Forum: Author Hangout

I did find some route maps from the mid-70s. I think they could go through Virgina, Kinsport and Nashville, then south to Huntsville.

Do you need that much detail? Is the trip important or only that they get there?

You didn't travel by buses directly. You'd go into Washington. Then, you'd get a bus to somewhere else big maybe Birmingham, but more likely Atlanta. Then Birmingham, then Huntsville.

Exactly.

Air, Rail, and Bus systems all used a hub system when moving people long distances. Those hubs simply varied, depending on the kind of travel being done.

In general, most of the surface ones can be seen by following the Interstate Freeway system today. In both Rail and Bus, most generally had long routes that followed the modern freeways North to South, East to West. And at the major cities would then have a "regional hub".

A trip might take 2-5 transfers, depending on how far removed it was from a hub. Most of these are obvious, Los Angeles, New York, Oakland, Birmingham. Los Angeles and Oakland in fact still have large regional bus hub buildings, resembling that of a small airport or large train station.

For Air, it largely settled on Atlanta and Chicago, but almost any airport is also a hub. I once messed with a friend who came to visit me in Alabama, and on the trip there had him layover in Dallas for an hour. Then on the return flight, put him in Cleveland for 6.

And as we were both fans of the John Candy movie "Delirious", you can imagine what he said he wanted to do once he called me when he got home.

The hub system works just fine for things like subways, where you seldom have to wait more than a few minutes for your next ride.

No, because that is not how the system would work.

This is not rocket science. In the US the rail network really only runs 4 main lines. 2 going North-South (East and West coasts), and 2 going East-West (North and South). Even in the peak, nobody took the rail from door to door.

They would take a bus or other way to the train terminal, then use that for the long distance trip. So to go from LA to NY, you only need to do a single transfer, either from Seattle, or Florida. So you only need to coordinate trains to meet at 4 different transfer points.

And depending on where you are going by plane, the same things can happen. I have had layovers many times of 12 hours, especially if my destination was from a smaller terminal. And I have lived near a terminal where there was only a single flight a day, that only went to a single location (we jokingly called the commuter airline that flew it TWA for "Teenie Weenie Airline").

But in 1973, there were more trains still operating, so the hub system worked even better. In the heyday it was no different than the hub systems of aircraft.

And I have seen such a hub with aircraft in operation myself in the past. When we flew home for R&R, our first stop was Kuwait. All flights from the ME went there. Then we got into one of either 2 aircraft, Atlanta or Houston which took us back to the states. Flights left Kuwait once a day.

Returns were the same way, Atlanta or Houston to Kuwait. Flights once a day. The only delay in that entire operation would be the return from Kuwait to wherever you were based at. Then you were the equivalent of being dropped off 200 miles from your home in an area with no trains at all, and relied on whatever happened to be flying to your base from Kuwait.

Myself, I flew in a C-130 on my final leg back. But I also knew people that flew C-5, C-17. One lucky SOB even flew on a C-32. There are 4 of them, commonly known as "Air Force 2", as it is a custom modified 757 primarily used for transporting the VP. On that case it was taking a delegation of Congress to our base, and as they had room they also brought several others with them.

It does not matter how many vehicles a day arrive, or how often. You can still schedule them to minimize layovers. I have seen a city bus system that did that easily, even though the busses ran routes that ran from 15 minute to 2 hour loops. They just all met in the same area downtown every 30 minutes. Best city bus system I ever saw. Never took more than 2 busses to go anywhere, and never a walk of more than a block to catch the next bus, which arrived at the same time you did.

And just peeking, even 40 years later that city still does it the same way, all busses meeting in a central location. A huge difference from any other bus system I ever rode, which might require 4-7 busses to get from one place to another.

I still remember the bus route I took for 4 months before I got my first motorcycle to get from my base to my dad's house. Orange County from the base to downtown Long Beach. Then a Long Beach bus to LAX. An LA bus from LAX to downtown, then another bus from downtown to his house.

