Talk:Vactrain

Cost/gain assumptions

Let's just assume.. (150e9(1+.04)^20)/(2*10*X*1000*365)=20

The above equation assumes the project would cost $150BN, a government loan with 4% interest, 20 years to pay back, trains leave 10 times a day 365 days a year, huge trains carry 1000 passengers and that trains would be running both NY to London and London to NY as there are two tracks.

The wholesale price of a ticket would then be $2251 each way. That is actually quite feasible for crossing the the Atlantic in less than an hour. What does a first class ticket run these days?

I've seen estimates between 80-150bn dollars. Just a little fun math. Enter the most believable numbers and see what you get!

It's pretty likely however that departures would be a lot more frequent. Why wait? With the right automation you could have departures every minute if you really wanted to. The distance between trains would still be roughly 6000km/h*1min=100km! Double the departures, half the ticket price.

I realize this is a very rough model which doesn't take upkeep into account. Compared to flying though, upkeep of a vactrain would be close to nill. Which is why airlines and existing magtain makers might lobby to the last breath to prevent this from happening.

The above formula with departures every 10 min results in a wholesale ticket cost of $157. Worth it?

In fact, if safety is a concern, you could start with cargo first. This would test automation technologies before human traffic is introduced. No emissions, no friction means overhead per pound would be negligible.

http://www.instablogs.com/outer_permalink.php?p=linknotes-the-transatlantic-maglev-vactrain-a-magnetically-levitated-vacuum-tube-train

So how do we make this happen? The numbers look good. Can it be done with private sector money?

What would it cost to extend this line to LA with stops in Chicago and a few other key cities? Maybe a few splinter lines. Do this instead of California High Speed Rail and Obama's rail initiatives.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.45.171 (talk) 06:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a few bad assumptions in this post. The first is ONLY 10X1000 passengers a day, the total number of passengers NY-London a day is far above that number. Since the majority of the cost is fixed irrespective of number of trains and it should be possible to run more than 10 trains an hour (and added freight mostly nighttime) the ticket cost will fall. The second is that distance is the important messaure for safety, it is braking distance + reaction time (block length usually in railways.) The third is that magnetic levitation takes less energy that steel wheel on steel rail. Magnetic levitation incurs two losses: 1-Eddy currents from the relative movement of the magnetic field. 2-Energy used to either make the magnetic field or to cool the superconducting magnets. steel wheel on steel rail have very low losses IF the rail and wheel is in good condition. I did a few comparisions when I found the total cost of the Cunnel between Dover and Calais joined to list price of airplanes without engines, cockpit, wings and tail and found out that with 10 000 000 million passenger equvalients the cost was about Ryanair cost for the same length. Considering that there are many routes with that total passenger load that would mean that over most Europe, cross Atlantic and other areas the vactube would be economic. Seniorsag (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Make it a political decision!

Yes, it is definitely possible both technically and financially. Why we can't just give jobs to all the unemployed people in Europe and especially those from the bankrupt PIIGS countries and let them build an European-wide metro system, rather than paying bail-out money to corrupt banks. That will do more for European unity than anything else - what a difference would it make to be able to travel say from London to Prague in 20 minutes. Countries had wars to solve economic depressions. We could have the vactrain to do the same trick!— Preceding unsigned comment added by ? (talk • contribs) 1 jan 2011

I don't believe that it is technically possible. A test run in 574 km/h showed that speeds above 500 km/h is not possible with today's technology (too much wear, brakes can't take this speed, safety problems, capacity problems etc). We can already fly London to Prague in 1 hour. Unemployment can't be solved by such projects, because trained and experienced workforce is needed. The "bankrupt" countries will be even more bankrupt if spending this.--BIL (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Mach Numbers in Vacuo?

Mach number is the ratio of velocity (either fluid flow, or of a body) to the speed of sound in the medium. This is meaningless if there is no medium through which sound waves can travel, and it is incorrect to express the speed of a vehicle travelling in a vacuum as a Mach number. Gordon Vigurs 16:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The speed of sound in a gas is dependent on the temperature, density and type of gas. Although the pipes will be close to a vacuum they will not be perfect (typically 0.1 to 0.00001 atmospheres). Also they will be predominantly small molecules such as helium (Due to gasses permeating through the casing). There will be a measurable speed of sound but it will be very different to speed in air at standard temperature and pressure. I guess use of Mach number in this case was for simple comparison to standard aircraft travel and not as a direct indication of actual speed compared to any sound waves in the medium. Jodysdad 21:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, but even more pedantic than I. Gordon Vigurs 18:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories?

