Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Belvidere Jul 9 2010, 05:12 AM

I know that bullet trains now, are incredibly fast, but what would dumpshock's guess be at one's speed in 2072? How do you think they'd be driven? Riggers or Pilot programs? Would they have rigger adaptations? I'm planning my next mission around travel along the bullet train that stations in Tacoma at The Grand Royer Station and I'm wondering about alot of things. Like how long it would take before they gout out of the southern border of Seattle? Or, would jumping off of one be possible? (Doubting that, but you never know) Just trying to figure out things that may eventually come into play. Anyone have any ideas?

Posted by: Pepsi Jedi Jul 9 2010, 05:16 AM

Fast but probably not too much faster than the one's we have now. The one's we have now have plateu'd due to the ability of the thing to stop or take the turns with out flying off and crashing though a hill or neighborhood or something. Too much faster and the danger goes up. I mean if you're a person in the thing and it's going 1000 mph and suddenly rounds a corner, you're a splatter on the wall. Shadowrun doesn't have Star Treks Inturnal Dampeners.

Posted by: Belvidere Jul 9 2010, 05:40 AM

Haha, point made. I've never understood why they don't just incline turns to make them easier and less dangerous, similar to how nascar tracks do. I figure that would allow them to travel faster with less danger, but I'm no physicist

Posted by: Hand-E-Food Jul 9 2010, 06:06 AM

If you ever need to make an emergency stop on one of those corners, you don't want your train hanging sideways. Banked corners are good, but are only suitable for a small range of speeds. Also, instead of squishing your passengers into the walls, you squish them into the floor just as hard. The only way to travel faster, is to make the corners more gradual, which isn't necessarily an option with extensive urbanisation.

Posted by: kzt Jul 9 2010, 06:15 AM

No, but they have Movement. Which does essentially the same thing.

Posted by: CeeJay Jul 9 2010, 06:29 AM

Well, today's bullet trains in China travel at almost 320 kph (200 mph) on average which is the fastest trip speed in the world at the moment.

http://See%20here

And I think they could go even faster, but that really depends on track layout (no sharp turns and ideally no stops in between). And if this isn't fast enough for you, you could also consider using a maglev train. These can easily reach more than 400 kph.

-CJ

Posted by: Makki Jul 9 2010, 07:01 AM

you could add three spirit services: Movement, Guard and Guard (different Spirits, Redundancy!!!)

Posted by: Whipstitch Jul 9 2010, 07:07 AM

That's certainly part of it, but there's also the issue of conquering drag safely and efficiently. While maglevs are extremely efficient in general aircraft have the marked advantage of being able climb to high altitudes and thus face lower air pressure at cruise. That's part of why the ol' Blackbird could book so damn fast. As inefficient as getting off the ground may be, once you get up to 80,000 feet Newton's first law starts striking with a vengeance. As aerodynamic as maglevs are, they're still stuck at sea level or close to it.

Which brings us to a fancy concept that I seriously doubt will be in heavy rotation even in a magical 2070: Vactrains. Basically, take a train, but run that bad boy in a vacuum. Theoretically, we're talking about something stupidly fast and tremendously efficient, but such an application mostly makes sense for transcontinental distances or else you just run into that whole, you know, having to actually stop as soon as you've began issue. And building a sucker THAT big would make the chunnel cost overrun look like chump change. So maybe there's some kind of "small" proof of concept model, but nothing out-pacing the fastest aircraft.

Posted by: Belvidere Jul 9 2010, 07:08 AM

Thanks for all the help
I think I'm going to go with around 250mph. That seems reasonable for it to still have turns and technologies gotten better, but technology still can defeat physics.

Posted by: LivingOxymoron Jul 9 2010, 07:12 AM

Seattle 2072, pg 8



It's just over 800 miles by road between the two cities, so that's an average of about 400 mph/645 kph to make the trip. As the tube is sealed, you probably couldn't just "jump off". There are probably access "airlocks" at intervals for emergencies. The team could, theoretically, acquire the locations of the "airlocks", cause an emergency for which the train would have to stop, exit the train into the tube (taking precautions for the low air environment), and get outside before the appropriate law enforcement (most likely local military) arrives to investigate/resolve the emergency.

Posted by: Belvidere Jul 9 2010, 07:22 AM

Hmm... that changes the dynamics of the mission I had in plan by a very large amount. Haha Well back to the drawing boards.

