Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And why are we assuming that private industry doesn't want to waste money? Sure, it may want the actual manufacturing process to be as efficient as possible, but it wants tons of waste in the form of obscene salaries for CEOs, shareholder payouts, etc. And there's lots of incentive to screw over the customers if it means the shareholders and upper management get paid.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think you misunderstand me. I wasn’t suggesting we give tax payer money to high speed rail in the form of subsidies to whoever builds it. I am saying give it nothing at all.

My apologies, seems I didn't get your point.

Still, some stuff should be publicly funded and owned IMO. Our government recently had the bright idea of selling off a national power grid company, for example, and they did get some quick cash for it. The end result was ofc exactly what one would expect - nasty price hikes, partly to invest in ground cables instead of poles to be fair, but that work is often shoddily handled and profits are up. Profits that almost completely bypass taxation thanks to (completely legal) internal corporate group loans at exorbitant rates. It's obvious to anyone that taking a "loan" from your head office at 20% interest is a tax ploy since you could get a normal bank loan for a tenth or less of that in interest...

 Peregrine wrote:
And why are we assuming that private industry doesn't want to waste money? Sure, it may want the actual manufacturing process to be as efficient as possible, but it wants tons of waste in the form of obscene salaries for CEOs, shareholder payouts, etc. And there's lots of incentive to screw over the customers if it means the shareholders and upper management get paid.

From the point of view of everyone who isn't a shareholder of a private company, profit is a waste of money.

 Peregrine wrote:
And why are we assuming that private industry doesn't want to waste money? Sure, it may want the actual manufacturing process to be as efficient as possible, but it wants tons of waste in the form of obscene salaries for CEOs, shareholder payouts, etc. And there's lots of incentive to screw over the customers if it means the shareholders and upper management get paid.

If the money is coming from an unlimited government pot, the private company has no incentive to minimise costs. If a private company was footing the entire bill, it'd be a different matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:


I would rather a focus on good urban/suburban public transportation. I am not convinced a big part of long distance transit will decline over time due to technology.

I agree, localish transport needs to be viable first, otherwise no-one will be able to get to an inter-city hub.

It'd likely take a cultural shift before it becomes viable but it's happening now, slowly - younger generations are likely a lot happier about public transport than older - my parents would never dream of taking a bus and would rather pay 4x as much for a taxi. You need to do something to curb pollution, and driving as seriously non-productive, nor necessarily faster.
Case in point; I can drive or get a train to work (~40 miles each way). Driving is slightly cheaper but can take from 50-120 minutes and I need to pay attention. Train costs more but takes 50 minutes unless something goes wrong, and I can connect to the wifi and get work done. So the train gives me about 1.5 hours less in the office time than driving.

Automated cars aren't the answer - it's hugely inefficient having hundreds of tiny powertrains moving individual pods around a freeform landscape. When you could have a massive powertrain take hundreds of humans in the same vehicle on tracks and split off later. It's very chicken and egg though - you need the investment to get the interest, and the interest to get the investment.

I've travelled in Japan and the train system there is incredible, there's really no need to drive almost anywhere, but it involves huge investment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There's a similar thing in the UK, where a vast amount of money is being spent on the HST2 (High Speed Train 2) line from London to Birmingham.

I'm viewing it as a stepping stone though - you need to start somewhere, and with HS2 in place, we may eventually start on an HS3 and connect up to Glasgow. With no HS2 then HS3 can never happen.

We already have sleeper carriages which are pretty cool - get on board a train at 10pm in glasgow, sleep in a cramped wobbly cabin and wake up in the centre of London at 6:30am feeling rough. Do a days work/touristing and then head home the next night. It's a lot more convenient than flying, too.

You're right, however you are making the assumption that HST3 is worthwhile in the sense of being more beneficial to people and the economy overall, than the alternative of investing the same money in a lot more local schemes which provide benefits to local economies which link up to boost regional and national economies. E.g. a trans-Pennine line.

If HST3 isn't worthwhile, it undermines the case for HST2.

Actually the case for HST2 is already pretty weak, according to London School of Economics and lots of other people who ought to know.