"(Some researchers, however, such as Richard Sauder, John Rhodes, Bill Hamilton and TAL, have contended that a nation wide tube-shuttle network has been built by the U.S. military to assure Continuity Of Government [COG] operations during or after a major war on U.S. soil)." That's a pretty big claim to just drop in without any links to sources. 67.160.28.212 16:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

the sources are right there in the part you quoted. big difference between Wikipedia asserting a conspiracy (?) theory and Wikipedia asserting that four researchers asserting the same theory. 207.29.128.130 14:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right. Those guys have quite a high crackpot index if you do a little research about those names.217.227.161.172 06:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether you think they are crackpots or not. What is relevant is whether the statement is properly cited, which it isn't unless we can get some references to the source (such as an interview in which they said this, or a book or article in which they published these ideas). I think the statement is of dubious worth because of the lack of that. --81.1.93.31 (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there proof that the USSR built a secret subway in Moscow? If they could do it.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.45.171 (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Genesis II

The movie "Genesis II" and its sequel, "Planet Earth", produced by Gene Roddenberry, featured the "sub-shuttle". Although station sections of tunnels appeared to be pressurized, it could be that sections were pressurized around stations to allow an open platform. A pair of doors could operate on each side of a station, closing behind a train and opening in front and letting in air.

In the late 1970s/early 1980s, so the 1973 movie postulates, the first one has been completed across the United States, with a station at Carlsbad Caverns. When Dylan Hunt awakens in 2133, he discovers that before civilization broke down, a worldwide network had been completed. Unmade further sequels, for which scripts were written, includes one adventurous crossing of the Atlantic with parts of the tunnel partly submerged. My above comment about pressurizing sections runs into trouble when Dylan Hunt drives the sub-shuttle by himself from Terrania back to Pax (at Carlsbad) and has trouble stopping because he didn't start deceleration soon enough. GBC 05:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Logan's Run

Logan's Run (1976) doesn't feature any trains at all. It features podcars. The podcars travel in transparent tubes along part of their journey, but though the tubes could conceivably contain a vacuum, this is not indicated. I haven't read the book, so maybe vactrains are mentioned there?

Proposed merge of Vactrain and Very High Speed Transit

The two articles seem to be about the same subject. Vactrain seems to be the more general article so I propose what differing material from Very High Speed Transit contains should be integrated into the article here. —Ashanda (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems unanimous, as I say yes and nobody says no. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Vactrain is NOT a general term for "Very High Speed Transit" (VHST), the word "train" restricts the scope to a MUCH greater degree, and then "vac" restricts it further! If anything, "Evacuated Tube Transport" (ETT) (the trade name of a patented technology of et3.com Inc.) is a much broader term than "vactrain" (and narrower than VHST). VHST would include Super Sonic Transport (SST), and space travel, etc. VHST has earned about three times as many links (37,800)listed by Google as "vactrain" with 13,000 links; ETT has earned 23,200. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.245.224 (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Disclosure
A new Evacuated Tube Transport (ETT) page was created by me Daryl Oster, the inventor of ETT and the founder of the company et3.com Inc., and some bias must be assumed. Note that this new page was created mostly with cut and paste of the "Evacuated Tube Transport Technologies" section of vactrain that was removed on 16 July 2010. The section that was removed from vactrain was not created by me (or anyone i know), and it was not removed from vactrain by me (or anyone i know).

The earliest reference i am able to find for "vactrain" is in 2001, more than 90 years AFTER Goddard (whom vactrain is attributed to on the "vactrain" wiki page). None of the "vactrain" history references (such as Salter) use the word "vactrain", in fact Salter used the term "Planetran" and not the word "vactrain" as the name of the system he proposed at RAND. Note the many differences in the "early history" section of the new ETT page (compared with the "history" section on vactrain) are removal of the non-historical term "vactrain" as used out of context in the vactrain wiki page. Google only lists about 220 references to "vactrain" prior to 2005 (and none prior to 2001). Someone pointed out on the vactrain talk page that "Very High Speed Transit" is a more appropriate term than vactrain, as an expert on the topic, i agree with this assertion.

Vactrain is a competing technology of ETT, so i have refrained from editing the vactrain page because of the bias that could be perceived. The reason i created the new ETT page is due to the fact a search for "Evacuated Tube Transport" on Google points to the vactrain wiki page, and the ETT content has been removed from this page (by others i do not know, and for good reason).

