Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Project Envisions Modular Aircraft That Double as Train Cars

Posted by Unknown on from the fuselage-fell-from-plane dept.

cylonlover writes "Air travel today is a nightmare of long drives to crowded airports, long queues that move at a snail's pace, and long, boring waits in identical lobbies drinking overpriced coffee. It would be so much easier and less frustrating if catching a plane were like catching a train. If Switzerland's École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has its way, its Clip-Air project will one day produce modular aircraft that will allow you to board a plane at a London railway station and disembark in the middle of Rome without ever setting foot in an air terminal."

25 of 146 comments (clear)

  1. Multi-mode is old news by Nexus7 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Truck to train has been going on for decades. A more feasible approach is to have buses that can be driven on to, or hooked up to trains. It wouldn't cover the kinds of distances planes can, but it would happen a lot sooner.

    Which comes first, the lithium-xxx battery that will last 7 days, or the plane-train?

    1. Re:Multi-mode is old news by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Truck to train works because the additional weight and complexity is less expensive than the step of unloading and reloading, or of the additional fuel and manpower to just leave it in a truck.

      I'm not sure the same economics hold for an airplane. This thing would need a reinforced mating surface on the bottom for train mode, one on the top for plane mode, and then hardware on the plane to accept the mount. That additional weight and complexity - not to mention design compromises that need to be made to accept the module - is going to make this plane more expensive to fly and maintain than a traditional plane. To be air-certified and maintained, the modules themselves will have to be considerably more expensive than normal rail cars.

      Even in a best-case scenario, where everyone headed to a specific destination lives along the same train line, I don't see this working out economically.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Multi-mode is old news by rioki · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I totally agree with you on that, at least for areas that have no body of water in the way, high speed trains is the way to go. Maglev is currently and may be never an economical option, the tracks are to expensive. In current designs the train is almost passive and the track contains all the coils and electricity. Which results in loots of expensive copper that is only used for a very short time. With conventional trains the track is relatively cheap, so expect more conventional high speed trains, maybe even in vacuum / low pressure tubes. The Swiss are actively researching such an option, since they need to build a tunnel for large parts of their network why not just build it a little deeper and longer and depressurize it. The train running through it will be running on conventional tracks, even in parts not covered by a vacuum tube.

      In addition the solution in the article / video over-engineers the problem. The places where you need a train/airplane cross over, just let the train "go right into the terminal" like any connecting flight. I probably will not have a direct connection anyway, so what is the big deal if I change plane to plane or train to plane. It also adds an additional problem, if I need to fly Berlin - Frankfurt - Huston - Austin, with the train solution I get the additional ride to the center of town instead of switching in the airport. Now if they would implement baggage check in for trains...

    3. Re:Multi-mode is old news by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you need confirmation, observe that a lot of cargo is moved by plane already and none of it is moved by a system like the one they're describing, even though it'd be far simpler than doing it with passengers. If the engineering and economics don't work for dead weight, what hope do they have at working for people?

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re:Multi-mode is old news by Migraineman · · Score: 2

      Go to a rail yard and watch how they handle the cars. I can't imagine that *any* aircraft component would survive such abuse.

      The idea-guys also gloss over the support infrastructure required to keep the meatbags comfy and, more importantly, alive. Does each pod have an APU and fuel such that it can supply electricity, power, environmental control, etc? How about toilets? Did we neglect those?

      Air and rail are not tremendously compatible modes of transportation.

    5. Re:Multi-mode is old news by robthebloke · · Score: 2

      This thing would need a reinforced mating surface on the bottom for train mode, one on the top for plane mode, and then hardware on the plane to accept the mount

      Or you could go for the low cost option, and simply form each passenger into the shape of a UPS parcel....

    6. Re:Multi-mode is old news by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Truck to train has been going on for decades. A more feasible approach is to have buses that can be driven on to, or hooked up to trains. It wouldn't cover the kinds of distances planes can, but it would happen a lot sooner.

      Which comes first, the lithium-xxx battery that will last 7 days, or the plane-train?

      In the vein of 'already old news', why are they taking on the additional hurdles involved in building the modularity into the plane(an area where weight, fuel economy, regulatory certification, etc. are especially stringent.

      Actually boarding an aircraft is pretty damn painless. Walk up the ramp, sit down. It's the rest of the airport that kind of blows, so why go after the aircraft?

      Even today, it's pretty common(at smaller, less capital-intensive, occassionally thatch-roofed) airports for the plane to show up, a stairs-on-wheels unit to be rolled over, and the passengers then walk, or get bussed, depending on the size of the tarmac, to the plane.

