Why Ultra-Efficient 4,000 mph Vacuum-Tube Trains Aren't Being Built

cylonlover writes "In the 1800s, when pneumatic tubes shot telegrams and small items all around buildings and sometimes small cities, the future of mass transit seemed clear: we'd be firing people around through these sealed tubes at high speeds. And it turns out we've got the technology to do that today – mag-lev rail lines remove all rolling friction from the energy equation for a train, and accelerating them through a vacuum tunnel can eliminate wind resistance to the point where it's theoretically possible to reach blistering speeds over 4,000 mph (6,437 km/h) using a fraction of the energy an airliner uses – and recapturing a lot of that energy upon deceleration. Ultra-fast, high efficiency ground transport is technologically within reach – so why isn't anybody building it? This article looks into some of the problems."

Comments

Maybe because...

[Anonymous Coward]

When the British did it they had hella mechanical problems. The smallest glitch with a seal and suddenly your trains aren't moving nearly as fast anymore. You'd have to build two tunnels: the vacuum tunnel for the train, and then a slightly larger outer tunnel that allows for service and leak detection.

Re:Space Elevator

[TheRaven64]

Vertical travel is a very different proposition. Compare the energy usage for a person standing at the top of the Empire State Building and a person standing in a helicopter hovering a few metres away. Both are at the same height, but one is having to use fuel (in quite significant amounts) just to stay in the same place. Now have the man in the building go up and down the stairs for an hour and have the helicopter maintain the same height as him. At the end, compare their energy usage.

In contrast, for something like a train the majority of the energy is used in acceleration. Reducing air resistance and rolling resistance give some benefits, but it's not huge. The advantage of the hypothetical maglev vacuum train is that it can keep accelerating for as long as it wants (air resistance increases with speed). This isn't really useful for most trains, although it would be useful for something like a transatlantic or transpacific railway where you'd have a long distance and nowhere where you might want to stop on the way.

For reaching orbit, a space elevator means you don't need to carry as much fuel. Over 90% of the mass of a rocket going into orbit is the fuel required to carry the fuel into orbit. Take that away, and you've made a huge saving. If you can power the climber from the ground, it's even better. Acceleration is also an issue. A rocket must accelerate at more than 1g just to move upwards. Because of this, it must accelerate hard so that it doesn't run out of fuel just maintaining the 1g needed to stay in the same place. A climber can maintain a constant speed or a slow acceleration.

The main reason we haven't built a space elevator is that we've only recently made materials in the lab that are (probably) strong enough to be used for the tether, if we could work out how to mass produce them.

Re:Simple

[element-o.p.]

Sigh...I rather suspect you are trolling, but here goes, anyway.

You guys always point to reality...as a defense for your delirious mental illness about space. Doesn't work that way.

Ummm...yeah. What do you want people to point to instead? The Starship Enterprise? That's kind of the the point. You say that ${futuristicConcept} can't be done because of insurmountable technical obstacles. Other people point to ${formerFuturisticConceptThatIsNowReality} as a counter-example of something once thought impossible, but now taken for granted. For years, people said it was impossible to fly in a heavier-than-air, powered aircraft...then our friends Wilbur and Orville (or Glen Curtiss, depending upon who's revisionist history you choose to subscribe) did it. People thought that rockets couldn't "fly" in a vacuum because there was "nothing to push against." Then the Russians launched Sputnik. All (or at least "many") experts said we will never exceed the speed of sound...then Gen. Yeager did it. The point of all of these examples is that people thought a number of various things were impossible...until someone figured out a way to get around the obstacles that people thought were "insurmountable." Griping that pointing "to reality" to argue that things are only impossible until someone accomplishes those things is, in fact, the way it works.

Those things were built because they were able to build them...

True statement is true, yes. Your point?

What you are blatantly ignoring is that people didn't think those things were possible -- exactly as you don't think various things are possible now. The problem wasn't that things were intrinsically impossible; it's that people were approaching the problem from pre-conceived notions based upon the limitations of existing technology. In what way are the things you currently say are impossible merely limited by our current understanding of physics? This may come as a shock to you, but...(wait for it)...we don't know EVERYTHING yet. Therefore, we can't predict what "impossible" things will become possible when some "Eureka!!!" moment shows that something we all thought we understood gets shattered wide open by a new discovery. When we get that insight, things that we thought were impossible might suddenly become trivial.

Re:Simple

[PhillC]

If you planned ahead, and had the relevant travel card, that price goes down to EUR79 (USD100).

That journey is a little over 6.5 hours on the train. You'd be lucky to do it under 6 hours driving, factoring in relevant breaks and depending on where in each city your arrival and departure point was. If I had anything to do at the other end, I know I'd much rather travel by train than bust my butt driving.

I regularly catch a tran from Vienna to Graz in Austria. The cost is around EUR18 one way, with discount card. The journey takes 2.5 hours by train, and maybe 2 hours by car, depending on the traffic. On the train I can read, work on my laptop, sleep, walk around, go to the dining car etc. It's a much more pleasant way to travel.

Re:Simple

[jpapon]

And don't tell me "it's different in Europe". I was in Germany. I can drive from Munich to Berlin faster than the ICE train. And the train ride costs $150+ each way per person.

Berlin-Munich costs 44 Euros each way (you have to buy the ticket a few weeks in advance though), and takes 6 hours. Driving takes the same amount of time, and will cost you at least 50 Euros in gas (600 km * 5l/100km * 1.65 Eu/l = 49.5 ~ and that's a pretty efficient vehicle - you won't get that efficiency doing 160 on the autobahn). So you're just plain wrong. Not to mention, many routes are much faster than a car; Frankfurt - Gottingen takes 1h40m on the ICE and 2h30m by car.

You can't look at the "in station" ticket prices, that's just ridiculous... have you looked at the price of airplane tickets if you buy them at the airport??