4 busses, across 3 transit companies, to go about 60 miles. Took about 5-6 hours each way. I could have cut off about an hour of that (I did once), but that meant adding in yet another transit company on the leg from LAX and going to Hollywood to take an LA bus. But that company was expensive ($5 in 1984 - and no interagency transfer), so I never did it again.

You are only talking about logistics, and that is easily solved.

"You are only talking about logistics, and that is easily solved."

If you throw enough money at the problem, yes.
Just run the trains every hour or two, whether they are full or empty.

What are you talking about?

Long distance trains (as opposed to commuter trains) on average depart the end terminals every 2-3 days. It is simple math, takes 3 days to make one transit end to end, so on that day the train running in the other direction meets at the terminal also.

Simple math.

I just looked, LA to Florida is 3 days. Boston to Florida is 1 day. You just make sure that whenever the LA train arrives in Florida, there is a train going to Boston waiting for it. That serves all passengers no matter if they are continuing North or West.

Seattle to New York is also 3 days. The same train that runs to Boston runs through New York. Once again, same thing.

LA to Seattle, that is a day and a half. That is really the only place where with proper scheduling you will have waits of around 12 hours or more. Between the E-W and N-S trains departing LA or Seattle.

See, no "trains every hour or two" at all needed. Simply know how long it takes to make a transit, and make sure the train moving in the other direction arrives at around the same time.

You worked for a mass transit system, great. I worked as an actual dispatcher and scheduler in the military. Were you involved in the actual logistical aspect of arranging and coordinating multiple forms of transportation, so that any delays at each change point was minimized?

I was.

Of course, the cog in our wheel that was often frustrating was simply how MAC operates. Set up a time table, but as somebody is waiting for a flight to our base another is about to depart that is going to our base via another. MAC will put them on the first departing flight with room, even if it is not a direct one. So because there is room and it goes to our location eventually, they are put onto that one rather than the one arriving in 4 hours and flies direct to our base.

Once stranding 2 of our people in Kandahar for over 2 weeks. The flight landed there, and was retasked to an emergency medivac and our people kicked off.

You talk about a mass transit system, great. Which you should imagine is very different than a continental or intercontinental transit system. Try scheduling regular flights between 3 continents on a regular basis.

And occasionally between 3 other continents as well. The only continent I never had to schedule or arrange flights to was Antarctica.

Not many seemed to want to fly from the Middle East to Antarctica for their 2 week R&R, or need to go there for emergency leave.

But if you ever went to Atlanta or Houston from the early 2000's to early 2010's, you would have seen huge amounts of military people arriving and departing daily. Every single non-unit flight to and from Afghanistan and the Middle East flew in and out of those two airports.

In fact, ask anybody that made those flights, all had a layover in Leipzig, in what was once East Germany. I remember joking with my Sergeant Major during one layover (he was the only one close to my age). That if we had landed there when we had first joined the military, we would have been shot. As it was in the early 1980's a major Soviet Air Force base for MiG-29 fighters.

You seem to be stuck thinking local scale, where departures and arrivals are an hour or two at most. Try scaling up to where departures and arrivals are days apart.

Consider a three hub system, something a little more realistic than what Mushroom laid out, say LA, St Louis and NY.

Geography.

/facepalm

There are really only 3 main lines for rail leaving LA. First is the one that the passenger trains use going N-S. That is along the coast, generally following US 101.

The second is the one it takes from LA to Florida, following the old Santa Fe line. Pretty much follows I-10 all the way across the country.

Then there is the inland route, that more closely follows I-5. And guess what, passenger trains do not take that route.

Look up the Tehachapi Loop sometime.

But really, LA to St. Louis? Why?

If anything, that is the old Burlington Northern Seattle-Chicago route. Why in the hell would you run a train half way across the country, then have it turn and go North almost up to the Great Lakes?

The US passenger rail system is basically a giant circle. Why? Because almost nobody uses the thing anymore, and most alternate lines were cut years ago.

But LA to NY, that is simple, take your choice. Across to Florida and up, or up to Seattle and across.

You are going back to requiring multiple train changes, something that never really happened even in the height of train travel. Changing trains was to hop off the main lines and going local for transit to the destination. Not for actual cross-country transit.

