroRodent · · Score: 1

      I guess the biggest one is a much cheaper track: Just a concrete through, which probably does not have to be built to as exacting tolerances as a maglev track. Heavy rain might be an interesting problem to handle. The track cannot have too large drainage holes in it, otherwise the lift disappears.

    2. Re:Why? by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 1

      Honest question #2: What benefits would this have over a regular train? 'Cause I'm not seeing any, at the moment. It looks tough to board, and takes a whole lot of space just for a wingspan.

    3. Re:Why? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      The large drainage holes can have some sort of floating cutoffs. They usually drop down to seal the hole (more or less) but float on water to let it drain out.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  35. ekranoplanes don't need perfectly flat surfaces by fantomas · · Score: 2

    Ekranoplanes don't need perfectly flat surfaces- they were tested and ran mostly on water. Water is not perfectly flat yet the ekranoplanes ran....

    1. Re:ekranoplanes don't need perfectly flat surfaces by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Btw, think the main reason for them being used over water was that the max altitude of the ground effect puts them at risk of running into all kinds of natural and man made objects. Also, it is likely not fun to be below one of them when they pass by.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
  36. Geek Toy by prefec2 · · Score: 1

    It looks like a geek toy to me. At least as train, such a vehicle would not be very practical. The main problems of todays train systems is not speed, but how many people can be moved and how can cargo be distributed more efficiently. The first thing involves two deck trains, trains without locomotive (which follow more or less the concept of a tram). The second thing has to do with shorter or easier to decompose cargo trains. So they can transfer containers from the harbors to the interior.

    But cool device.

  37. Bolox by Zemran · · Score: 2

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgtaeRZjWNc

    The Russians mastered the use of ground effect to fly 500 ton aircraft over the sea, beneath the radar. The ekranoplan was reaching speeds of 400 mph over sea in the middle of the last century. This is not even new technology. The Swedes were making them before the last war.

    --
    I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
  38. Bolox by Zemran · · Score: 1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgtaeRZjWNc [youtube.com]

    The Russians mastered the use of ground effect to fly 500 ton aircraft over the sea, beneath the radar. The ekranoplan was reaching speeds of 400 mph over sea in the middle of the last century. This is not even new technology. The Swedes were making them before the last war.

    --
    I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
  39. Maglev = Ground effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a big secret but maglev trains are ground effect trains, real maglev would be way to expensive. it's an invention tried in france and the Uk and then stolen by the US in the 70's maybe google hoovertrain. As always a dumb stupoid already invented hidden stolen and xpensified technology is presented as a smart solution CRAP!

  40. Yamato? by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Surely you mean Galaxy Express 999, considering the

    Granted, both are created by Leiji Matsumoto, so it is understandable that one could get confused.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Yamato? by JockTroll · · Score: 1

      Maetel was one hot chick. However my favourite Matsumoto work is always Space Pirate Captain Harlock. Greatest jock of all time.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    2. Re:Yamato? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      And Maetel, Trilana and Nova are all the same (drawn) character.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    3. Re:Yamato? by JockTroll · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Yayoi Yukino (Queen Millennia) and Yuki (Captain Harlock). Hey, no love for Emeraldas or Queen Lafresia of Almighty Mazone?

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
  41. They need a new word for motion sickness by BodeNGE · · Score: 1

    Looks like it will wobble badly with any stray gust of wind. OK for cargo, but the important question is wether you are airsick, motion sick, or even seasick.

  42. Starman Jones by shilly · · Score: 1

    Am I the only person who read this and remembered the old Heinlein juvie "Starman Jones"? I loved that book.

    1. Re:Starman Jones by lucian1900 · · Score: 1

      You are not alone. Hopefully these won't be jumping, though.

    2. Re:Starman Jones by shilly · · Score: 1

      While I can still instantly picture that jumping scene in my mind, it wasn't that transportation I had in mind -- it was the truck Max hitches a lift on, which goes closer the ground the faster it goes, but can never touch the ground because the repulsion "works by an inverse-cube law...the more the wind pushes us down, the harder the road pushes us up".

      Glad to hear I'm not alone...

    3. Re:Starman Jones by lucian1900 · · Score: 1

      Ah, right. The truck is much closer indeed. The trains aren't explained, now that I think about it.

  43. meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not only is it wider, but it also requires cement on either side & bellow. Costly & takes up too much space.

