Three Extreme High-Speed Rail Concepts for Las Vegas

The Tubular Rail concept is very cool (and would be a blast to watch pass by) but the skeptic in me worries that the train won't be stiff enough to keep its nose up. If I understand it correctly, the nose of the train has to maintain its exact height in order to "thread the needle" of the next ring. What's the tolerance for movement of the train's nose? What if it vibrates or flexes enough to be off the mark, and slams into the ring instead of passing through it?

Tubular Rail concept sounds like something a 3rd grader would come up with. The added cost to make those trains stiff enough to actually work like the concept would by far outway any perceived savings from not laying track. Those O rings spaced close enough to support the train will cost more than track. No way it's gonna be cheaper.

The car shuttle idea is a bit far-out and uneccessary. Just make a simple high speed train that can shuttle people comfortably and reliably. Better yet, just buy the french TGV and be done with it.

ugly looking train.
stick with proven design/technology like the shinkansen, tgv, ice, ktx, shanghai maglev.

how does this train turn? or would it just be a straight shot from LA to Vegas?

another cool idea but im almost positive we're not going to see any of these EVER. I'm for installing the aforesaid TGV or some other type of bullet or maglev trains that'll just take us places faster. Hopefully they'll be cheaper and environmentally friendly

That O-ring tec looks really cool! :)

Far-out is absolutely right!

Look, there already is proven technology being used in Japan and Europe with trains that travel upwards of 260 MPH. Why reinvent the wheel?

The Tubular Rail will take far too long to develop -- that's if it's even a viable concept! The rings would have to be much much closer than the painting shows. What if you have to stop the train, or a malfunction causes it to stop in the middle of nowhere? Will it sag? How do you then start it up again?

AVT SolaTrek does not solve the main motivation behind building the high speed rail -- energy efficiency and conservation. Why not just drive to the damned depot and load your car while the train is -- you know -- stopped? Use a special shuttle, which you have to drive to anyway, to accelerate and catch up with a moving train? Why bother? That idea is DOA.

The third idea actually is the only quasi-sensible one in the bunch. Most of the technology has already been developed. However, it may be a bit too ambitious.

Tubular rail is a crackpot idea for the following reasons:
1. A floating "ring" with a motor is placed every 100 feet. In 300 miles (one way) you would need 15,840 motors. How could this be considered economically viable?! Think of the maintenance!

2. The train is a single 400 foot car. In order for this to not fall apart it would have to be so rigid that riding in it would be painful to say the least. There is no way to engineer such a project like this that would reduce vibration enough to be tolerable.

3. Turning is a joke.

4. I looked at their website. It is content light no information on engineering, no proof or information that this project would be remotely viable. They do not even have a prototype.

5.The elevated rings would have to be built to such high tolerances that there is no way it could be cheaper than existing high speed rail.

I'd love to see a viable high-speed -- and I mean a la Japan, China, and Europe speeds -- railway network across the country.

Tickets might not be cheaper than for an airplane, but at distances up to 500-600 miles, by the time all the various time factors are calculated in, one can reach a destination up to that far away in just about the same time as flying, with truly high-speed trains.

Yes, it's expensive. Some costs can me mitigated or even eliminated by using existing right of way, for example. Though it's now canceled, the Trans-Texas Corridor could have used such an approach, as the plan called for it to link at least Dallas and Austin, then perhaps on to San Antonio to the south with a branch over to Houston.I-35 connect Dallas-Austin-San Antonio; other interstates link Austin to Houston and San Antonio to Houston. And interstate have rather expensive space, enough for a railway line, even two -- one on each side -- so trains could travel in opposite directions simultaneously without one having to pull over onto a siding and wait. As a Texan, I wish we had gone ahead with the idea, but it didn't work out. (Many Texans adore asphalt, so want road, roads, ever more damned roads -- that invariably fill up and experience traffic jams, even those 12-14 lanes wide! Hello, Dallas? Hello, Houston? And others.)

I also don't understand the per-mile costs. (I can say the same about roads, to be fair.) In fact, I'm deeply suspicious that the costs are vastly inflated, though I can't prove it. But if I'm right, there's no reason to tolerate it, if someone can come up with a smoking gun. (Preferably smoking after having been used to shoot the politicians and private cronies who got together in back rooms and cooked up the deal in the first place, I might add!!! :-) )

I guess we can just dream on, while the Japanese, Chinese, and Europeans glide away as fast as some airplanes. . . .

I'd love to see a viable high-speed -- and I mean a la Japan, China, and Europe speeds -- railway network across the country.

Tickets might not be cheaper than for an airplane, but at distances up to 500-600 miles, by the time all the various time factors are calculated in, one can reach a destination up to that far away in just about the same time as flying, with truly high-speed trains.

Yes, it's expensive. Some costs can me mitigated or even eliminated by using existing right of way, for example. Though it's now canceled, the Trans-Texas Corridor could have used such an approach, as the plan called for it to link at least Dallas and Austin, then perhaps on to San Antonio to the south with a branch over to Houston.I-35 connect Dallas-Austin-San Antonio; other interstates link Austin to Houston and San Antonio to Houston. And interstate have rather expensive space, enough for a railway line, even two -- one on each side -- so trains could travel in opposite directions simultaneously without one having to pull over onto a siding and wait. As a Texan, I wish we had gone ahead with the idea, but it didn't work out. (Many Texans adore asphalt, so want road, roads, ever more damned roads -- that invariably fill up and experience traffic jams, even those 12-14 lanes wide! Hello, Dallas? Hello, Houston? And others.)

I also don't understand the per-mile costs. (I can say the same about roads, to be fair.) In fact, I'm deeply suspicious that the costs are vastly inflated, though I can't prove it. But if I'm right, there's no reason to tolerate it, if someone can come up with a smoking gun.

I guess we can just dream on, while the Japanese, Chinese, and Europeans glide away as fast as some airplanes. . . .