It's a bit faster to fly from London to Glasgow than go by train. HST3 might make the train a bit faster than flying, depending where you start from. If I start from Oxford, where I am now, I can walk to Oxford Station and catch a train every two hours, which connects with a second train which goes on to Edinburgh with a total journey time of about 6 hours including the walk.

To catch a plane I need to go to Heathrow (an hour), get through security (an hour) then fliy for an hour, then get through arrivals and catch a train from the airport to the city centre. Total travel time about 4:30 to 5:00.

HST3 would improve the second part of my train journey by at least an hour, perhaps more. But it's not so slow as to be totally off-putting to me as it stands.

Oh, definitely HS3 would need to be worth it, and I'm not saying HS2 is the best spend of the money (I honestly doubt it), but we do need to keep up with infrastructure investment. Taking Japans bullet trains as reference, since it's about the same size as the UK, and we really should have something comparable.

The big selling point for trains is the security & baggage restrictions. If you can get it on the train you can take it with you - sandwiches, bikes and so on. For a comparable journey time I'd never take a plane if I could avoid it.

Herzlos wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There's a similar thing in the UK, where a vast amount of money is being spent on the HST2 (High Speed Train 2) line from London to Birmingham.

I'm viewing it as a stepping stone though - you need to start somewhere, and with HS2 in place, we may eventually start on an HS3 and connect up to Glasgow. With no HS2 then HS3 can never happen.

We already have sleeper carriages which are pretty cool - get on board a train at 10pm in glasgow, sleep in a cramped wobbly cabin and wake up in the centre of London at 6:30am feeling rough. Do a days work/touristing and then head home the next night. It's a lot more convenient than flying, too.

It'd be even more convenient if the original plan would have come through - Connecting London, Birmingham and Glasgow to the Eurostar line. Ah well, one can dream ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Eurostar

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think you misunderstand me. I wasn’t suggesting we give tax payer money to high speed rail in the form of subsidies to whoever builds it. I am saying give it nothing at all.

If private funding wants to do it go ahead.

Then we should treat the airlines the same way.

They may not be able to afford it without raising rates, though; the Fed alone spent $15 billion in 2017 (so this does not include state or local funding) to support airports, security, air traffic controllers, and etc. All the airlines in America only made $38 billion in profit combined...

Flying is the worst form of travel imo, noisy, can't get up and walk about, cant do anything, I honestly prefer trains

Herzlos wrote:
Oh, definitely HS3 would need to be worth it, and I'm not saying HS2 is the best spend of the money (I honestly doubt it), but we do need to keep up with infrastructure investment. Taking Japans bullet trains as reference, since it's about the same size as the UK, and we really should have something comparable.

The big selling point for trains is the security & baggage restrictions. If you can get it on the train you can take it with you - sandwiches, bikes and so on. For a comparable journey time I'd never take a plane if I could avoid it.

The Shinkansen makes sense partly because Japan's local rail network is extremely good.

Actually Japan is twice the land area of the UK, and it's in some sense a longer, thinner country. The bulk of the population is concentrated in large cities many of which front the Pacific coast. These factors mean a spinal HST line along the Pacific coast makes good sense.

This doesn't mean the UK couldn't use HST. I'm just worried that the UK's infrastructure spending is done not on the best grounds of efficiency and economic sense.

I dare say it didn't make economic sense for Brunel to put the first railway lines in either, but it must have paid off by now.

I'd rather we were spending the money on infrastructure which has some benefit than pointless projects like Trident or Brexit, but that's maybe a bit political.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Oh, definitely HS3 would need to be worth it, and I'm not saying HS2 is the best spend of the money (I honestly doubt it), but we do need to keep up with infrastructure investment. Taking Japans bullet trains as reference, since it's about the same size as the UK, and we really should have something comparable.

The big selling point for trains is the security & baggage restrictions. If you can get it on the train you can take it with you - sandwiches, bikes and so on. For a comparable journey time I'd never take a plane if I could avoid it.

The Shinkansen makes sense partly because Japan's local rail network is extremely good.