But that's backwards. The claim was never that avoiding layovers requires lots of routes, it was that avoiding layovers requires lots of trains on each route.

Which is garbage. I already explained it, but let me try once again.

Transit time cross country is 3 days. Train leaves LA or Seattle on Monday, arrives in New York - Florida on Wednesday.

So you need to make sure that on Wednesday you have a train in Florida and New York going North-South. Do not need one at all on Tuesday, unless there is demand for one.

See, is not freaking rocket science. It does not matter if it is trains, planes, 18 wheel tractor trailers, or anything else. Is all scheduling and knowing what and where to have parts meet up.

Only idiots look and go "Well derp, I just run every hour-day, so that way I do not have to think and it is simple".

Sure, scheduling trains to avoid layovers is simple, if your entire system consists of only three stations, no one ever starts from the middle station, and you ignore whether or not your departure times are convenient for your potential passenger base.

Mushroom's point, I believe, was that avoiding layovers is relatively simple by properly scheduling departures, without requiring huge numbers of routes.

Exactly. This is what some just keep missing over and over again. You only need "daily trains" if you can not figure out transit times, so run one every day because you are too stupid to know that most times there will be no other train to meet.

Like most threads in here that go this way, I already gave up because people keep completely missing what I am actually saying, and going off onto their own tangent.

It doesn't matter how long it takes any one train to go from end to end. There's no technical reason why you can't have multiple trains in transit at the same time.

That I am aware of, but it is not required as some insist. Do not need daily trains, unless there was demand for it. Some only seem to think scheduling can only be done on a daily basis.

Most trains here in the Netherlands run on a 15 minute interval.

You can run a heck of a train system if your entire nation is only the size of the DFW metro and the OKC metro combined, so that's all the area you have for infrastructure AND you have twice the population of those two areas in the US.

DFW is 9,300 sq mi, with 7.5 million people, OKC is 6,400 sq mi, with 1.3 million people, so call it 15,700 sq mi and 8.8 million.

Versus 16,100 square miles and 17.5 million people.

The Netherlands HAS to have effective mass transportation. Dallas has a cluster-fuck of roads, some of which are 16 lanes wide. Parts of I-40 going through OKC are 12 lanes wide.

Note that I'm not knocking The Netherlands in the least. I'm dealing with creating a double track maglev rail system for a story. The difference is, there's NO trains now, there's only highways or airports, and the destination city is Mecca in Saudi Arabia.

Each direction, or both combined?

Combined. We're nowhere near what the Katy is ... twenty-six lanes wide of highway. Yes, I know there's a toll-booth in China that's fifty lanes wide, but the highway that it serves is only twenty lanes wide.

Well, at that, 8 is fairly standard for the Interstate Highway system.

In metro areas, yes, due to traffic congestion. Otherwise, the vast majority of the Interstate system is 4 lanes total, and there are no service roads.

That's my point - The Netherlands AS A NATION is basically two large metro areas in the United States with twice the population - and that's IT. They have no place to expand, so they HAVE to do things differently - and they've ALWAYS been that size, ever since they became a country.

Dallas used to be it's own city, Fort Worth was separate, so was Arlington. That's why the house that Jimmy built used to be in the middle of nowhere, and ... now, it's not.

We're having a lot of fun locally right now because they're working to expand from three to four lanes each way on I-40 between Tinker AFB and the I-35/I-40 junction.

Not exactly how I got brought into this conversation, or how it relates to me. However, I was born in 1954 and I can remember when what they now call the Sydney metropolitan area was 5 distinct cities with farmlands between the different cities. I also remember playing in the mangrove swamp they later filled in and built the venues for the Olympic Games on. Hell, I'm even old enough to renumber when the bus services in my area ran frequently, on time, and at a profit - then the government passed laws to take control of them and none of those adjectives applied to the bus services the next year. The suburb I grew up in was part of the Western Suburbs as I grew up, and now they call it an inner city suburb despite being 7 miles from the Sydney CBD - sheesh.

