6 ms·

We already have trains, you know.

iagovar 5y ago
Trains take a lot more time, even HSR. I'm going to Madrid in the near future and I don't think I'll take a train, it's at least 6+ hours, and most of it is HSR.
- Milner08 5y ago
  How long is the flight in comparison? And have you factored in the airport time into that? I was looking at taking the Eurostar from London to Amsterdam, and a friend was dismissing it as it took 4 hours where as the flight is ~45 mins. Except its not, the flight its self maybe 45 mins, but you have to get to heathrow (which is further away than St Pancreas) plus get there an hour early. Then we would have to deal with Schiphol and getting to the center of Amsterdam. To me the prospect of spending 4 hours sat down on the train and arriving directly in central Amsterdam, all the while with more space than a plane is much better than the prospect of 4 hours of that. Now obviously that's a very niche case, and for most people it doesn't make as much sense, but I think people get scared off by the long train times but ignore the extra time needed around the flight.
  - choeger 5y ago
    It also depends on train stations being accidentally close to where you depart/arrive. Most people don't live closer to a large train station then to an airport, I'd think.
    - gspr 5y ago
      Large train stations are far more common than large airports in Europe, so you got this the wrong way around.
      - choeger 5y ago
        How many of these train stations have been built after 1950? And what defines "large" in both cases?
        jeltz 5y ago
        The train station in my city has 80 million travellers per year compared to the airport which only has 27 million. And while I do not think many train stations have been built since the 1950s many have been expanded.
      - iagovar 5y ago
        ? I don't think so? Every large city has both a train station and a large airport.
        gspr 5y ago
        I don't know what you mean by "large" then. In the context of this discussion, I meant train stations served by high speed rail and airports with regularly scheduled commercial service. The former vastly outnumbers the latter in continental Europe.
        dividedbyzero 5y ago
        Definitely not in Germany. There are lots of medium to large cities without an airport, but every one has a large-ish train station with decent connections.
        kaba0 5y ago
        Due to the nature of the two, train stations are usually in the center of cities, while airports have to be quite outside. Also, in my experience there are usually more than one train station in larger cities but even smaller ones have them. While airports are only a few even at a country level.
    - Milner08 5y ago
      I dont think that's true at all. Train stations in Europe are far, far more common than Airports. You may have to change rather than a direct train, but chances are you can get around pretty easily.
  - iagovar 5y ago
    I don't know, but my city airport is small, so it's pretty much arriving and boarding. Now barajas is another history but I doub't ill be there for much more than 30 mins.
bertil 5y ago
Trains are great in many cases, but there’s some limit to tunnels and bridges: you can go from Stockholm to Berlin directly, but Stockholm to Helsinki is harder (that’s actually the destination that the plane is likely to cover); Manchester to Amsterdam is feasible by train in theory, but given the constraints around London and the Channel Tunnel, unlikely to loose its flight connection. Same for Aberdeen to Oslo. Many of those are over seas, so an ekranoplane would make sense, if you want to lower the energy output, but a tradition train won’t work for many cases.
- rjsw 5y ago
  Manchester to Amsterdam is further than the distance targeted by these first electric aircraft, getting between a runway and a gate at Schiphol is probably beyond their range too.
  - bertil 5y ago
    I feel like you could handle Manchester to Lowestoft by train, then fly over the water The Hague and finish on a train. Don’t get me started on the distances in Schipol: had too many race to catch tight connections at that airport…
- fogihujy 5y ago
  Helsinki - Stockholm has too many travellers for a 19-seater. :) Planes like this will most likely be used for routes from very small local airports to larger regional ones. I'd guess it's more likely to cover things like Rønne - Copenhagen, or Mariehamn - Helsinki.
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  I wanted to love ekranoplanes, but although they have greater lift for a given span, they don’t have superior lift to drag ratios, which is what limits efficiency.
  - bertil 5y ago
    You could imagine a propulsion or even a lift mechanism closer to what is used for a hydrofoil. Modern sails or kites could improve the propulsion and handle the drag better. I feel like we can make fast trains really worth it, but it makes the few connections I mentioned under-supported if you want to remain below a certain carbon footprint.
Robotbeat 5y ago
Every time someone points out how we “have trains already” it makes me think: It’ll take less time to have operational electric passenger flights than it would to build a new high speed rail route. Particularly in the US (Europe is admittedly much better than the US in that regard).