Posted by: Whipstitch Jul 9 2010, 07:23 AM

Pfft, if it's a truly sealed tube I'm disappointed it takes a whole 2 hours. Must be those damned turns and piddly safety regulations.

Posted by: Falanin Jul 9 2010, 07:27 AM

Turns, I guess. Probably difficult to keep a total vacuum as well. At least with a full tube you can use magnetic repulsion around the whole circumference of the train.

Posted by: Pepsi Jedi Jul 9 2010, 08:03 AM

One thing that's been partially brought up here. While these things are kick ass in the straight aways, your 'turns' have to be huuuuge and gradual. Meaning you're dealing with very little right to left and almost totally straight lines.

And even with an average speed of 200... 250+ MPH... that's in the straight aways. The things are slowing down to 60.. 80 MPH in the long gradual turns then powering out of them and ziping along in the ( Relatively) Straight lines.

I imagine in 2072, it's just cheaper and easier to fly. As long as a dragon doesn't take offense and decide to eat your plane. (( and really if that's happening, the dragon could just as easily take offense and eat your train so it's kinda a non- issue. Though it would be funny as hell if you're team is pulling "The train job" From Firefly, only to have a dragon try and munch on the thing.))

Posted by: Traul Jul 9 2010, 11:52 AM

Still, the current speed records are slightly less than 600 kph (and there is little difference between maglevs and wheeled trains). That is twice as much as the used cruising speeds. I think most of the obstacles are logistical, not technical. At some point the limit to the acceleration becomes the passenger comfort, not the train. So in order to reach maximal speed the train should not stop. Then the line loses potential clients and becomes non viable. But it would make sense in the Shadowrun context to have trains link Seattle or Denver to the rest of the UCAS without stopping in NAN territory.


The Swiss have been pondering this for a while, and once again it seems that the obstacles are more political than technical. They cannot get the money together without asking the cantons to chip in, then every canton wants a stop, and so many stops just defeat the whole point.
http://www.swissmetro.ch/en

Posted by: Whipstitch Jul 9 2010, 12:24 PM

Yeah, that always slips my mind, which is kinda silly considering that human tolerances are a big part of why the military has an interest in unmanned aircraft.


Anyway, I think a lot of people would be amazed in general with just how many crazy things people could build if cost and politics weren't an issue. Unfortunately, a lot of really clever ideas would be really stupid to implement.

Posted by: Kren Cooper Jul 9 2010, 01:43 PM

I'd have to say the limiting factor would be the comfort of the passengers.

A rollercoaster would normally give a passenger intensities from -1 to about +5g, and a coaster ride might be 1-2 minutes long dependent on style. They can accelerate you to 60+ mph in fairly short track lengths, but we ride these things for thrills and excitement.

On a passenger train, you're not going to want to subject your passengers to any negative vertical g's, probably a max of 1g pulling away from stations rising to 2g on an acceleration area to get up to speed. This limits the acceleration forces you can use, and based on track length and curvature as many have posted above, will limit the practical top speed.

If you could get the optimum track layout - a straight platform with quick passenger loading, have all passengers seated before departure, accelerate smoothly out of the station on straight track, travel on a laser-like straight route to the destination, and then decelerate on the station approach into another straight line station, then you'd probably be able to raise your speed considerably using 2060-2070s technology.
Hyperslick lubricants, new alloys for constructions, plentiful power from fusion reactors, super fast signalling and the reactions of rigger drivers or high level pilots would make faster speeds practical.

On the other hand, if your train has to wend it's way around natural terrain, corporate enclaves, NAN burial grounds, 20th century rights of way, over mountain ranges and swamps, with constant variable bend curves, dips, climbs and the normal level of maintenance on public travel, your top speed is going to be much reduced. Joe Salaryman just won't want to take a train where he is subjected to apparent forces that make him feel twice as heavy for extended amounts of time. And as one of the posters above said, you want your two stations far apart to allow for an acceleration phase, a sustained high speed run, then a deceleration phase. If you're constantly stop-starting at local commuter stations or frequent city stops, you'll never reach your top speed.

If a train operator can get the best possible route from A to B, making straight line travel possible, then it would unlock access to much greater speeds. I'd have thought it would be possible in a few places in the 6th world, but these would be the exception and not the rule. Those routes would probably be between a few key sprawls/megaplexes, have taken years to construct or fund, and be high profile.