Take the V.W. BlueMotion as an example. Every bureaucratic roadblock available put the kibosh on importing them to North America. When the bullshit is washed away, the reason turned out to be it gets too good of fuel mileage.

Typical CT nonsense.

The simple fact, is that nobody in the US wanted them. It literally is just an update to the classic Geo Metro, that was getting 50 miles per gallon decades ago on a carburetor. A tiny 2 door coupe, based on the Passat. With a three cylinder engine.

Even VW knew that these would not sell in the US. Nobody in the US wants to buy three cylinder 2 door coupes, no matter how good the gas mileage is. That is why their market was always Asia and Europe. Where big cars are less popular, and gas mileage more important.

You could develop a 2 door coupe with a 3 cylinder engine that would get 100 miles per gallon, and still nobody in the US will want the thing. Because ultimately, you still have an underpowered 2 door bucket with an engine smaller than that of a lot of motorcycles. One that just gets great gas mileage on flat terrain.

As you yourself noted, people in the US didn't want them because of what it took to achieve that kind of mileage.

They did not want them because in order to get that mileage, they had to make a tiny 2 door coupe with a tiny engine.

I myself have downed a Geo (actually a Chevy Sprint - the same car). And not even one of the 3 cylinder 50 mpg models, but the 4 cylinder 40 mpg ones. On flat terrain, it was awesome. But throw in any kind of hill, and it became a pig. Mileage all flew out the window, and it would struggle to crest a hill at 55 that my truck laughs at going 80. Towing a 1 ton camping trailer.

The era of just throwing out a cheap base car in the US ended 40 years ago. You can actually make cars fairly easily that get great mileage. It is no secret, the makers have known how for decades.

First, rip out all of the electronics that everybody has to have. Power windows, GPS and 6 cigarette lighters to power phones, tablets, and the like. Cut the size of the alternator, that alone gives you a few.

Then the AC, yank it out. Just by doing that one thing, mileage can increase 25%.

Stop making SUVs, go back to 2 door coupes like the classic Toyota or Datsun.

People today, they want all of their gadgets. I can't even remember the last time I saw a car that did not come with power windows, let alone all the other garbage put in them today. And it is the customers that demand that stuff, not the car makers.

40 years ago, the Yugo and Geo Metro proved that the consumer just did not want a "base car" anymore. And nobody makes them, because the consumer stopped buying them.

How many in here drive 2 door coupes that are not sports cars? Or basic 2 door standard cab trucks? Most do not even realize that the classic "Toyota Hilux" pickup died over 20 years ago. A major seller for over 3 decades, customers simply "wanting more" saw it die in 2000.

I don't know I'd want to drive one through the rockies, but that's not what they were meant for.

And outside of those urban dwellers, how many never need to do things like that in the US?

Not enough to keep a car model alive, that is for sure.

Everywhere that I have ever lived, I have had to many times a year at a minimum go over mountains. Sometimes it was daily, sometimes it was only a few times a year. And that was living in the city!

I lived for decades in LA. A city that is cut up by several mountains. Sure, driving around your home in LA or the San Fernando Valley, no problem. Want to go to the beach, or Six Flags? Well, mountain ranges between you and your destination.

My daily commute in my Geo from Palmdale to LAX saw me going over 2 each way every day.

It does not really matter what "people in the city" want, they are only important in their own mind. To me, I hear "city car", and I think "overpriced golfcart for yuppies with more money than sense".

And the Smart? Hell, it was a shrunk down Aztec as far as most people were concerned. Overpriced, and once again did not matter what the mileage was. Nobody in most of the country wanted one. I would not even want to take one over the Mulholland Pass, let alone the Rockies.

A great car for Europe or Asia, where a "long drive" of 2 hours takes you into another country. In the US, that might not even get you to the next city.

Even today, I laugh whenever I see one of my "tech shows" where the host is bragging about the trip he is about to take in his Tesla, or his other electric cars. Then his anger at how he could not get out of Houston lately because they had no power during the ice storms.