Trains take a lot more time, even HSR. I'm going to Madrid in the near future and I don't think I'll take a train, it's at least 6+ hours, and most of it is HSR.

Milner08 5y ago
How long is the flight in comparison? And have you factored in the airport time into that? I was looking at taking the Eurostar from London to Amsterdam, and a friend was dismissing it as it took 4 hours where as the flight is ~45 mins. Except its not, the flight its self maybe 45 mins, but you have to get to heathrow (which is further away than St Pancreas) plus get there an hour early. Then we would have to deal with Schiphol and getting to the center of Amsterdam. To me the prospect of spending 4 hours sat down on the train and arriving directly in central Amsterdam, all the while with more space than a plane is much better than the prospect of 4 hours of that. Now obviously that's a very niche case, and for most people it doesn't make as much sense, but I think people get scared off by the long train times but ignore the extra time needed around the flight.
- choeger 5y ago
  It also depends on train stations being accidentally close to where you depart/arrive. Most people don't live closer to a large train station then to an airport, I'd think.
  - gspr 5y ago
    Large train stations are far more common than large airports in Europe, so you got this the wrong way around.
    - choeger 5y ago
      How many of these train stations have been built after 1950? And what defines "large" in both cases?
      - jeltz 5y ago
        The train station in my city has 80 million travellers per year compared to the airport which only has 27 million. And while I do not think many train stations have been built since the 1950s many have been expanded.
    - iagovar 5y ago
      ? I don't think so? Every large city has both a train station and a large airport.
      - gspr 5y ago
        I don't know what you mean by "large" then. In the context of this discussion, I meant train stations served by high speed rail and airports with regularly scheduled commercial service. The former vastly outnumbers the latter in continental Europe.
      - dividedbyzero 5y ago
        Definitely not in Germany. There are lots of medium to large cities without an airport, but every one has a large-ish train station with decent connections.
      - kaba0 5y ago
        Due to the nature of the two, train stations are usually in the center of cities, while airports have to be quite outside. Also, in my experience there are usually more than one train station in larger cities but even smaller ones have them. While airports are only a few even at a country level.
  - Milner08 5y ago
    I dont think that's true at all. Train stations in Europe are far, far more common than Airports. You may have to change rather than a direct train, but chances are you can get around pretty easily.
- iagovar 5y ago
  I don't know, but my city airport is small, so it's pretty much arriving and boarding. Now barajas is another history but I doub't ill be there for much more than 30 mins.

bertil 5y ago

Trains are great in many cases, but there’s some limit to tunnels and bridges: you can go from Stockholm to Berlin directly, but Stockholm to Helsinki is harder (that’s actually the destination that the plane is likely to cover); Manchester to Amsterdam is feasible by train in theory, but given the constraints around London and the Channel Tunnel, unlikely to loose its flight connection. Same for Aberdeen to Oslo. Many of those are over seas, so an ekranoplane would make sense, if you want to lower the energy output, but a tradition train won’t work for many cases.

rjsw 5y ago
Manchester to Amsterdam is further than the distance targeted by these first electric aircraft, getting between a runway and a gate at Schiphol is probably beyond their range too.
- bertil 5y ago
  I feel like you could handle Manchester to Lowestoft by train, then fly over the water The Hague and finish on a train. Don’t get me started on the distances in Schipol: had too many race to catch tight connections at that airport…
fogihujy 5y ago
Helsinki - Stockholm has too many travellers for a 19-seater. :) Planes like this will most likely be used for routes from very small local airports to larger regional ones. I'd guess it's more likely to cover things like Rønne - Copenhagen, or Mariehamn - Helsinki.
Robotbeat 5y ago
I wanted to love ekranoplanes, but although they have greater lift for a given span, they don’t have superior lift to drag ratios, which is what limits efficiency.
- bertil 5y ago
  You could imagine a propulsion or even a lift mechanism closer to what is used for a hydrofoil. Modern sails or kites could improve the propulsion and handle the drag better. I feel like we can make fast trains really worth it, but it makes the few connections I mentioned under-supported if you want to remain below a certain carbon footprint.

Robotbeat 5y ago

Every time someone points out how we “have trains already” it makes me think: It’ll take less time to have operational electric passenger flights than it would to build a new high speed rail route. Particularly in the US (Europe is admittedly much better than the US in that regard).