Rail lines on high TL worlds?

[MasterGwydion]

I am learning in this thread that every here just hates trains to the point of inventing stupid problems or trying to get into such minute details that no piece of equipment in Traveller can survive the scrutiny or thinking that a nationwide system of tracks and right-of-ways are somehow cheaper than just buying the train. I use modern number to educate you all and show you better, but you ignore it in favor of your biases. Same thing happened on here when I discussed UWPs and way to improve them.

If you didn't know about trains on Earth, you all would be trying to convince Me that trains on Earth would never exist. It amazes Me.

I don't know if it is gaslighting, trolling, or as some have said before they do not like the idea of finely and quickly manipulatable grav fields.

 

[Condottiere]

The problem, I suspect, is Vehicles.

Spacecraft design sequence may or may not be plausible, but it is somewhat comprehensive.

The issue with terrestrial vehicles is, that we tend to know what does and doesn't work, and whether motivation is magnetic levitation or gravity based, it is still subject to the experience we have with normal trains.

And economics.

It's quite possible that Traveller has flying trains, but that requires actually putting pen to paper, telling us about it, and explaining how it works.

If each flying carriage needs it's own navigation system and propulsion, why not just drone them, and send them to their destination, separately?

Will there be sea freight after technological level nine? Probably not.

Can you have a train without some form of physical guidance system? Probably not.

 

[agentwigggles]

This post confuses me a lot.

 

[Anstett]

I think that all will exist on the same world at the same time.

Light rail - arcologies and a need for covered transport from location to location on a regular schedule on the cheap
Trains on rail - Regular shipping from point A to point B to move large amounts of bulk cargo
Grav Vehicles - randomish point to point travel with a small number of passengers {at appropriate TL}
Grav Trains - point to point travel for cargo or passengers, hub and spoke style distribution {at appropriate TL}

And this does not take into account hydrology and those modes of transport

Then at higher TL with lots of resources what is effectively a non-Jump starship that takes cargo from any point on any planet in the system to another

 

[MasterGwydion]

The problem, I suspect, is Vehicles.

Spacecraft design sequence may or may not be plausible, but it is somewhat comprehensive.

The issue with terrestrial vehicles is, that we tend to know what does and doesn't work, and whether motivation is magnetic levitation or gravity based, it is still subject to the experience we have with normal trains.

And economics.

It's quite possible that Traveller has flying trains, but that requires actually putting pen to paper, telling us about it, and explaining how it works.

If each flying carriage needs it's own navigation system and propulsion, why not just drone them, and send them to their destination, separately?

Will there be sea freight after technological level nine? Probably not.

Can you have a train without some form of physical guidance system? Probably not.

I agree, the Vehicle Handbook is likely the problem.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I think that all will exist on the same world at the same time.

Light rail - arcologies and a need for covered transport from location to location on a regular schedule on the cheap

Arcolgies would use pods, moreso than light rail. pods can move in all three dimensions. A train cannot.

Trains on rail - Regular shipping from point A to point B to move large amounts of bulk cargo
Grav Vehicles - randomish point to point travel with a small number of passengers {at appropriate TL}
Grav Trains - point to point travel for cargo or passengers, hub and spoke style distribution {at appropriate TL}

hub and spoke? hub and spoke only makes sense if you need lots of infrastructure. Grav-trains do not.

And this does not take into account hydrology and those modes of transport

Then at higher TL with lots of resources what is effectively a non-Jump starship that takes cargo from any point on any planet in the system to another

I took hydrology into account. Grav-trains can run over water too.

 

[Condottiere]

Arcologies will likely have people movers.

Freight might be more complex.

Turbolifts which can move sideways, as well, would likely be magnetic or gravity based, within a tunnel infrastructure.

 

[Anstett]

hub and spoke? hub and spoke only makes sense if you need lots of infrastructure. Grav-trains do not.

For Grav Trains to make sense economically to run they need to go to population centers to pick up and deliver cargo/passengers. So similar to the hub and spoke system of current airplane routes.

I was taking hydrology into account also, boats for pleasure, large cargo vessels for shifting large amounts of goods, Grav for point to point special delivery type of things.

Arcolgies would use pods, moreso than light rail. pods can move in all three dimensions. A train cannot.

Inside of a large structure yes, but not from ... Miami to Hialeah for example. Light rail running every 10 minutes makes much more economic sense than Grav vehicles

 

[Condottiere]

Leisure and recreation vehicles might not be optimized for speed.

Energy dense batteries, fast recharging stations, presumably seventy five percent efficiency saving engines (three technological levels up).

Speaking of which, how much electronic safety and monitoring equipment are going to be mandated in ground vehicles, on the frontier?

 

[MasterGwydion]

For Grav Trains to make sense economically to run they need to go to population centers to pick up and deliver cargo/passengers. So similar to the hub and spoke system of current airplane routes.

I was taking hydrology into account also, boats for pleasure, large cargo vessels for shifting large amounts of goods, Grav for point to point special delivery type of things.