  44. slashdot feels stupider by the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A car train weighs from 1e5 to 3e5 pounds. At the low end two passenger cars weigh as much as a loaded 737-300ER, which flies for some time because it climbs where the air is thin, has a ginormous wingspan and makes a lot of noise. Landing it in crosswinds is fun enough. I'd really like to see a train made of, say, ten passenger cars (cargo cars are left as an exercise for the queer reader with an engineering eye), weighing anywhere from a million to three million pounds, negotiate a turn with 'TeH WinGleTS' (TM) at 180 mph and 10 inches altitude above ground.

    At the very least, maybe if Miyazaki-san is reading this we can have an expansion to some leijiverse arc which, frankly, are more needed than stupid news.

  45. Amusing by justforgetme · · Score: 1

    And you really think that because it can hover a bit when the sun is out and its doing 400mph it has to be versatile enough to be adopted as a serious form of transport? Yes it was useful in WW2 but hey the sr71 was useful in the cold war and I don't jet around in scramjets, do you?

    --
    -- no sig today
    1. Re:Amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We only just invented the scramjet and there are countless issues of getting it ready for people (too many g's at the speeds they go). But your right just cause something was once slightly useful once doesn't mean its going to be adopted widely in the future. I would still like a wig boat for fishing trips.

  46. Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, researchers from an office supply company from Redmond test flying chairs.

  47. spaceship by sourcerror · · Score: 2

    " do they also have ... Space Boats?"

    They have spaceships so I guess, yes.

  48. Holy Scott! by sourcerror · · Score: 1

    It's not a trainrobbery, it's a scientific experiment.

  49. Make an opportunity out of a crisis by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Third, sunk money? All of the road maintenance and fuel and costs to the environment are on-going. Slowly moving to a model that makes economic and efficient use of space will save money in the long run.

    Or wait till the next natural disaster happens, when you'd have to rebuild anyway.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  50. It's not a train! by sam0737 · · Score: 1

    It's more like a grounded-airplane, or plane-on-a-rail.

    mag-lev is mag-lev not only because it use mag to keep things on rail, but it's the propulsion source. Now that "train" thing is going to use turbo fan engine as the propulsion source, not wheel nor mag. So...hey it's really an airplane

  51. Ginga Tetsudo 999 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is coming!!!

  52. Why use a wing when you could use an air cushion? by Big_Breaker · · Score: 1

    Once you have the train sitting in a trough, why not use an air cushion to push up rather than a wing pull up? The air cushion exists in the trough where there is no wind. The train could provide the cushion on its own power or the track could carry compressed air in a pipe and deliver it under the train through a network of valves. You would need a low friction moving seal along the length of train but it doesn't need to be great. Make the seal interface float on magnets if you want. It would carry a small fraction of the force of the whole train's weight.

  53. so strange it's GOT to be true! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    The amazing Howard Hughes invented WiG in 1947 , he just didn't realize it.
    And he did it with a plane made out of wood , like some sort of super caveman.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  54. Not sure if this is a good idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want to be negative about this since it seems intuitively unsafe.

    However at that speed + mass being on the ground or a few feet in the air really makes no difference when it comes to collisions.

    I think the main problem will be stopping. How fast can you stop a train that is flying.

    1. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea. by PPH · · Score: 1

      How fast can you stop a train that is flying.

      Pretty fast if you can actuate some flaps to dump the lift and set the thing down on rubber tires or skids.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  55. Re:Ok - uh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assuming you wanted to go to Wal*Mart (which I can't really understand to begin with), you can sure walk there from the closest train station. I walk to the supermarket from my house all the time. Sometimes I go to other supermarkets and bring the groceries home on the train - how hard is that? Note that I don't buy like 15 bags of groceries at once like I have seen the Americans do on TV because.. well I don't have to, and it doesn't make sense. I buy a bag on the way home once or twice per week.

    A country based on cars? Ah you must be from the US, even though you failed to mention your country. Anyway that's what's called a "Sunk cost" - by definition it's not a valid reason to stay with a bad plan.(look up "sunk costs" somewhere). As for the suburbs, yes even your EPA suggests that if less people lived so far from work, pollution woud be very greatly reduced (along with accidents). Anyway they don't have to demolish the roads tomorrow, just phase the excess roads out in favor of more efficient mass transit. The "unwashed masses" problem solves itself once you reach a certain critical mass. Once you started aggregating cars for efficiency, the robot taxi system would end up to be something similar to what the Japanese rail system already is ;0

  56. 3 axis stabilization insufficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The oscillation of such a great linear mass will be too much for this system to compensate for. Maybe shortening the length of a train to two sections, maybe will be possible.