Shadowrun tastic material for a GM though... hiring runners to force out people on land wanted by the train company, sabotaging construction work on behalf of aviation companies or displaced land owners, working on either side on behalf of terra-first depending on their mood...

Posted by: TommyTwoToes Jul 9 2010, 01:53 PM

Going to steal this idea....

Posted by: TommyTwoToes Jul 9 2010, 06:26 PM

The other good thing about putting the trains in vac sealed tunnels is that the difficulty for placing physical barriers in front of the train goes up quite a bit. Nothing quite like 6 or 7 force 1 Physical barriers to force some control rolls off a pilot. And yes even the train can be forced to make control rolls under the right circumstances.

On another related topic, the maglev train in a sealed tunnel probably won't have the best matrix connection would it?

Posted by: Doc Byte Jul 9 2010, 07:10 PM

We have this great http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transrapid riding around in circles for decades and made just about nothing out of the tech.

Posted by: CeeJay Jul 9 2010, 07:28 PM

No, we payed the Chinese to build a track...

Posted by: Doc Byte Jul 9 2010, 07:34 PM

Know what's going to happen? They'll copy it and sell it back to us.

Posted by: MJBurrage Jul 9 2010, 08:41 PM

SanFrancisco–Seattle:

• http://www.travelmath.com/flight-distance/from/Seattle,+WA/to/San+Francisco,+CA
• http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&saddr=Seattle,+WA&daddr=San+Francisco,+CA&sll=49.557935,-118.269605&sspn=5.031684,14.677734&ie=UTF8&z=6&om=1

Call the sealed-tube maglev 1200 km for a nice round average of 600 kph.

However, compare 600 kph to:

•   430 kph – Bugatti Veyron Super Sport
•   580 kph – Current fastest maglev
•   900 kph – typical non-supersonic jet
• 1000 kph – speed of sound at typical cruising altitudes
• 1200 kph – speed of sound at sea level
• 4800 kph – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain

This makes 600 kph slow enough that I would speculate that the SanFrancisco–Seattle train actually travels faster, and that two hours includes the time for boarding, deboarding, and security—which makes it notably faster than air travel—and worth building.

Posted by: Draco18s Jul 9 2010, 09:05 PM

Keep in mind that the upper speed of the train depends on the distance between stops. Gotta speed up and slow down to hit the stations!

E.g. the San-Fran to Seattle train could not ever stop in Portland Oregon or it would be unable to maintain its 600+ kph top speed.

Posted by: sabs Jul 9 2010, 09:20 PM

It doesn't need to hit Portland. Portland is really close by, relatively speaking. A regular 200KPH train would do for getting to Portland.

Posted by: augmentin Jul 10 2010, 01:19 AM

If your team needs to sabotage it, might I suggest the old standby movement+accident? Or would civilian death on a massive scale be a bit too much?

Posted by: CanRay Jul 10 2010, 01:34 AM

I thought that was business as usual.

Posted by: Draco18s Jul 10 2010, 02:03 AM

Point was, a high speed train can only service very long distance trips, unlike regional rail, which services nearby locations, but is infeasible for serving distant locations.

And you can't use the same infrastructure for both.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Jul 10 2010, 10:05 PM

In RL, the Japanese have a test Maglev line that cracked 580KPH (361MPH) in 2003. Three years ago the French souped up one of their TGVs (a "conventional" railed train) and topped 570KPH (358MPH) only 10 KPH (3MPH) shy of the Japanese record.

In current service, the TGV routinely tops out at between 300 - 320KPH (186 - 199 MPH) depending on the route served and equipment used. On the Marselles - Paris line (which I plan to ride on during an upcoming visit to Europe) the TGV makes the run in three hours (including stops) averaging 250KPH (155MPH) over the length of the trip.

In comparison.

Here in the states (outside of the Northeast Corridor), that same length of trip with the same number of stops would take nine to ten hours as the average speed for Amtrak would be about 72KPH (45MPH) with a maximum of 127KPH (79MPH) in a few stretches. Even the Acela (the US's premiere high speed train) averages only a paltry 101KPH (63MPH) on its run from NYC to Boston.