First World Problems, indeed.

who would willingly drive a Smart car

There are a few eco-freaks out there that enjoy the four-wheeled motorcycles that are Smart Cars.

They mostly look good with the red and yellow paint job, though.

If it fits IN a pickup, it's not a real car.

There are a few eco-freaks out there that enjoy the four-wheeled motorcycles that are Smart Cars.

Hell, my last motorcycle had more power than those things did. At least it had a 1.5 liter 6 cylinder engine. But still weighed less than a third of a Smart.

I have long said that if "eco freaks" really believed their nonsense, they would all be driving motorcycles. Less materials to manufacture, less room needed for roads and parking, better mileage and less chemicals needed to operate.

Not if it's a Volvo :D

That'd have to be an older Volvo. The newer ones aren't built as strong as a Subaru is now.

And either way, there are some crashes that just plain aren't survivable.

an older Volvo

Aren't they Chinese now? Geely? Are they still using Renault engines?

AJ

Last I read was that they intend to go exclusively electric by 2030.

On UK TV, Volvo is currently showing an ad for their plug-in hybrid and pretending it's good for the environment and 'the future'. Which, IMO, is bollocks. Hybrid cars have the start and end of life environmental costs of electric cars plus most of the environmental costs of combustion-engine cars. So they're actually worse for the environment.

AJ

Not if it's a Volvo

Volvo. They're boxy, but they're good.

Obscure movie reference for the day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTJZEK4JP0k

That's not a car, that's a coffin. If that thing gets between 2 SUV's or trucks in an accident you wouldn't know it was there because you couldn't find it anymore.

Actually, a lot will depend on how it hits the semi, as some of the smart cars are so low the driver can duck and slide under the back of the trailer with now harm to the driver of the smart car.

On the other hand, if a semi tractor runs over a smart car, would the semi driver even notice.

yes, he'd think he hit some road debris, and would probably be right by the time he stops.

You could of course simply look up the history to verify what I stated. But as usual, you'd rather stir the crap and call nonsense. It is what it is, attacking it in this manner doesn't change it.

I can throw you 10 references that prove that the Earth is flat and that we never landed on the moon, does not mean that is true.

The simple fact is, this is nothing really amazing. What was the last 2 door coupe that was popular with the average consumer? Simple question, what was it?

And before that, the last 2 door that had an engine that was under 1.3 liters and had a 3 cylinder engine?

But please, if you think that the "government" or others were trying to block it, go ahead and but the old Geo Metro. It was all of those things. 1.3 liter engine, 3 cylinders, and got incredible gas mileage.

And only lasted around 3 years, until it was replaced by the 1.5 liter 4 cylinder model. Less mileage, but closer to the performance that people wanted.

Chevy knew years ago that the model was pointless in the US and nobody wanted it, so they sold it to Daewoo. Which by the way they still make, just do not import to the US.

You are confusing the fact a car was not released here, with the simple fact that even the maker knew it was unsellable in the US. Simply not enough consumers in the US would want such a vehicle, so they did not bother. But getting the US approval is often a big deal, as many other countries recognize them as meeting or exceeding their own standards.

Hence, getting a "US Approved Car" sent to Japan is simple, but doing the reverse costs a lot of money modifying the car to meet US standards. Get a car approved for US distribution (even if you never intend to actually do so) means that approval is basically given in Japan, South Korea, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, and a lot of other countries.

I do not have to "look up the history", this was actually one of the topics we covered when I was at UTI last year. That a lot of cars are not sold here, for various reasons. Like the Suzuki Jimmy, not sold in the US simply because they knew they could not meet demand. Other cars you can't get here are made by companies like Citroen, VW Scirocco (which used to be sold in the US), Honda E, the station wagon models of almost all Toyota models, and the list just goes on and on.

Still made, the makers all either tried (and failed) with them in the US market, or know from past experience they were not popular here so does not bother. Like the Scirocco. A moderately popular car in the US, it was dumped here in 1988. It sold in Canada for another 4 years, then the line was dumped.

Brought back in 2007, VW decided to not sell it in NA at all. In price and style it was too close to the Golf (Rabbit), and they simply decided it was not a viable care in our market.