Actually Japan is twice the land area of the UK, and it's in some sense a longer, thinner country. The bulk of the population is concentrated in large cities many of which front the Pacific coast. These factors mean a spinal HST line along the Pacific coast makes good sense.

This doesn't mean the UK couldn't use HST. I'm just worried that the UK's infrastructure spending is done not on the best grounds of efficiency and economic sense.

When the Shinkansen lines were built, the rights of landowners in Japan were much less than they are in the UK - it was easier for the government to acquire the land, bulldoze neighbourhoods and run a train line through them. Notably, the construction of new lines decreased when public complaints about environmental disturbance increased.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:
I dare say it didn't make economic sense for Brunel to put the first railway lines in either, but it must have paid off by now.

I'd rather we were spending the money on infrastructure which has some benefit than pointless projects like Trident or Brexit, but that's maybe a bit political.

I don't think the subsidies for railways in the 18th and 19th centuries were anything like what they are now. Brunel's lines were all funded by private investors who absolutely expected a return on their money. They didn't always get one, right enough. Free market competition also resulted in quite significant waste, with different gauges being used and competing lines being built in parallel, and not allowing freight to be easily transferred from one line to another.

Herzlos wrote:
I dare say it didn't make economic sense for Brunel to put the first railway lines in either, but it must have paid off by now.

I'd rather we were spending the money on infrastructure which has some benefit than pointless projects like Trident or Brexit, but that's maybe a bit political.

Well, Trident especially is A strong argument could be made that Trident is more useful than the new naval ships we have built recently, for example.

I agree though, UK infrastructure investment is appalling. I still think HS-2 is the wrong way to do it, although the increased capacity angle someone mentioned a few days ago is a good point I had not considered before. However, we could've spent the funds on improving the rest of the network across the board (for example increasing the mainline speeds to 140mph from 125mph by improving the signalling, as was planned in the 90's prior to the privatisation of BR...).

Eh - we are probably talking about decades long multi billion dollar projects here. Lets get real. In 30 years - there is a good chance robots will be flying us around in flying cars. This debate is pointless. The future is flying cars....not trains.

What about...flying trains?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Eh - we are probably talking about decades long multi billion dollar projects here. Lets get real. In 30 years - there is a good chance robots will be flying us around in flying cars. This debate is pointless. The future is flying cars....not trains.

They said this 30 years ago.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Eh - we are probably talking about decades long multi billion dollar projects here. Lets get real. In 30 years - there is a good chance robots will be flying us around in flying cars. This debate is pointless. The future is flying cars....not trains.

They said this 30 years ago.

They barely knew what a computer was 30 years ago. We are experts with computers now. The tech is already there so it's only a mater of when it becomes efficient in cost. 30 years is a long time for this to develop. Just say it outloud in 30 years it's going to be 2050. 2050!

On the other hand, lots of people have put forth lots of really good arguments for why flying cars are an outright terrible idea. I doubt I'll see them in my lifetime. I think I'll be lucky to see self-driving vehicles, and those would pretty much be a prerequisite for flying cars being everywhere without the mortality rate going very up very fast.

 LordofHats wrote:
On the other hand, lots of people have put forth lots of really good arguments for why flying cars are an outright terrible idea. I doubt I'll see them in my lifetime. I think I'll be lucky to see self-driving vehicles, and those would pretty much be a prerequisite for flying cars being everywhere without the mortality rate going very up very fast.

Are you very old? Self driving cars are right around the cusp. Really they are already here. Standard issue within the decade. Flying cars will likely be integrated systems. As an integrated system mortality will be exceptionally low.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Eh - we are probably talking about decades long multi billion dollar projects here. Lets get real. In 30 years - there is a good chance robots will be flying us around in flying cars. This debate is pointless. The future is flying cars....not trains.

They said this 30 years ago.

They barely knew what a computer was 30 years ago. We are experts with computers now. The tech is already there so it's only a mater of when it becomes efficient in cost. 30 years is a long time for this to develop. Just say it outloud in 30 years it's going to be 2050. 2050!