Posted by: hermit Jul 10 2010, 10:11 PM

Why Americans are so attached to slow moving transport - those speed limits without any reason (since you build roads devoid of turns) and the neglected trains - is somehow beyond me. Is it the relative cheapness of inland flights? The country certainly is big enough for flight to be viable.

Posted by: CanRay Jul 10 2010, 10:22 PM

The Government being stupid along with big business having a lot of say in matters.

The main thing about trains is that cargo is worth a whole lot more than passengers when it comes to distances, especially for heavy and bulk loads.

I remember my Father (Who was a truck driver) complaining about a European company buying up... Western Star, I think it was. (A company that built Big Rig Trucks. Tractor-Trailers I'm talking about.). They closed down all the facilities that were in Towns and only kept open the ones in Cities. Too bad if you break down in Northern Ontario, one group described it as "A million miles of NOTHING! There are six people there, all of them named Frank. Even the Girl! She's very popular."

Posted by: hermit Jul 10 2010, 10:31 PM

I can imagine. Europeans have a hard time to deal with the distances Americans (which includes you, though being Canadian) consider normal. Hey, we can be arrogant jerks too.


I dunno, seems to work out fine in Europe, but then again the passenger traffic is probably heavily subsidised.

Posted by: kzt Jul 10 2010, 11:27 PM

No, the problem is that you can't aquire right-of-way in the US. It's endless legal cases.

Though we tried it the other way, where the train companies had a lot more power, and that didn't work out so well either.

Posted by: Dumori Jul 10 2010, 11:35 PM

A maglev in a vac would be the way to link underwater archaeologies. You all ready need air tight trains and tunnels and being able to go across the perficict in a few mins has huge advantages. Each line would likely need its own tunnel to alow for stops ect.

Posted by: hermit Jul 10 2010, 11:42 PM

Canonically, this links the larger cities in switzerland, underground. Don't know of any other canonic mentions, though.

Posted by: Dumori Jul 10 2010, 11:54 PM

Seattle and Denver was mentioned. Will be some form of vacuum though you know even dropping air presser from 760pa to 25pa will equal a huge top speed boost and that a very wussy vacuum.

Posted by: Stahlseele Jul 11 2010, 12:04 AM

Hmm, i guess in a vacuum, you can't use ground-effect right?
but get it to near vacuum, or like Dumori just said down to 25pa, then there's still some air in there . .
redesign trains and tunnels so the magnetic fields are on the sides allways at the same distance, keeping the train safely from the walls . .
once you have lift-off, you have taken away the drag from air, and the resistance of the wheels on the ground.
Now you are in a REAL rail-way-bullet-train!

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Jul 11 2010, 12:20 AM

...it goes back to post WWI. It was a complex situation however suffice to say the private automobile emerged as the backbone for US passenger transportation. All that "freedom to roam" & "wide open spaces" drek. The feds and states built the new interstate system that the cars drove on. Posted highway speeds increased, in some areas exceeding 80MPH and there was even interest towards heading towards a more autobahn styled system on long stretches with speeds in excess of 100MPH. Gas was cheap so efficiency didn't matter. Cars were inexpensive and fairly simple to work on. And the future promised turbines and even (yes, don't laugh) atomic power.

Next came the "Golden Age of jet travel" in the 60s (which was aided by both hidden and not so hidden subsidies). The Feds and local governments built the airports, the Feds maintained ATC and the airways, The feds determined what routes the airlines flew (which in and of itself was not really a bad thing as it lent itself to more linear routings instead of the inefficient hub & spoke system we endure today). They provided a trained pilot and mechanic workforce pool in the form of military vets, and even funded technological development (which ended with the demise of the US SST project in the 1970s). Flying became relatively inexpensive as larger planes with more efficient (albeit slightly so) engines took to the air with more seats to fill. Special fares for families, seniors, students and those who didn't mind travelling "space available" (the way I went a lot of times) brought what was once a mode of travel for the wealthy and businessman on the company's expense account to the masses (I am talking about the pre-deregulation days).

Meanwhile passenger rail travel languished. In some cases lines were running equipment that was three or more decades old on tracks that were being pounded into submission by increasingly longer and heavier freights. What was once the means of travel for movie stars, celebrity athletes, and the chic had become not much better than an intercity bus. On time performance (once a major selling point) slipped. The posh "Limiteds" and Long Distance trains became a mere shadow of what they once were. Finally the private railroads decided to opt out of passenger service altogether and sell everything (save for the track right of ways which the feds gave them back in the 1800s).