But please, prove me wrong by simply telling when the last comparable car was that sold well in the US. Hell, even the Smart could barely last 11 years, they pulled out of the US market 2 years ago. It was big for a short time, then people realized the problems (like a serious lack of power), and sales largely died.

Not from any kind if interference, it is simply a grossly underpowered car for any reasonable expectations in the US market. A modern rebirth of the Smart or Geo Metro. Cars that had already tried and ultimately failed.

You are confusing the fact a car was not released here, with the simple fact that even the maker knew it was unsellable in the US.

With a decade of experience in selling Japanese (Subaru) cars, and fifteen years experience building Japanese (Subaru) cars in the US - there's stuff that works fine for overseas that simply can't fly here, due to safety standards or size.

There are a lot of cars made for the Asian market that are too small for Americans to even fit in. I'm not talking about overweight people, I'm simply talking about people that are 6' tall and weigh 200 pounds. We DON'T FIT in a lot of Asian market only cars.

European cars aren't quite as bad for size, but after VW purposely programmed their cars to cheat on US emissions tests, that didn't go well here for reputation. Last year, we were getting ten year old VW's at auction with 30,000 miles on them that had been sitting in a field for seven years, due to their buyback program.

Hey, don't underestimate the Jimny ;)

I am not at all. I was actually looking at buying one in 1984, before they even got a name change and were finally exported to the US as the Suzuki Samurai in 1985.

But the fact is, they were sold since 1970, and there had long been an "underground import" market for them in the US. Suzuki simply held back for years, as they knew they could never meet the US demand without removing sales from their core market areas. By then, the Jimny was being made in 8 countries, so they could meet the expected US demand. Which was indeed huge.

But that is a perfect example of a vehicle that was not held back for any reason other than they knew they could never meet the demand. Which is why when they finally did enter the US market, they worked closely with GM to establish everything they would need as a reasonable competitor.

Creating a double track maglev system for a story shouldn't be too difficult if you do your research on the (elevation) limitations maglev has so you can plan a believable route.

Actually, it's pretty simple. The section below is considered spoiler research for 'A True History', and while what I mention here won't show up directly, it will be reflected in the story itself.

Total distance is 735 miles. Bridge pilings positioned every 40 feet. Track sections built off site, trucked in, and lifted into position by cranes, just like they have been for decades.

97,000 bridge pilings needed, 97,000 track sections needed. Total train weight, 80 tons; total cargo weight, 100 tons, total train length, 12 cars. Two power cars, ten platform cars between capable of handling interchangeable cargo pods. Speed of 250 mph. Construction cost (1985 prices) - $800 million USD. Construction time - 3 years. Human capacity - up to 800 passengers per train, trains leave all station (3 total stations with 240 miles between 1 & 2, and 490 miles between 2 & 3) every half hour. Trains are designed with 'pods'. Passenger pod can be removed, bulk cargo pod put in place. Anticipate normal train to be 4 passenger and 4 high priority cargo. Actual train (w/o pods) cost of $50 million each.

You've misplaced a decimal point somewhere.

You've misplaced 35 years.

My story is set in 1985.

Who cares what the granola state is doing in 2021?

35 years isn't going to make that much difference.

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

The conversion from 1985 $ to 2021 $ is around 2.43.

So if we back convert the CA high speed rail projected cost to 1985 dollars, that is still $41 Billion with a B.

That's only valid if there are no other cost increase factors involved in the project. If one of the materials used had an increase in costs that was outside of the inflation rate that would be a greater increase, as would design changes required to meet new legislation. Another would be mandated wages increases for one sector of the work force. Then you have the issue of 'dead costs' caused by work stoppages.

I know of a construction project in Sydney back in the 1980s where the cost went up by three million dollars ( a 25% increase) due to having to pay for people to stand around and do nothing for some weeks while the government brought in some archaeological experts to carry out a 'dig' on part of the site when some artefacts were found while digging out what was to be the lowest basement area.