  57. Magnetic bearing systems require active control by bkmoore · · Score: 1

    I disagree with the posters comment that a ground-effect vehicle is inherently more difficult to control than a MagLev train. A MagLev train utilizes magnetic bearings to compensate its weight. There are two separate MagLev concepts. The Siemens MagLev utilizes attractive magnets in order to compensate the weight of the train and maintain frictionless motion along the track. Magnet force is nonlinearly inversely proportional to the gap between the anchor and the stator. That means by a disturbance in position, the forces will increase in the opposite direction of that disturbance. A magnetic bearing has inverse stiffness and requires an active control system in order to maintain a constant operating point. The alternative concept for a MagLev was developed in Japan utilizes attractive magnets, but requires wheels at low speed to operate. It also requires an active control system in order to maintain its desired operating point. It is actually mathematically impossible to design a magnetic bearing system that is stable in all six degrees of freedom. An active control system is always required.

    A ground effect vehicle on the other hand can be designed to be aerodynamically stable because as the air gap decreases, the air pressure within that gap increases. It would work along some of the same principles of operation of an air bearing.

    The design of an actively-controled magnetic bearing system is non-trivial. Designing an effective control system which can maintain a desired operating point with measurement noise, external disturbances, etc. is also non-trivial. I think developing a MagLev train is inherently a much more difficult engineering problem to solve than designing a ground effect vehicle.

  58. Simpler Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't it be simpler and introduce a lot less problems to have a generated air cushion? Think something like an air hockey table, only in reverse. The train runs along a "track" but instead of rails you have two groves (about 6" x 2') in concrete/steel, the train has rails that fit into these grooves and inject air to levitate the train. The train then propels itself forward using some means, ducted fans, directional air pressure, etc. The train could be aerodynamically designed to pull air under the cars/into the grooves to decrease the need for air injection at higher speeds. Not perfect by any means but it sounds quite a bit simpler than this concept.

  59. Time for an eye exam... by CCarrot · · Score: 1

    While quickly scanning the headlines, I first read this as "Japanese Restaurants Test Flying Trains"

    *Sniff* I always wanted to try airborne sushi...oh well, maybe next time.

    --
    "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
  60. Flying Trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the prospect of this type of vehicle making it to the US is about as likely as our politicians using a smart phone. I mean most of our representatives haven't even mastered the touch tone phone much less a flying train.

  61. Why not a hovercraft? by mangu · · Score: 1

    This one needs a wing span space

    It seems to me that the obvious solution would be to pump compressed air under the train. That way the track could be just as wide as the train is, like any normal railroad.

    Power could be transfered using an overhead catenary cable plus a return conductor under the train. Perhaps this conductor could also be used to make a linear induction motor, with less losses than propellers.

     

  62. Snakes on a Flying Train ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What could possibly go wrong?

  63. Demotivational Poster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck your flying sharks!

  64. Gravity Control does it better by SpacerOne · · Score: 1

    Gravity Control, the stuff that is used by the Flying Saucer, does it without noise. These spheres under a Saucer can lift a 10 or 100 ton vehicle off the ground with an an-ordinate small amount of power. After I got the patent on the technology, I offered it to Nasa, so that it could be used for the Shuttles. They would not need Rockets anymore but could fly to the ISS in one hour, the Moon in a couple of hours and to Mars within one day. Nasa rejected it , it would make the Heavy Lifter obsolete. If I can get the funding, I can build a small flying craft that can fly a few feet off the ground (up to 30 feet, otherwise you need a Pilot's Licence.). Future "cars" will use it too . Real off-roading is possible., you do not need roads. The Forcefield that the technology brings, will make collisions almost impossible. Although eventually you might get the system of power tapping out of the aether, that a Flying Saucer uses and was used by Tesla for his Pierce Arrow Car in 1931, for now you can use some batteries and a small power generator when the batteries are low. I found hundreds of applications for the technology, from Power Generation, to ING, Tornado busting and Earthquake retarding. Power at 1 cent per Kilowatt or less, making Nuclear, Wind, Water and Solar obsolete. Regards, Joe Hiddink