That is how Amtrak came to be. At first it was laughable, and many feel was deigned to fail so that the nation could quietly put it it to pasture like it did with the streetcars and interurban lines back in the 1940s, 50s & early 60s (the feds actually appointed an ex-airline administrator who had zero knowledge of rail travel to run the show). Since the tracks were owned by the freight lines (and actually leased from them for Amtrak by the government) freights now had priority over passenger trains. In some parts of Indiana and Ohio, once crack passenger trains such as the Broadway Limited that you could set your watch by, were relegated to poorly maintained tracks forced in some cases to travel at a walking pace. I remember a 60 minutes report where Mike Wallace actually pulled a spike out of a track with his bare hand shortly after a slow moving Amtrak train had passed, that was how bad it got.

Back then, "On time" pretty much meant you arrived before midnight on the same day the train was scheduled to pull into the station.

While over the years service has steadily improved, new equipment brought on line to replace the old, and the system has proved itself viable if not even popular (the Coast Starlight is a difficult train to get reservations on during the summer), it is still at the mercy of those wielding the budget axe every biennium in the name of paring down the pork fat (while of course touting their own porcine agendas)

However even these modest successes are not enough for the US government to embark on a real rail transportation plan for the nation. For one, the idea of "big government" is not well accepted here and is seen by some as socialistic (which in the eyes of the far right is the downhill road to communism). Better to have more cars, more fuel consumption per capita, more pollution, more traffic woes, and a more inefficient transportation network with all the associated fiscal, environmental, social, and political expenses.

Every day while I wait for my bus after work about 90% of the cars I see go by have but a single occupant (including those huge SUVs). At one point on the approach to one of the bridges we cross it is pretty much a standstill. Lots of fun on a 95° day with no air conditioning. Yet the local transit commission here is reducing bus service across the board (again) come this fall because of budget shortfalls (and mismanagement).

Ahh the freedom to sit in traffic jams, breathe exhaust fumes, pay high petrol prices, parking fees, maintenance bills (they may as well put a sticker on the bonnet that reads "No User Serviceable Parts"), and insurance premiums (mandatory in most states).

I'd love to see an American city adopt what London did as a means of reducing traffic in it's central district. But here, that would be grounds for riots because the car is sacred and driving, a "god given right".

Until we change this attitude we will continue to be mired in an overseas conflict we will never win, risk future blowouts like we are seeing in the gulf, and be forced to have to earn more and more (thus driving up costs further) just to feed that metallic and plastic stepchild out there in the garage.

This is why we don't have decent trains here (and the way things are going, decent transit altogether)

Apologies for getting on the soapabox.

Posted by: Draco18s Jul 11 2010, 12:21 AM

It would be a Rail (gun) Train.

Posted by: Stahlseele Jul 11 2010, 12:26 AM

Yeah, that was too unsubtle for me . .

Posted by: CanRay Jul 11 2010, 12:34 AM

Who else is thinking of a Shadowrun that involves a construction crew, and putting a new optional hole and a ramp for the train?

"Aim for Orbit and we'll see how close you can get."

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Jul 11 2010, 12:48 AM

...well the Deep Tube in London London Sorucebook is a pressurised sealed tube system that actually helps to propel the train.

The idea of Pneumatic tube trains is nothing new as the concept was first experimented with back in the 1870s. Robert Goddard proposed a magnetic/vacc train system in 1910, and in the 1970s a member of the Rand Corporation proposed a totally pneumatic transcontinental system.

Posted by: Megu Jul 11 2010, 02:18 AM

Well, this depends, obviously, on the level of urbanization. I had my players hit a high speed train on a run from Winnipeg to Minneapolis-St. Paul, and there really isn't all that much in between. And I figure the leg I mentioned offhandedly between Winnipeg and Churchill is even faster; flat Canadian plain for like five hundred miles. I can easily see a train topping four, five hundred miles an hour on the straightaways.

Posted by: hermit Jul 11 2010, 08:00 AM

Don't, it was very interesting to read.