Many things can affect project costs that are outside the inflation rates.

insane environmental impact assessments and other associated bullshit

Totally irrelevant for the project in question. No one gives a crap about lefthanded horsedicked fleas. (Or righthanded ones, either.)

Ayep, incompetence can be an issue, especially with government managed projects. However, meeting government mandated BS has caused more overruns and killed more projects than incompetence has.

My experience has to disagree with that. Front End Engineers Design (FEED) takes the current mandates into account. That is assuming those developing it are competent. The FEED is required prior to execution of feasibility and subsequent funding analysis. Only then can an informed decision be made in regards to moving forward on the project.

While all that's true, what I've been talking about is the government BS that gets introduced between when the project is given the funding and the go ahead and when the project reaches the completed stage. Usually there's years involved and most private enterprise project have a legal requirement to meet any new government requirements introduced along the way.

If it's a government requirement existing and not taken into account during the planning, that's incompetence. But when the government pass new regulations, that government interference BS and that's what pushes up the costs of a lot of long term projects.

However, government, insurer, corporation and or conglomerate sign offs agreeing to the code of record, year and specifics of regulatory requirements, ad nauseam are all part of the contracts prior to the first scoop of dirt. The aforementioned FEED covers that.

Down here, the government only gets involved in signing agreements for government contracts. Want to build an electricity generating station for the state government, they get involved and sign off on it. Want to build the same electricity generating station in another area for a private power company and none of the government look at the paperwork.

In either case, you may have the project a quarter of the way through and the commonwealth government passes a new law that adds requirements to the construction task. Bad luck, you now have an extra expense as you have to comply. The reverse can apply in that you're building something with commonwealth government approval and suddenly have to meet new state government requirements.

edit to add: A perfect example of the most extreme cross-government interference is the Franklin Dam Project in Tasmania back in the late 1970s. It had state government approval but some lobbyists got the commonwealth government to block it by declaring the area a World Heritage Site and thus couldn't be built in.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Dam_controversy

If I remember right that project involved both the state and commonwealth governments as active participants from the start. Needed because of the type of contract and the land it was on.

In some cases yes, the law requires government involvement, in others it doesn't, and it can vary from state to state. The main reason for government involvement in that project was the bulk of the land was government owned land leased to people for the use of the surface while the government still controlled the mineral rights as it was leased land as against full title land. Certain types of minerals also come under government control, as does most interstate commerce as well. It's a very mixed bag due to the historical aspects of many things.

The Australian government did in fact try to renege on their 2010 agreements

Especially if the ALP are in power at the time and the contract is for something approved of by a Liberal government. That was the case with the Gladstone project, approved by the Liberals and the ALP did like it so they tried to interfere with it.

Government's can ruin a project faster than anything short of a nuclear bomb hitting it and going off.

I've seen a project where the company had just finished clearing the land to start building a warehouse of about a square mile and employee about 300 people in their wholesale / retail operation when the state government passed a changed law that required companies to have double the staff parking they used to have. For that operation it meant cut the operation size in half or erect a huge car parking building as well. The end result was the company moved their new nation warehouse facility to the state capital in the next state and sold their property to a developer who put in a couple of large car parking buildings for use by the staff of the other nearby businesses and a small strip mall type food court to feed the existing work force. End result was about 25 jobs created in that area with a lot of unemployed people. Also, the state lost many millions of dollars of annual tax revenue due to all that business trade going to another state.

I've also seen a proposed restaurant go from sit in to takeaway due to the government mandate a significant increase in wages for casual staff due to the government's links with the unions pushing for the wage rise. It made the Return on Investment go from a 5 year break point to a 15 year break point due to cutting the profit by more than half if they'd stayed with the original plan for a large sit down restaurant with lots of staff to being a takeaway operation with a large car park. Instead of the family running the kitchen and register with a couple of dozen restaurant staff the operation became a family only operation. After a year of operation the books showed they got in about a quarter of the revenue they would have got under the original business plan. However, the reality was they ended up with about the same money for the family in wages and profit as per the original plan and about two and a quarter times what the family would've ended up with if they'd gone with the original plan and the new casual wages bill for it. The union push for more money stopped the creation of many jobs.