Inside of a large structure yes, but not from ... Miami to Hialeah for example. Light rail running every 10 minutes makes much more economic sense than Grav vehicles

I am guessing that if Arcologies are being used in S Florida, then Miami and Hialeah are in the same arcology. From Miami to say, Fort Worth, Florida, then sure.

 

[Arkathan]

I am learning in this thread that every here just hates trains to the point of inventing stupid problems or trying to get into such minute details that no piece of equipment in Traveller can survive the scrutiny or thinking that a nationwide system of tracks and right-of-ways are somehow cheaper than just buying the train. I use modern number to educate you all and show you better, but you ignore it in favor of your biases. Same thing happened on here when I discussed UWPs and way to improve them.

If you didn't know about trains on Earth, you all would be trying to convince Me that trains on Earth would never exist. It amazes Me.

I don't know if it is gaslighting, trolling, or as some have said before they do not like the idea of finely and quickly manipulatable grav fields.

People can read the same material and argue different things.
My takeaway from your (especially the earlier) responses is that any form of train OTHER than a sky train shouldn't exist. That just seemed to be the direction you were going.
Different situations require different solutions. A variety of mass transit and cargo solutions all serve to reduce congestion on main thoroughfares and sky lanes. We cannot act like Truman and turn every problem into a nail, because we just got an atomic hammer.
There are advantages to flying trains. There are disadvantages to flying trains (and a certain minor race that saw millions of cars, busses and homes fall from the sky in an instant might still have reservations about a potential high speed 17kton missile coming into populated areas).

So look at all sides. In a cheap fusion economy, would robotic fusion borers for freight tunnels be a better investment than sky trains, or does the craggy/frozen/marshy terrain of this other planet lend itself more to being traversed by your grav trains?
Does the planet have the funds for a large upfront investment that could save money in the long run, or does it need an incremental solution that results in a larger, but manageable maintenance payment in perpetuity?

 

[Arkathan]

hub and spoke? hub and spoke only makes sense if you need lots of infrastructure. Grav-trains do not.

Hub and spoke makes sense when you have multiple distant destinations that branch out in different directions.
Arrive at the hub, preferably a central destination for a good portion of your cargo/passengers, uncouple the cars going to the other destinations and float them over to the appropriate spoke, and then attach the engine to cars coming from the other spokes going back to its home (including sufficient empty cars for the calculated need on the next return trip). For a large circuit, you save time on getting goods and people back to your starting point with hub and spoke instead of a loop, taking each destination in sequence and dropping off/picking up new cars at each intermediate stop. You go only the twice the distance from one spoke to the hub as opposed to the circumference of the irregular polygon created by the various population/industry centers.

 

[MasterGwydion]

People can read the same material and argue different things.
My takeaway from your (especially the earlier) responses is that any form of train OTHER than a sky train shouldn't exist. That just seemed to be the direction you were going.
Different situations require different solutions. A variety of mass transit and cargo solutions all serve to reduce congestion on main thoroughfares and sky lanes. We cannot act like Truman and turn every problem into a nail, because we just got an atomic hammer.
There are advantages to flying trains. There are disadvantages to flying trains (and a certain minor race that saw millions of cars, busses and homes fall from the sky in an instant might still have reservations about a potential high speed 17kton missile coming into populated areas).

So look at all sides. In a cheap fusion economy, would robotic fusion borers for freight tunnels be a better investment than sky trains, or does the craggy/frozen/marshy terrain of this other planet lend itself more to being traversed by your grav trains?
Does the planet have the funds for a large upfront investment that could save money in the long run, or does it need an incremental solution that results in a larger, but manageable maintenance payment in perpetuity?

I am looking at it from a very simplistic viewpoint. This is true. My argument was that a system that did not require vast amounts of infrastructure is inherently more realistic than a system where 90% of the cost is in infrastructure. That is all.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Hub and spoke makes sense when you have multiple distant destinations that branch out in different directions.
Arrive at the hub, preferably a central destination for a good portion of your cargo/passengers, uncouple the cars going to the other destinations and float them over to the appropriate spoke, and then attach the engine to cars coming from the other spokes going back to its home (including sufficient empty cars for the calculated need on the next return trip). For a large circuit, you save time on getting goods and people back to your starting point with hub and spoke instead of a loop, taking each destination in sequence and dropping off/picking up new cars at each intermediate stop. You go only the twice the distance from one spoke to the hub as opposed to the circumference of the irregular polygon created by the various population/industry centers.

I was thinking of it more like how UPS and FedEx trucks do their deliveries. Load up the train with cars for the destination cities drop them off as you go and pick up the new ones. Each day the route is slightly different based on what needs to be shipping where. Today this train leaves from New York and does drop-offs and pick-ups in St. Louis, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Tuscon, Houston, Knoxville, and Charleston. The next day it goes out to different cities.

