Fuck Cars
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
view the rest of the comments
Were there any advantages over normal trains except cool factor?
Yes: speed. But if you weigh advantages against disadvantages (by far the largest being the need for completely new infrastructure), hover trains simply lost.
And not only in the UK, btw. Similar projects had been scrapped all over the world, for the same reasons.
I'm not sure about energy consumption; the video makes it sound like they used a lot of electricity but then I suspect normal high speed trains do as well.
I'm also unsure about the hovering being achieved by fans and not magnetic levitation. The video does not go deep enough there: was the former supposed to be supplanted by the latter, in time? I'm not an expert, but using strong fans to lift a 22t car off the tracks feels inferior to me, if magnets could achieve the same, probably consuming less energy and being less error prone.
According to the Wikipedia page the train did use ducted fans to hover. The big benefit there is the tracks are extraordinarily cheap, it's just some concrete poured into a rough shape.
True, maglev requires more specialised tracks. Still, a whole new infrastructure - instead they ended up building a train that can swing to better adapt to their sometimes Victorian tracks.
Taking the french Aérotrain advantages:
The trouble is you have to replace existing infrastructure which means as soon as you start ripping up old rail lines you can no longer run traditional trains so the level of service is actually going to go down not up. Hence why it was abandoned.
Any revolutionary train technology is going to have to work on the existing infrastructure, or it's not going to happen regardless of how revolutionary it might otherwise be.
Yea no i ddont think that a train with a turbine that uses kerosene is so great. With regeular trains you can recouparate while braking. Why would the aeotrain brake faster than a regular train?
You're talking about a 70's prototype, but that does not mean it would need a kerosene turbine if it was made nowadays. Actually, the Aérotrain S44 used a linear electric motor.
A train brakes by blocking the wheels on two relatively small rails, and the wheels can lose traction.
An aerotrain reverses its propulsion, using it as a brake. No slippage possible here.
It can also bite the rail, having a way bigger braking surface, as well as having an interface dedicated to braking directly on the rail instead of a brake on a wheel on a rail.
And in emergencies, you can even stop the suspension and let the aerotrain rest directly on the rail to brake. That's a bit brutal and causes damages (at least back in the 70's), but that stops the Aérotrain quite fast and is way better than derailing or hitting something.
Ok so first if all anlinear electric motor is really expensive all the things that you said that were good about the aérotrain then dont apply annymore.
The amount of thrust you have to generate to stop a decently sized train is huge, that kind of turbine would be super loud and blow tons of debris around. If you brake with biting the rail you will also have lots of wear.
I dont even get why you would need to brake that fast? With a vehicle that heavy you will never be able to brake so fast that you could stop if something happened a hundret meters in fro t of you. And even if you bite down on the rail to stop near instantly the kinetic energy of a few hundret tons moving at lets say 70km/h would just destroy the rail.
They allowed for >250km/h speeds. They were basically competing technology and were developed at the same time as modern high speed rail (and lost).
I imagine they'd have less wear and tear and would require less maitenence would they not? Potentially at least depending on how they hover.
Trains already don't require much maintenance, they're quite simple machines, which is one of their main benefits.
The magnet for them is easily damaged by weather and the bending in curves
Not really. Needs its own rails too so you can't use other trains on it or it on other tracks. Regular high speed trains are capable of going faster than UK speed limits anyway so really it would be better to upgrade the existing infrastructure to allow higher speeds if speed was a concern.
A high speed train can also go onto non high speed lines, just at a lower speed. The reverse is also possible although generally you want to avoid blocking up the line too much with slower trains.
Build HS2 and then start HS3-12. Tell NIMBYs to go fuck themselves.
https://youtu.be/3APay0wgYt0
Speed, at the cost of an incompatible and more expensive infrastructure, and even "regular" raillines are now can be upgraded to 300km/h.
Except here in the UK where everything is old and the only option is to spend more money than the entire EU continent wide rail linkup project (Twice over I think now?) on 30 miles of track.
I assume this is contingent on the existing line being fairly straight and direct? Where I live, the tracks are very meandering to navigate hills and valleys, and train staff told me the chance of an upgrade was basically zero.
Definitely impossible for most tracks. Possible for some, but at high costs. Germans have been upgrading some lines for decades now... The best (worst) example being the north-south towards Basel. For high speed the paths need to be further apart from eachother, there need to be better barriers between tracks and what's around them, the curves indeed need to be wider, the 'tilt' in the track in curves might need to be adjusted too... All of which leads to necessity of many new bridges and tunnels where this upgrading is impossible due to surroundings. It costs many millions of € per km and many decades to accomplish. The French on the other hand mainly went for "build new lines", it was clearly the better approach to get shit done fast (tho skipping many possible stops altogether on the new lines).
It's possible to upgrade a line like that, but it will involve a lot of cutting through hills or building bridges over valleys
Isn't that fundamentally just making a new line?
It could take the same route, just flattening out the hills and valleys.
If there are sharp corners that might not work, but even lower speed rail doesn't really like sharp corners. They can be mitigated up to a certain point with banked curves.
https://youtu.be/3APay0wgYt0
No