Posted by: Doc Byte Jul 11 2010, 11:40 AM

The reason's safety. A few years ago we were on the way home from the Nord Con in Hamburg down the A1. After about 2h at 180, 190 km/h (it's a miracle how this old Renault Twingo was going that fast with 5 persons and luggage up to the roof) our driver completely lost his sense of speed. When we were heading for a baiting place he took the exit with about 100 km/h (Quote: "I'm feeling like I'm standing idle."), driving straight between the gas pumps at 50 km/h ('caus he was to fast for the turn towards the parking area) and finally was able to stop the car at the far end where the truck parking area's located.

Posted by: Stahlseele Jul 11 2010, 11:42 AM

*snickers* ^^
Goes to show again the quality of german engineering.
Streets and Cars that make leathal speeds seem like standing still!

Posted by: hermit Jul 11 2010, 12:03 PM

Sure, but that can a) be countered (looking at the speed meter, closing your eyes for a second if traffic is low, just generally being aware of this reset of speed perception at around 50 and around 200). Reducing maximum speed to 75 kph will not greatly increase safety - especially with people who drive recklessly to begin with. I know someone like that too. "Hey, uhm, you are aware here is a 30 zone because of the construction site?" "Yes, it's been here all month." The guy was going 75. Within city limits. Nothing happened, speed limit or not.

Lucky breaks at the gas station though. Y'all could as well just have exloded. Still, speed limits in America are very low, especially given that you always are alone on these roads and turns are so rare they may even show up in travel guides as local sights.

Posted by: MJBurrage Jul 11 2010, 01:37 PM

The unrestricted speed Autobahn is actually slightly safer than the American interstates.

Driver training and road quality are both more important to safety than speed.

P.S. – http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/innovtce.pdf, interestingly it notes that when speed limits are arbitrarily low (say like in the U.S.), than drivers tend to ignore them. When they are only low for good reason (traffic congestion, upcoming intersections, construction, etc.) then they are likely to be obeyed.

Other sources I have seen discus that since we are not required to keep right in the U.S., those that do exceed limits have to weave through traffic (which is reckless and dangerous).

In Europe (or at least Germany) drivers keep right unless passing, which means passing is always to the left of slower traffic, and therefor safer (no weaving through slower traffic).


P.P.S. Bugatti Veyron fun fact:
At its top speed, "the tyres will only last for about fifteen minutes, but it's okay because the fuel runs out in twelve minutes"
(James May, Top Gear) May is nicknamed "Captain Slow" for how he normally drives, but he has driven the Veyron at its top speed on a test track.

Posted by: BloodCarver Jul 11 2010, 04:23 PM

I don't know if this is where to post this so feel free to move it if needed. How does the freight rail companies fare in the SR realm? I am looking to try and take into account an Intermodal Transport Aspect(Shipping containers) and its use of the rail lines out of Seatlle; specifically as a runner team's possible access route out of the metroplex avoiding the usual border checkpoints, hassles, & etc...
I want to try a smuggling orientated run that the PCs must intercept a cargo/freight train for a shipment of goodies bound out of the sprawl toward another destination(East Coast = UCAS or CAS). PCs would intercept train out in the wilderness stretch. Maybe not as flashy as the Train Heist in FireFly series but more along the UnderSeige 2: Dark Territory ambush.
I was curious that there may still be older spurs off the mainlines that may be usuable for all kinds of mayheem. LOL. Anyone have feedback on what I have posted?
I was curious of the standard layout of a frieght/cargo train in SR: security, # of cars, etc...
Please help a newbie out.

Posted by: Daylen Jul 11 2010, 04:31 PM

Like any other mode of transportation the trains are fast enough to get the players where they are going just in time.

Posted by: AStarshipforAnts Jul 11 2010, 04:56 PM

A lot of us aren't, actually. If I could trade in my car for a reliable public transportation system, it would have already been done. The 4.5 hour drive from my university city to my hometown is mind-numbing, and that's not even that bad. As for the answer why our transportation system remains as it is, Kyoto Kid gives a great history. From what I understand, the following also contribute:

1. The fear-mongering media has everyone from the right side of things up through many of the moderates fearing all things socialist to the point of hilarity or depression--depending on your outlook. That includes functioning public transportation.

2. Most of our government officials in the House and Senate are in the pockets of lobbyists and/or only concerned with getting elected next term, not actually governing. They're looking to make oodles and oodles of dollars, regardless of what happens to the rest of the country. This also results in any bill getting tied up for about forever, or never even putting on the pretense of going through committees.

