Project Envisions Modular Aircraft That Double as Train Cars 146
cylonlover writes "Air travel today is a nightmare of long drives to crowded airports, long queues that move at a snail's pace, and long, boring waits in identical lobbies drinking overpriced coffee. It would be so much easier and less frustrating if catching a plane were like catching a train. If Switzerland's École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has its way, its Clip-Air project will one day produce modular aircraft that will allow you to board a plane at a London railway station and disembark in the middle of Rome without ever setting foot in an air terminal."
bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want railway stations to have airport-level security.
A bloody useless idea (Score:5, Insightful)
What problem does this solve? Now you would just stand in line and wait in a terminal in the city center, instead of at the airport. Who cares. It's still gonna be a boring terminal. The traveltime to the airport is not reduced. The security and check in are not reduced. Flight time is not reduced. But you will get some additional technical checks that can only start after clicking this train onto that plane - which means I am there, waiting.
This just adds more weight to the plane. Makes travel time longer. Also, it means I can stretch my legs even less, as I have to wait for half an hour after landing until I can get up.
Really crappy aerodynamics (Score:4, Insightful)
fast trains (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably would be easier to just make faster trains.
Re:Multi-mode is old news (Score:5, Insightful)
Truck to train works because the additional weight and complexity is less expensive than the step of unloading and reloading, or of the additional fuel and manpower to just leave it in a truck.
I'm not sure the same economics hold for an airplane. This thing would need a reinforced mating surface on the bottom for train mode, one on the top for plane mode, and then hardware on the plane to accept the mount. That additional weight and complexity - not to mention design compromises that need to be made to accept the module - is going to make this plane more expensive to fly and maintain than a traditional plane. To be air-certified and maintained, the modules themselves will have to be considerably more expensive than normal rail cars.
Even in a best-case scenario, where everyone headed to a specific destination lives along the same train line, I don't see this working out economically.
Cattle Cars (Score:5, Insightful)
Or containerized freight. We've sunk about as low as we can.
In the industry, they refer to passengers as SLF (self-loading freight).
Re:Multi-mode is old news (Score:4, Insightful)
If you need confirmation, observe that a lot of cargo is moved by plane already and none of it is moved by a system like the one they're describing, even though it'd be far simpler than doing it with passengers. If the engineering and economics don't work for dead weight, what hope do they have at working for people?
Decentralization (more+smaller airports) (Score:2, Insightful)
Why not just have tons more airports, but smaller? Like one airport per 10,000 people. Fewer "mega" airports.
why not just stay on the train? (Score:5, Insightful)
We already have these things called trains in Europe. A lot of them on a lot of lines, some very, very fast. Last time I checked I could get to almost anywhere interesting in the EU with 2-4 changes (starting in the UK outside London soaks up 2 of them), often faster than the plane. Not sure what problem this solves this side of the pond.
And who wants to be trapped in an aircraft seat for that length of time? Trains are a lot more comfortable, don't trap you in a cramped seat for the duration and those stops at stations can be fun. Especially continental stations with a decent bar, some of the trains also have decent bars ;)