In a world with mass produced flying cars, what would be a believable

>>52733020
>Cheaper than flying mass transport? Can haul heavier loads than their flying counterparts?
Probably a mix of those two. A train doesn't need to run its hover-engine like a flying truck does just to keep itself from crashing into the ground. It's probably more energy efficient as a result.

Consider how much force it must take to keep a levitated object airborn and able to redirect itself at a moment's notice, and then how much faster you could get if you redirected that same incredible force along a railway track.

Those trains should be moving significantly faster as they are not fighting gravity or inertia, especially if they're maglev trains.

>>52733020
> The tracks are still there; all the infrastructure doesn't need to be rebuilt, just maintained.
> Big engine, little friction, maybe even maglev/ground effect rather than full hover. Much more efficient.
> Slow compared to a flying truck, but gets there eventually. Good for non-perishable bulk cargo and cheapskate passengers
> Still goes straight into the centre of existing old cities.
> Government subsidies

>>52733020
Same reason people take the subway instead of driving today. They just don't have the money or room to store a flying car.

>>52733020
Same as trains nowadays- public transportation and industrial hauling.

Flying trains motherfucker!

TOOT TOOT!

>>52733510
Is it really a train if there's no rails involved?

>>52733020
The exact same reasons why trains are still a thing today.
You just added MUH SYFY to the equation for reasons.

File: 1313175058218.jpg (13KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x400px

Flying trains.

>>52733529
>Is it really a train if there's no rails involved?
Yes? "Train" just means a series of linked objects.

It's a train because it's an engine(s) pulling a long TRAIN of cars behind it.

You don't think they call them trains because they run on "train tracks", do you?