That's only valid if there are no other cost increase factors involved in the project. If one of the materials used had an increase in costs that was outside of the inflation rate that would be a greater increase, as would design changes required to meet new legislation. Another would be mandated wages increases for one sector of the work force. Then you have the issue of 'dead costs' caused by work stoppages.

Not to mention the huge increase of the cost of land.

Land values in California have skyrocketed over the last 40 years. I remember in the mid-1990's, when "Affordable Housing" was in the range of $250k. Today, it is closer to $500k.

Price calculators are great, if looking at the price of a single item, like a car or loaf of bread. They quickly loose their reliability however when used to look at things like construction projects.

The conversion from 1985 $ to 2021 $ is around 2.43.

So if we back convert the CA high speed rail projected cost to 1985 dollars, that is still $41 Billion with a B.

That's a wonderful thing.

Too bad the system in question isn't being built in California, the land of inflated labor and material rates due to stupidity. You know, where a gallon of gas that I could buy today costs me $2.50 and out there they charge $6.50 (or more) due to excessive taxes.

That's the polite way of saying that using the cost of the CA high speed rail for anything is an irrelevant standard, since the damned thing has been a boondoggle and money laundering scheme since day one.

I would be interested in your sources that state the cost would be less than a million when the real-life examples have costs in the hundreds of millions per mile.

Sure.

First off, here's the basis for regular high speed rail that I used:

2017 Railroad Engineering & Construction Cost Benchmarks

The rest of it was simply digging in and figuring out how much building a concrete bridge costs. It didn't hurt that Dolese Brothers Construction is right down the road, so I simply called them and explained I was doing research for a book and ASKED them how much a twenty foot (which means about forty feet, depending upon how far DOWN into the ground the support has do go) set of bridge pilings would cost, and then how much supports and decking cost. When I mentioned rail, the cost for a single bridge went DOWN, to about $80/sq ft. Converting that into 1985 dollars gives me a figure of $35/sq ft.

I also used this as an additional reference:
Bridge Replacement Cost Analysis

With everything showing costs in here in the US, I made the slight adjustment that the project itself is NOT here.

Again, basically all we're doing is building a 740 mile long bridge, that has two reinforced concrete 'rail beds' on it, but no rails, and the appropriate materials for the rather inexpensive superconducting magnets needed.

Remember, there is a bit of science FICTION in the story, which means the cost of keeping things cold is practically zero due to Ice-X. (And I did just realize I forgot labor costs completely, the $800 million is just for the built rail bridges. So that figure will have to go up a little bit - maybe $100 million.)

You are also leaving out things like electricity, control systems and the cost of those superconducting electromagnetic.

Actually, the electricity is cheap. The whole system can be powered by a single wind turbine, including all the trains. (Keep in mind, these are the wind turbines IN the story, not the stuff we have now. I'm being internally consistent.)

The control systems are being designed, but won't be much more difficult than a standard block control system like is used now. Having access to Siemens, Thyssen, AND both Intel for chip design and Cisco for networking helps keep costs down. And superconducting magnets, no worries about heat loss due to Ice-X. (Again, internally consistent in the story.)

The whole point behind this maglev is that it's supposed to be proof of concept. Chapter 67 of the story will help explain things further. :)

The basic problem I see with your approach is that you are trying to inject too much realism into a science fiction story. Particularly in regards to the economics of it.

The story is based on an alternate Earth starting in 1984. I've intentionally used real world locations, because I want the readers to be able to relate. I've received multiple compliments from readers that have mentioned how I put little details into my story that match reality. (Skaets in Hutch actually has a Moon Burger, the Red Lobster was brand new in 1984 that's just behind Eck Ford in Wichita, just for a couple of examples.)

Economics doesn't change just because it's science fiction. Cal, Beth, Dora, and Eve may now all have powers similar to the blue boy scout, but I always felt there was something missing, that no one ever took into consideration. The actual world behind the fairy tales in the illustrated novels (aka comic books).