I agree the prior reference to "Evacuated Tube Transport Technologies" on vactrain was not appropriate because "Evacuated Tube Transport Technologies" is not a train, and "Evacuated Tube Transport Technologies" is the trade name for the company i founded that owns the technology referred to as "Evacuated Tube Transport" or (ETT) the trade name for our patented technology. Also, the positioning of ETT under vactrain (a competing technology) was unfair as it could lead the uninformed to believe that ETT is a "vactrain" technology (it is not).

The many references cited for the prior ETT technologies section page are from verifiable, credible, neutral third parties, and not the et3 company website, or the majority of the 23,000+ links available from a Google search that link directly (or indirectly) to the source as et3.com Inc or me the founder. It is not my intent to use wiki to further the agenda of et3, or to edit this page in any way other than to keep the encyclopedic content established by other editors factual, neutral, and verifiable according to the Wikipedia guidelines. I hope someone will examine the word "vactrain", and see if any credible references exist to support the use of "vactrain" as a the heading for this important and encyclopedic content Daryl Oster (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

How expensive?

What's "prohibitively expensive"? More than 100 billion a year for 10 years? Can we get a proper estimate, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.11.4 (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Evacuated Tube Transport (et3)

This section is dubious. The only reference is to a company that olds a patent. Some google research showed no reliable sources discussing such claims, only amateur videos. It also seems to be promoted by guys specialized in promoting conspiracy theories.--Sum (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

SUM, Someone should teach you how to use Google! The company et3.com inc is an international consortium comprised of more than 75 individuals, corporations and institutions. Please provide a reference showing et3.com inc, (or any of the 75+ licensees) promoting conspiracy theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.245.224 (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Our summer friend got it only slightly wrong. It's not that there's any evidence that the alleged company is promoting conspiracies; the problem is a paucity of hard evidence that it is anything but a Web site. No reputable newspaper, television network, or other WP:RELIABLE or even WP:SECONDARY source confirms the count of owners or any of the more interesting claims, at least as far as my poor searching skills can find. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Jim, This should help cure your poor research skills, hopefully you can help cure my poot editing/html skills and teach me how to put these references onto a proper wiki page for "Evacuated Tube Transport (ETT)" (a tm of et3.com Inc. .

BTW, i realize it is difficult to look through 23,000 links on a google search for "evacuated tube transport" but just the fact that this google search has 10,000 more links than "vactrain" should give ANY researcher of the subject a clue that there is reason to fully investigate before calling ETT a hoax. you should have no trouble verifying the following links about ETT:

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/6999004.html http://www.maglev.net/news/maglev-trains-%E2%80%93-future-of-transportation/ www.wipo.int/edocs/pctdocs/en/1999/pct_1999_16-section1.pdf http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=1999019195 www.patentoffice.nic.in/ipr/.../official_journal_24032006.pdf www.patentoffice.nic.in/.../patent/.../official_journal_24032006.pdf http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5950543.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5950543.html asclab.swjtu.edu.cn/Papersys/Papers%5C23.pdf asclab.swjtu.edu.cn/Papersys/Papers%5C39.pdf files.asme.org/Volunteer/Unit/18966.xls www.mrr.gov.pl/.../3_2_UG_Innovative_Perspective_of_T_L_printed.pdf trainsnotlanes.info/Documents/Presentation4.ppt ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/77/4277259/04277798.pdf?arnumber=4277798 http://remco.tk/handig/GPL_TLA_FAQ http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/58976/Shipping_Goes_Down_The_Tubes www.docstoc.com/.../ETT-PROPOSAL-FOR-FLORIDA-HIGH-SPEED-GROUND-TRANSPORTATION http://carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin/dailyreport?PROJID=5&date=20100319 http://www.capsu.org/library/documents/0023.html http://macrocenter.rwu.edu/2004/conferencereport.htm http://www.antiqbook.com/books/bookinfo.phtml?nr=362310789&Language=en http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchResults?paratrk=&isbn=9787302088912&ltrec=t http://magnetbahnforum.de/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4853 http://copies.sinoshu.com/copy4201671/ http://magnetbahnforum.de/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=2721&sid=411ecfe7fcfe81b2bb8ff67e0d6a2e37 http://xsffdc.spaces.live.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs-ZxBq8clg Zeitgeist Addendum http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtfOAIfsLt8&feature=watch_response_rev http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92dK_yxaKvk&feature=watch_response www.ias.ac.in/currsci/aug252003/430.pdf http://www.postcarbon.org/blog-post/40944-the-peak-oil-crisis-the-next www.ias.ac.in/currsci/aug252003/431.pdf http://globeu.com/?p=6 http://globeu.com/?p=101

http://article.wn.com/view/2010/06/03/Reportlinker_Adds_Global_Sustainable_Energy_Investments_2010/

http://www.szlib.gov.cn/Search/searchdetail.jsp?v_tablearray=bibliosm&v_recno=464396&v_curtable=bibliosm&site=

http://www.cnyoutube.com/video/03kVU2FYl6U/Evacuated-Tube-Transportation-Technology-ET3-Extended-Version.html