 

[agentwigggles]

All logistic companies use hub and spokes.
My USP hub is Bakersfield,Ca and I am at the spoke, of Mojave,Ca. If I get mail from Lancaster,Ca it often not always goes to Bakersfield,Ca first. (Well actually, it goes to Palmdale,Ca to Bakersfield,Ca then to Mojave,Ca)
Spoke to Hub, to Hub to Spoke
I also simply dont understand why Grav vehicles dont need infrastructure. They arent immutable objects.

 

[MasterGwydion]

All logistic companies use hub and spokes.
My USP hub is Bakersfield,Ca and I am at the spoke, of Mojave,Ca. If I get mail from Lancaster,Ca it often not always goes to Bakersfield,Ca first. (Well actually, it goes to Palmdale,Ca to Bakersfield,Ca then to Mojave,Ca)
Spoke to Hub, to Hub to Spoke
I also simply dont understand why Grav vehicles dont need infrastructure. They arent immutable objects.

What infrastructure do Grav-trains need? A Global control center such as a Starport Control Centre with a computer program that automates the whole thing? Easy, and with a global satellite system which should already exist, you have near instantaneous communication with each train's computer. The Control Centre could fly them as Drones if they really wanted to, but normally, they'd be controlled by an onboard autopilot. Loading and unloading facilites? They could be dropped off and picked up directly from the locations. The train "cars" are simple shells to make the 40' cargo containers. You could even use "grav semi trucks" minus their engines. Then you literally have a system that switches from long-distance to local in minutes. Semi truck flies to the train, automatically detaches from the trailer. The trailer automatically connects to the train. Some train cars detach and are hauled away by the Grav-semi trucks. One system that all takes place in the air. The only real, physical location that you'd need is a Maintenace Facility for the train's upkeep, and the Global Control Centre.

The semi-truck engines and the train engines are the same thing. The train engine is just bigger and faster. That is all.

We already do this with modern shipping on Earth. Since it is ground-based though, it takes a lot more infrastructure.

 

[agentwigggles]

Satelites arent physical and dont need anything to operate.
And yea I guess for YTU, Grav Trains are perfection.

 

[agentwigggles]

What I learned, and its taken longer then I am willing to admit, is that this isnt a give and take for MasterGwydion. And we're suppose to just accept whatever you post as distilled virture and the platonic ideal.
And with that framework, it a lot clearer why you think there is a concerted effort to undermine you. Why would anyone have a different take, if not measured organized effort. Hopefully, you'll leave a post to explain how that collusion works.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Satelites arent physical and dont need anything to operate.
And yea I guess for YTU, Grav Trains are perfection.

I meant that on high tech level worlds, as it states in the books, has a global satellite system. So, no, I didn't include it in the cost, because the rules say it is already there and therefore the cost is not born by only the transportation industry, but born by many groups all over the planet. I wouldn't figure it in unless We are trying to design the entire planetary infrastructure, which I am not. When I ask a question like this, it is a discussion. I make statements based on information. People refute My statements. I look at their statements and poke holes in it to find the answers yet still stay within the simplicity of Traveller. I not looking to run a simulation. Ideas have to be tested. Otherwise, what good are they? If the statements people make are ridiculous, like Condi's post about high-speed trains hitting animals on the ground when the discussion is about flying transportation, yeah, I will call it out. I try the best I can to back up things I say on here with book and page number for My statements. If not from a Traveller book, I have shown that I am more than willing to post the sources of My thoughts on the subject. That way they can be read so We are all talking about and responding to the same trains (hahahaha) of thought. I try and keep things simple, because that seems to be what works best in Traveller. So, I keep things simple. What is the cost of a grav-train versus a regular train? I have no need to go any deeper than cost of the grav-train and maintenance versus cost of the railroad train, track, and maintenance. That is all I was looking for on this thread. When people post things on here that I do not think are factually correct, I will research where they got the information, so I can actually give an intelligent reply. If it is something from a Traveller book, I will go read the sections that cover what is being discussed, which is why I usually try and cite book and page number so you guys can do the same. I posted some numbers earlier in this thread that I went a Googling to find, because the previous post cited some unsourced numbers that didn't look right to Me. So, I researched it and posted My own numbers. After that a different poster, asked for the source of My numbers, since they were so different from the other poster's number. I posted the links where I got the information, so you guys could vet the numbers I had. If you can not handle having your statements challenged. Don't post. Also, if you don't think My mind can be changed, ask Terry. He knows it can because he is one of the people who proved My viewpoint on Imperial Navy shipyards wrong. I still don't like the way it is done in Canon, but by Canon, he was right and I was not.

 

[Condottiere]

I've thought about transport networks based on Traveller technology for quite a while.

I tried designing equivalent dirtside vehicles, but came to the conclusion, based on cost alone, we'd end up with spacecraft carryalls. And by that, I mean Lean, not Villeneuve.

Can you have trailers airborne? However, since they don't have minds of their own, it's not herding cats, but dog walking.

One's doable, maybe two.

Once you have gravitational motors onboard, why would you just hover off the ground?

And if you do, going at speed, reaction time encountering a wandering cow, or a human kid, is not going to be great.

Maybe there's an app, for that, considering that the kid is likely looking at his smartphone screen, with earphones on.