The tech isn't there and over 30 years ago we were on the moon. I'm not seeing a point.

Plus, as mentioned earlier in this very thread, lots of personal vehicles is just not going to be suitably efficient and sustainable for the future. Especially not flying cars with their likely massive fuel requirements.

Even from a purely economic perspective, fuel is not getting cheaper and congestion is a big issue, and then there are the environmental and renewability considerations. Urban areas will need to increasingly rely on efficient mass-transit public transport, like subway systems, as populations increase in size.

There is definitely a role for autonomous vehicles, but I think in 30 years most city dwellers will be getting on the driveless bus or autonomous train rather than into their driverless car.

Personal flying vehicles just aren't going to be viable - it takes a lot of energy to get them up and keep them up, with disasterous consequences if they fail.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Eh - we are probably talking about decades long multi billion dollar projects here. Lets get real. In 30 years - there is a good chance robots will be flying us around in flying cars. This debate is pointless. The future is flying cars....not trains.

They said this 30 years ago.

They barely knew what a computer was 30 years ago. We are experts with computers now. The tech is already there so it's only a mater of when it becomes efficient in cost. 30 years is a long time for this to develop. Just say it outloud in 30 years it's going to be 2050. 2050!

The tech isn't there and over 30 years ago we were on the moon. I'm not seeing a point.

Bladerunner 2049....




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haighus wrote:
Plus, as mentioned earlier in this very thread, lots of personal vehicles is just not going to be suitably efficient and sustainable for the future. Especially not flying cars with their likely massive fuel requirements.

Even from a purely economic perspective, fuel is not getting cheaper and congestion is a big issue, and then there are the environmental and renewability considerations. Urban areas will need to increasingly rely on efficient mass-transit public transport, like subway systems, as populations increase in size.

There is definitely a role for autonomous vehicles, but I think in 30 years most city dwellers will be getting on the driveless bus or autonomous train rather than into their driverless car.

Fuel is getting cheaper though - Solar is getting cheaper everyday.

Flying cars are probably not going to happen until some unknown technology appears. But I agree that cross-county high speed rail is much less likely then autonomously driven low power electric vehicles, perhaps even rentable, winnebago like vehicles that allow you to travel in much more comfort than current air travel.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Are you very old? Self driving cars are right around the cusp. Really they are already here. Standard issue within the decade.

There's a difference between technically feasible and socially acceptable. I think I'll likely see self-driving vehicles fighting a long battle for acceptability, even after the technology is worked out.

Flying cars already exist, they're called helicopters.

They're maintenance and fuel hungry, noisy and can't land most places you'd like to. You have to fix ALL of these problems to make them common personal transportation.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Eh - we are probably talking about decades long multi billion dollar projects here. Lets get real. In 30 years - there is a good chance robots will be flying us around in flying cars. This debate is pointless. The future is flying cars....not trains.

Hackers, or the risk therof, might have something to say about that. If a hacker shuts off your engine on the highway you're stuck. If a hacker shuts off your engine at even 200 feet, you probably die.

You very well might die even on just a highway if a hacker takes control.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Eh - we are probably talking about decades long multi billion dollar projects here. Lets get real. In 30 years - there is a good chance robots will be flying us around in flying cars. This debate is pointless. The future is flying cars....not trains.

Hackers, or the risk therof, might have something to say about that. If a hacker shuts off your engine on the highway you're stuck. If a hacker shuts off your engine at even 200 feet, you probably die.

Conveniently missing out on lights, lightsignals, warnshields, car manipulation, etc.
Except you have especially in the car hacking part no one that can supervise your movement unlike with trains.

 John Prins wrote:
Flying cars already exist, they're called helicopters.

They're maintenance and fuel hungry, noisy and can't land most places you'd like to. You have to fix ALL of these problems to make them common personal transportation.

And that's before you factor in congestion - helicopters can't get that close to each other because of the turbulence, and you've then got to deal with traffic in 3 dimensions.

Automated helicopters doing bus-like runs is about the best you're likely to see unless you're mega rich.

Trains or cars are a much better way of moving almost anything.