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?reload=true&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F77%2F4277259%2F04277798.pdf%3Farnumber%3D4277798&authDecision=-203

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Australia http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/33782892?selectedversion=NBD42952158 http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/high_speed/index.aspx "The East Coast Very High Speed Train Scoping Study Phase 1 - Preliminary Study Final Report" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.245.224 (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the material has been moved to new article Evacuated Tube Transport (ETT) by User_talk:Daryl_Oster (ETT owner). I still haven't checked if the listed refs are reliable, but thanks Daryl for proving them.Sum (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

To set the record a little straighter -- SUM, i do not "own ETT", just a significant number of shares in the company that does. BTW, did you mean to say "providing" instead of "proving"? I hope more editors learn it's better policy to take careful aim BEFORE pulling the trigger. Daryl Oster (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A video of Daryl Oster talking ETT http://www.ideacityonline.com/talks/daryl-oster-talk/ Wwwhatsup (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge

I support the merge, but in reverse. Merge Vactrain into Evacuated Tube Transport. Vactrain is just a made-up word with the same meaning. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. bobrayner (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No. This article is more general, and has the history apparently correct. The other article makes it look like it was suddenly invented in 2003, and reads like an advertisement.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 18:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Either it should be merged here, or the ETT article should be deleted or the ETT should at least refer to this one as the prior idea.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 18:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, we can fix the content issues. I agree that the content of ETT is incomplete and has style issues; the final product should definitely include all of the context provided in Vactrain. But it seems clear that the two articles are on the same subject, and "Evacuated tube transport" strikes me as the clearer title. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, maybe. I mainly read the introduction of 'evacuated tube transport' and started throwing up in my mouth. I've never read anything worse in the Wikipedia, and the article was started 5 years later than vactrain, doesn't refer to it (my impression was it studiously avoided mentioning it) and was written by someone with a conflict of interest. At this point I start reaching for the flame thrower.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 19:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The later bits are better, but I think under the circumstances I'd prefer to cherry pick bits from evacuated tube transport and merge them here.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 19:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm also not sure whether the 'evactuated tube transport' is a commercial term, if so it might be a bad idea to use it.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 19:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm setting up a page User:MakeBelieveMonster/Evacuated tube transport where we can draft what the merged article would look like. Once people agree on the content there, we can put it up as the new version. Let's keep debating the name here... you're right that ETT is used as the name of a particular patent as well as a general conceptual term. I think the article needs to be on the general concept, and just mention the patent (that could even have its own article). Google hits: ETT gets 24,400 and Vactrain gets 15,800. Looking at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, Vactrain seems to be lacking in the area of recognizability... MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that that's the primary topic. The primary topic seems to be vactrain if anything is. 'evacuated tube transport' is the trademark of one particular type of vactrain. Googling it doesn't show much difference in hits, but one is definitely a specific type, and the other seems to be, presumably, more general. But whatever the general one is, it's not 'Evacuated Tube Transport'. (note the capitals!)- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 22:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've been unable to find any reliable sources for Evacuated Tube Transport at all. Patents aren't reliable, anyone can say anything in a patent; they don't even have to work, they just have to be novel.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 22:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, I would propose an article on Evacuated tube transport rather than Evacuated Tube Transport. NOT about some specific brand name or patent. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

At the same time, if Vactrain really is the more commonly used term then that should be the final title. Either way is fine. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be too confusing to use 'evacuated tube transport' and I'm not even sure that the wiki software can handle that. But I'm not that hung up on the vactrain title, but it's presumably the best we have really; unless you can find an even better one (obviously!)- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 01:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, how about Vacuum train? I know Wikipedia tries to avoid neologisms where possible, and presumably that's what Vac-train is short for. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Vactrain has been around since the 60s so it seems to be a good term for it, and not a neologism. Vacuum train may be confusing with pneumatic tube stuff.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 20:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've visited the "hyperloop" and found what looked like a purely promotional narrative of weasel-words, desperately attempting to distinguish itself from a "vactrain." Whatever people like to name what is literally "evacuated tube transport," it would definitely serve this subject well if there was a wikipedia article with some integrity. This looks like the best starting place, but somebody ought to provide a single general definition (what is already apparent in the title, I would think). At the moment, there is a large amount of marketing energy attempting to belittle and limit every chosen term so as to distinguish itself (example: who cares whether or not the chinese study in this article included the term "vactrain" -- is this a brand name or a physical technology?). So I definitely support somebody starting a page on the general physical technology, so as to allow credible editing that can hopefully shoo away all the dodgy marketing types. Wikibearwithme (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Rolling Vacuum

