Why Ultra-Efficient 4,000 mph Vacuum-Tube Trains Aren't Being Built 625
cylonlover writes "In the 1800s, when pneumatic tubes shot telegrams and small items all around buildings and sometimes small cities, the future of mass transit seemed clear: we'd be firing people around through these sealed tubes at high speeds. And it turns out we've got the technology to do that today – mag-lev rail lines remove all rolling friction from the energy equation for a train, and accelerating them through a vacuum tunnel can eliminate wind resistance to the point where it's theoretically possible to reach blistering speeds over 4,000 mph (6,437 km/h) using a fraction of the energy an airliner uses – and recapturing a lot of that energy upon deceleration. Ultra-fast, high efficiency ground transport is technologically within reach – so why isn't anybody building it? This article looks into some of the problems."
Re:Why? (Score:4, Funny)
vacuum trains?! (Score:5, Funny)
Vacuum-Tube Trains (Score:5, Funny)
They do have a warmer more 'natural' sound
Re:Ultra-efficient first post (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not half as think as you drunk I am.
Re:The only answer for the USA (Score:5, Funny)
It's the mile-low club.
Re:Related questions... (Score:4, Funny)
Two for Fido.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Funny)
And if man wasn't meant to have sex with sheep then God wouldn't have made them so damn sexy!
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The only answer for the USA (Score:5, Funny)
It's the mile-low club.
Technically its the "mile per second club".
MPH (Score:4, Funny)
"Miles per hobo".
Re:Simple (Score:5, Funny)
Have you ever heard of airlocks?
Re:Maybe because... (Score:4, Funny)
Mach 10 Train Arrives At Station, All Passengers Dead From Exposure To Vacuum
Re:Simple (Score:1, Funny)
"Outside of heavily subsidized metro area trains, I have not seen a train compete with the cost, let alone the time and convenience of driving alone."
I think Top Gear (completely unbiased) has proven time and time again that, up against all other forms of transportation, the car always wins.
Re:Maybe because... (Score:4, Funny)