Talk:Vactrain

message: 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)
thread_title: Cost/gain assumptions 

message: 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)
thread_title: Make it a political decision!

message: 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)
replies: text: You are correct, but even more pedantic than I.  Gordon Vigurs 18:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mach Numbers in Vacuo?

message: "(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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Conspiracy theories?

message: 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)
thread_title: Genesis II

message: 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)
replies: text: Seems unanimous, as I say yes and nobody says no.  Jim.henderson (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of Vactrain and Very High Speed Transit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  How expensive? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: A video of Daryl Oster talking ETT http://www.ideacityonline.com/talks/daryl-oster-talk/ Wwwhatsup (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evacuated Tube Transport (et3) 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rolling Vacuum 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Vactrain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified