Out with the old, in with the... older?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-11-2012, 04:09 AM
Out with the old, in with the... older?
Just thinking, as I usually do, and have been thinking about something for a while.
Currently domestic travel is dominated by flight. If you live in NY and you wanna go to LA, you're gonna fly.
Even in a small country like New Zealand if I wanna get from my current city to my parents home the quickest way is to fly (an hour and a half compared to 7hours via motorbike.).
Even the train is not very fast (about 5 or 6 hours).

However the huge draw back with flight is that is it expensive. Airplanes are very expensive to operate and costs are not coming down any time soon.
The problem also lays that there really is no alternative to jet power. It's either jet power or propeller and propeller is limited. And the problem with this is that jets are very very thirsty.

So, where does in with the old come in to all this?
Trains.
IMO, trains are the way of the future. Not just for passenger travel but more so for freight. I think we do not rely on trains enough. The reason I say this is because trains can in theory be entirely 100% green mode of transport WHILE traveling at very fast speeds (300mph+). They can 100% green in the sense that they are run on electricity which can be produced 100% from renewable sources.
Trains can also carry alot more cargo as well as a lot more passengers as aircraft.

Imagine this; High speed intercity train travel. 100% powered by renewable energy (geothermal, solar, hydro, whatever). No waiting times, no bag checks, no creepy guy waving his magic wand in your special areas.
You can have all the luxuries of flight, food, tv etc.. (though I don't think they provide that domestic, I dunno never flown domestic). More leg room, more comfortable seats.
Not only would it be a far cheaper mode of transport but also in some cases quicker.
It would be far less dependent on fuel prices (and if renewable energy, it wouldn't be dependent at all on any fossil fuel, aka no rising prices).

Trains are also, IMO, the answer to freight.
Currently, here anyway, the majority of goods are transported by truck (or lorry or whatever you people call them, 10-12 wheelers). This is hugely inefficient. Trucks consume a lot of diesel, are very pollutant, destroy the roads (seriously, they do a lot of damage to roads, thus why they pay road user charges) and get in everyone else's way (slowly traffic, causing congestion etc..).
Trains on the other hand are far more efficient (and that's diesel engines, let a lot electricity). They can pull very large amounts of goods and not only that but at a far quicker rate then trucks.

I don't really know where I'm going with this thread btw, just spouting thoughts.

What I'm saying needs to happen is this:
1) a far more efficient, renewable energy grid needs to be established.
Less reliance on coal/oil/etc.. and more reliance on hydro/geothermal/wind/solar. Fossil fuels should be supplementary to places that cannot facilitate renewable sources.
2) High speed passenger trains (electric, off this new renewable power grid) need to be rolled out for inter-city travel.
Flight, like fossil fuels to power, should be used more as a supplementary. So perhaps NY to LA would still and likely always will be best done via flight. But rail should primarily be the first option for passengers. The primary way to achieve this would be costs v time. So a flight might be say 5hours where as a train might be 7, but the train costs 1/10th the flight (rough example).
3) Inter-city freight should be done via train.
Trucks, again, used as more supplementary mode of transporting goods. Trucks would obviously still be key in getting goods from the depo to where ever they need to be, but that would be done in the city rather then from city to city.
And don't give me this "but the trainyards will get to crammed with goods", if cargo ships can carry and offload 5,000 containers, a train can carry and offload 30.

Plus, trains are awesome.

Opinions?