3. Out of sight, out of mind mentality. The lower working class and university students often rely on trains to get where they need to go, at least around my campus. But, we're a blind spot in reality, you know.

4. People are lazy. They also resist change with amazing stubbornness.

Posted by: AStarshipforAnts Jul 11 2010, 04:56 PM

Also this.

Posted by: Daylen Jul 11 2010, 06:40 PM

That's a bit of a skewed argument. Alot of people don't like public transit because they don't want to use it and don't want to pay for others to use it. With the main emphasis on paying for someone else to use it. I know I like driving my truck and have no desire to use public transit ever, heck I don't even like flying. About the only alternative I could go for is living in the Louisiana swamps and going everywhere by flatboat.

Posted by: EKBT81 Jul 11 2010, 07:14 PM

However, in heavily urbanized areas even the people not using public transit would somewhat benefit from it due to less congested roads and reduced pollution. If only the actual users were to pay for public transit, the non-users would enjoy a positive externality, i.e. getting a benefit without paying.

Of course, in more rural areas these benefits might be too small to merit the hassle of distributing the cost.

Posted by: Tzeentch Jul 11 2010, 08:09 PM

-- This is canonically addressed in Rigger 3 as well. See Rigger 3 , pp. 65-66 for a few notes on rail vehicles and trailers.

-- Multiply by 1.2 to get speed in kilometers per hour (0.75 for miles per hour).

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Jul 12 2010, 05:21 AM

...a good point.

If transit riders were required to cover the full cost, it would cease to exist because most who depend on it could not afford to ride it.

This was the reason that in the 1970s transit system management out of the hands of the the private operators. Fares were getting ridiculous while bus schedules were being reduced to maintain the bottom line.

The one misconception that many have about public transit is that federal funds pay for running the buses. They don't, and haven't since transit funding was changed during the Reagan administration. Today, Federal transit monies are only available for capital projects not daily operations. Operations are funded solely by various local taxes (usually those on business) and the farebox.

This is why, for example, the city of Portland OR where I live can open a new light rail line that ends at a shopping mall and build a new streetcar that goes to a museum while reducing basic bus service (that most commuters depend on) system-wide.

Posted by: MJBurrage Jul 12 2010, 05:35 AM

The list below is all of the long distance transports from Rigger 3 with a few real world items for comparison:
  120 kph – Locomotive, Express (Battery)
  126 kph – Locomotive, Express (Diesel)
  132 kph – Locomotive, Bulk (Diesel)
  150 kph – Zeppelin (Battery)
  300 kph – Zeppelin (Fuel Cell or Turboprop)
  324 kph – Locomotive, Bullet (Diesel)
  360 kph – Locomotive, Bullet (Fuel Cell or Jet)
  430 kph – Bugatti Veyron Super Sport
  580 kph – current fastest maglev
  600 kph – Airliner (Turboprop)
>600 kph – Seattle—SanFran maglev tube – based on a "two-hour" trip time
  900 kph – typical non-supersonic jet
1000 kph – speed of sound at typical cruising altitudes
1200 kph – Airliner (Jet) – since this is faster than sound it is probably a mistake in R3
1200 kph – speed of sound at sea level
1800 kph – Semiballistic (rocket-boosted) – seems way too slow, perhaps this is just the low-altitude speed
2400 kph – Suborbital (rocket-boosted) – seems way too slow, perhaps this is just the low-altitude speed
3840 kph – HSCT (jet) – almost Mach 4
4800 kph – hypothetical vactrains
6000 kph – Jet Fighter (Jet)

Posted by: Snow_Fox Jul 13 2010, 12:16 AM

since this has people htinking 'trains' I thought I should add in something I'd been thinking of for a while. odds are in North America at leasttrains would become a lot more popular for travel around the continent. right now long travel in North America is by plane because the US, Canada and Mexico are relatively friendly but with the break away of the NAN in the GGD then CAS, Aztlan invasion and the reshuffling of borders and various scuffles, the skies are a lot less friendly.

It might be that trains become rather more encouraged because among other things, they are easier to track than aircraft and so are less likely to result in an 'oops' when crossing over potentially hostile teritory- anyone here remember flight 007, I believe it was JAL or Korean Air, that was 'mistakenly' shot down by the soviets in 1983?

So travelling by train my be the new 'in.'