      If you wanted to adapt that to a larger airport, a small subway system(either connected to existing mass transit, or to one or more park-and-transfer locations) with pop-up exits to board planes when they arrive wouldn't be rocket surgery. It'd take a bunch of rebar and excavation equipement; but absolutely zero messing around with aircraft designs and all off-the-shelf engineering.

    7. Re:Multi-mode is old news by joe_frisch · · Score: 2

      Agreed. The requirements are completely different. For starters airliners need to be pressurized so the connections would be very complex and heavy. Aircraft efficiency depends strongly on weight - no airline would want to spend the extra fuel that this weight would require. No passenger would want to ride in a train with airline type seating.

      Just silly.

    8. Re:Multi-mode is old news by c · · Score: 2

      Even in a best-case scenario, where everyone headed to a specific destination lives along the same train line, I don't see this working out economically.

      Even if it could work economically, the scheduling would be a bitch.

      Trains don't really have a lot of flexibility in their schedules, particularly if they share the track with freight and whatnot. There's already a huge problem with people sitting around on tarmacs waiting for takeoff and that's just one mode of transportation. Mix in another mode with different constraints and I don't think it'll be pretty.

      In other words, airport terminals and train stations are probably still needed to act as a passenger buffer.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
  2. bad idea by intermodal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't want railway stations to have airport-level security.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    1. Re:bad idea by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's sad, because it's already on its way. It's just a matter of time before a government agent will be asking for "your papers" no matter how you travel in the US.

      http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/austin/tsa-does-surprise-check-at-lamar-amtrak

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  3. Bloody idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The queues are there for a reason: To create the impression of safety. How are you going to do that if anyone can plant something on the "plane" while it's waiting in a train station? If you go through with this plan, you won't make air travel more convenient, you'll inconvenience train travelers.

    1. Re:Bloody idiots by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2

      The queues are there for a reason: To create the impression of safety.

      That, and to give a shitload of people jobs selling useless so-called "duty-free" stuff and selling overpriced food while you're forced to wait.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:Bloody idiots by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      There's already airport-like security for the Chunnel; if the "special" line's platform is isolated, it doesn't affect other trains or users of the station.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  4. But but but but... by lxs · · Score: 4, Funny

    Without airport terminals where will the passengers take off their shoes, get anally probed and robbed of their cutlery and liquids? How will they lose their luggage?

    Somebody obviously hasn't thought this plan through!

  5. Re:just like on tv by JMJimmy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was thinking Thunderbirds #2 ship

  6. A bloody useless idea by captainpanic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What problem does this solve? Now you would just stand in line and wait in a terminal in the city center, instead of at the airport. Who cares. It's still gonna be a boring terminal. The traveltime to the airport is not reduced. The security and check in are not reduced. Flight time is not reduced. But you will get some additional technical checks that can only start after clicking this train onto that plane - which means I am there, waiting.

    This just adds more weight to the plane. Makes travel time longer. Also, it means I can stretch my legs even less, as I have to wait for half an hour after landing until I can get up.

  7. Really crappy aerodynamics by eman1961 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Boeing have spent billions on creating plastic airplanes to get more efficient travel. This thing would fly like a brick.

  8. Re:just like on tv by JMJimmy · · Score: 3, Informative

    citation - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec2i9sr6vRs&t=3m9s ;)

  9. fast trains by ssam · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Probably would be easier to just make faster trains.

  10. Cattle Cars by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or containerized freight. We've sunk about as low as we can.

    In the industry, they refer to passengers as SLF (self-loading freight).

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  11. Decentralization (more+smaller airports) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why not just have tons more airports, but smaller? Like one airport per 10,000 people. Fewer "mega" airports.

  12. My dream solution by goldcd · · Score: 2

    is that airline ninjas just sneak into your bedroom and anaesthetize you as you sleep. I can then be loaded into a person sized shipping container and be unpacked at the other end - I was always fascinated by those gigantic UPS sorting offices and hate every single f'in aspect of flying.

  13. why not just stay on the train? by Jerry+Atrick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We already have these things called trains in Europe. A lot of them on a lot of lines, some very, very fast. Last time I checked I could get to almost anywhere interesting in the EU with 2-4 changes (starting in the UK outside London soaks up 2 of them), often faster than the plane. Not sure what problem this solves this side of the pond.

    And who wants to be trapped in an aircraft seat for that length of time? Trains are a lot more comfortable, don't trap you in a cramped seat for the duration and those stops at stations can be fun. Especially continental stations with a decent bar, some of the trains also have decent bars ;)

    1. Re:why not just stay on the train? by Bearhouse · · Score: 2

      Except that the train is often slower and more expensive than the 'plane.
      (I travel a lot, and live in the land of the TGV - try travelling by train anywhere in France NOT via Paris; expensive and slow)