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2012, 05:19 AM
RE: Out with the old, in with the... older?
Congratulations, you are an idiot. We could have been doing this for a while now. Our economy is dependant on waste. Start running trains and you have a huge amount of truckers out of work. The people in power in many countries are oil men. They want to keep big oil around for many decades to come. To run a train carrying hundreds of people or many tons of cargo only takes one guy at the controls that makes the big bucks or better yet a computer. What would all the truckers and other hundreds of people it would put out of work do, wait tables aboard a train? You also say that security would be less invasive? I doubt that. What would happen if when getting close to a populated area a train traveling at 300 or more miles per hour has an explosive go off inside? If the explosion is large enough, it would send the train flying through the air at an amazing speed. It would be twisted wreckage for miles. Security would still be invasive, it would just take longer. Each jet only carries a few hundred people and are expensive, so many seats go empty. Try having a 1000 or more people on each train and every seat filled, because it is so much cheaper. Talk about a line that wouldn't move. Your idea is good, it is just not going to happen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2012, 07:55 AM
RE: Out with the old, in with the... older?
(19-11-2012 05:19 AM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  Congratulations, you are an idiot.


Was that necessary? Or do you just like acting like an ass? Shocking No matter how accurate your post may be, you devalued it with the first sentence. Now it just looks like abusive babble.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Dom's post
19-11-2012, 08:07 AM
RE: Out with the old, in with the... older?
That kind of efficiency, for some reason, tend not to be very profitable it seems. But you're right, we should use more trains.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2012, 08:25 AM
RE: Out with the old, in with the... older?
I cant disagree with what you are saying Muffs my man. The only reasons I cant see why this is happening right now is to set up an infrastructure like this would need huge amounts of investment..... something that people might not be willing to invest in because of the time it would take to build which may see them not getting a return on their money in their lifetime (possibly)

Without sounding to "conspirational" I think the Oil giants would lose money, in turn having an effect on the economy as this would drive up prices possibly. Of course on one hand this would just encourage people to use the trains more.... however a lot of people who rely on fuel at that time would go under.

I wouldnt mind the carbon taxing that we are gonna see in the next few decades if the billions that is paid actually goes into projects like this one and cleaning up the planet, but we can all but watch and wait to see where the money and resources go.

I think a lot of people dont like using public transport, in a world of convenience people much prefer driving themselves than having to spend a bit more of the day travelling.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2012, 05:08 PM
RE: Out with the old, in with the... older?
Potential lost jobs is the worst possible argument you could ever make against something. You are basically just demonizing innovation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Diablo666's post
19-11-2012, 05:47 PM
RE: Out with the old, in with the... older?
Quote:Congratulations, you are an idiot.

Coming from the stupidest person on these forums? Seriously, the 15year olds are a ton more knowledgeable then you.
Don't you have an empty building to patrol Birdman?

Quote:Start running trains and you have a huge amount of truckers out of work.

I'm not cranking out the efficiency story again.
Three times is enough, go read it in the other threads.

Quote:The people in power in many countries are oil men.

I'm not saying this realistically going to happen, I'm saying this is what needs to happen.

Quote:To run a train carrying hundreds of people or many tons of cargo only
takes one guy at the controls that makes the big bucks or better yet a
computer.

Trains require regular maintenance.
Trainyards hire a lot of workers.

Quote:What would all the truckers and other hundreds of people it would put out of work do

I really don't care what they do.

Quote:You also say that security would be less invasive? I doubt that. What
would happen if when getting close to a populated area a train traveling
at 300 or more miles per hour has an explosive go off inside? If the
explosion is large enough, it would send the train flying through the
air at an amazing speed. It would be twisted wreckage for miles.
Security would still be invasive, it would just take longer.

1) You can't drive a train into a building
and
2) You can't drive a train into a building.

Quote:Each jet only carries a few hundred people and are expensive, so many seats go empty.

Let me school you on how commercial aircraft operate.

Commercial aircraft are done on weight. Each aircraft can transport a certain tonnage. So when full of passengers that is a certain tonnage. They then fill up the cargo hold with things people pay to transport, dead bodies is a biggy (it costs more to transport a dead person then an alive person).
So if passenger numbers are low, they just fill the cargo hold up with more goods.
That aircraft could have zero passengers but it will still take off because the cargo hold is full.

Quote:Try having a 1000 or more people on each train and every seat filled,
because it is so much cheaper. Talk about a line that wouldn't move.