A rolling vacuum of air being pumped rapidly from the front of the train and blown along the body for elevation and behind the body for propulsion. The pump houses have a short burst of activity as the shuttle comes within range which is met by local charging facilities to avoid the surge on the grid. This allows multiple shuttles to share the same tunnel without reducing the vacuum for other shuttles, but is slow and noisy near the pump-houses. Tunnels can be travelled by self-propelled suck-blow cars (eg. for maintenance), as well as the regular shuttles that have no propulsion of their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everweb (talk • contribs) 04:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Conventional trains in evacuated tunnels

Have there been any studies carried out in the possible use of conventional trains in evacuated tunnels? Obviously a diesel engine would not work but is there any technical reason why an electric train with, say, a third-rail pick-up (and sealed passenger compartments) should not run in a vacuum? It would eliminate drag and external fire risk. The tunnel portals would be a challenge, allowing a train at speed passes to enter from the open air without losing the vacuum.

The idea would be relevant to the article if there have been any citable studies / proposals. Hogweard (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Friction between wheel and rail wouldn't go away in an evacuated tunnel, and that would limit the top speeds of rolling stock before air resistance enters the equation. Besides, if you're going to go through the expense of boring tunnels and evacuating them, you're not going to then try to cut costs by laying conventional rail. The increase in speed, if there even is one, wouldn't justify the initial investment, and whatever you save on fuel/electricity, you'll have to spend a lot on maintenance for those rails that are being torn up by high-speed trains. There's nothing stopping a conventional electric locomotive from operating, but there would be no point. 108.34.151.191 (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a fair analysis. Thank you. I was thinking of existing long tunnels like the Channel Tunnel or the Gotthard Base Tunnel, so the trains would be on rails anyway, but if the main drag is wheel friction then the increase in efficiency from the evacuated tunnel is less than spectacular. The effect on the rails is another matter, depending on how fast the trains are run, but presumably the operators would want to take all advantage by increasing the speed. Hogweard (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I know this discussion is dead, but..

Trains have two drag components (air, friction), that is true. But additionally they experience more engineering related problems. Problems stemming from operations: "Would the increase in speed be meaningful" and track safety, i will ignore. Traditional train wheels oscillate slightly. Called Hunting oscillation. This sets a hard limit on train speed. This causes how the "same" train will operate at different speeds. Higher speeds require tighter tolerances and more frequent maintenance. maglev just skips all that. With regard to upgrading existing tunnels the TU Munic recently started its Hyperloop initiative where they investigate construction of airtight concrete tubes and other operational tasks and the EU did some research and states that maglev may/should be upgrade compatible(lost the slides). But upgrading existing tunnels i find impossible, as the loading gauge is already very tight and few additions would be possible. BikingFish (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Hogweard, I thought about this too (upgrading of existing train tunnels like channel tunnel). While the rail friction issue indeed limits speed first (before air resistance), I think that in some situations (certain train trajectories) would certainly benefit from this, and costs of strengthening the rail itself "might" be a lesser issue (depending on what train you use, i.e. some trains like the shinkansen are already maglev but not vactrains, and perhaps some trajectories pass through tunnels too; if maglev then friction is already negligable and won't be increased much, so rail strengthening might not be needed). Simply adding an additional lock and suction mechanism could then be a minor cost, compared to the benefit of the reduced travel time (could make airlines over the same trajectory perhaps a bit less competitive, depending on how long that vacuumed tunnel is.

Probably overlooked is the waiting time of trains vs airlines, i.e. with (maglev) vactrains and especially with shorter trajectories, the difference in speed of vactrains compared to airlines may be negligable when you take those waiting times into account (train waiting times are much lower vs airlines). Could be useful to make some sort of wiki article describing this, and perhaps allow for a simple approximate calculation/comparison based on that. Are there any ticketing mechanisms etc that reduce the needed time you need to calculate in (i.e. in airports, you need to be there some 2 hours or so before departure).

--Genetics4good (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vactrain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110927014656/http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/engineering/transatlantictunnel/interactive/interactive.html to http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/engineering/transatlantictunnel/interactive/interactive.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)