What, a waiting line to get on?

You know each car has like two doors right? Compared to a whole air crafts 2 doors.
aka, it's much much much quicker to board a train then an aircraft.
Trains can also move with standing up passengers so as soon as those doors close it can go.

Quote:That kind of efficiency, for some reason, tend not to be very profitable it seems.

yeah, today.
If it was our/your main mode of transporting people it would be more profitable because running costs are lower and you can transport more goods.

Quote:The only reasons I cant see why this is happening right now is to set up
an infrastructure like this would need huge amounts of investment.....

Infrastructure is also a wise investment by the government.

France is currently expanding their high speed rail network 3X!! it's current size. It'll branch out into I think 7? different countries.

It's not as bad investment as you might think. Plus all the rail network is already in place all that is required is the power line things.

Quote:something that people might not be willing to invest in because of the
time it would take to build which may see them not getting a return on
their money in their lifetime (possibly)

Yeah well, sometimes the people don't know what's best for them.

Quote:Without sounding to "conspirational" I think the Oil giants would lose
money, in turn having an effect on the economy as this would drive up
prices possibly.

I disagree.
Increase demand increases price.
So if we reduce demand...

Quote:I wouldnt mind the carbon taxing that we are gonna see in the next few
decades if the billions that is paid actually goes into projects like
this one and cleaning up the planet, but we can all but watch and wait
to see where the money and resources go.

Just to clarify (and not saying ill of your point), I couldn't give two flying shits about carbon emissions.
I only care about price.
Logic tells you that renewable resources are far far far cheaper ways to produce power then that based on fossil fuels simply because you don't need to buy sunlight or wind.
The reason it's so expensive now is because it's hardly used and so start-up costs are large.
The more it's used the quicker shit becomes cheap as chips.

Quote:I think a lot of people dont like using public transport, in a world of
convenience people much prefer driving themselves than having to spend a
bit more of the day travelling.

Trains are quicker then cars (inter-city anyway). With fuel they're also cheaper. They're also safer. They're more comfortable (ie: you can read rather then have to drive). You can get a meal while you travel (as opposed to having to pull over).
This is for inter-city/longer journeys, not around the city.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2012, 11:26 PM
RE: Out with the old, in with the... older?
(19-11-2012 07:55 AM)Dom Wrote:  
(19-11-2012 05:19 AM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  Congratulations, you are an idiot.


Was that necessary? Or do you just like acting like an ass? Shocking No matter how accurate your post may be, you devalued it with the first sentence. Now it just looks like abusive babble.


I had to do this. I have been called an idiot many times by muffs. I saw an oportunity and had to jump on it. I know the idea is good, it's just not going to happen. At least not as long as we have oil to burn.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2012, 01:09 AM
RE: Out with the old, in with the... older?
(21-11-2012 11:26 PM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  
(19-11-2012 07:55 AM)Dom Wrote:  Was that necessary? Or do you just like acting like an ass? Shocking No matter how accurate your post may be, you devalued it with the first sentence. Now it just looks like abusive babble.


I had to do this. I have been called an idiot many times by muffs. I saw an oportunity and had to jump on it. I know the idea is good, it's just not going to happen. At least not as long as we have oil to burn.
Thus the "IMO", aka In my opinion.

Also I will have you know that this is happening in France, China, Japan, other places in Europe and Asia.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2012, 01:18 AM
RE: Out with the old, in with the... older?
(22-11-2012 01:09 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(21-11-2012 11:26 PM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  I had to do this. I have been called an idiot many times by muffs. I saw an oportunity and had to jump on it. I know the idea is good, it's just not going to happen. At least not as long as we have oil to burn.

Thus the "IMO", aka In my opinion.

Also I will have you know that this is happening in France, China, Japan, other places in Europe and Asia.


I am well aware where it is happening. I just know that it won't happen in the U.S. unless it is forced on us.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: