This simulation is using several simplifications. The most significant ones are described in the following section.

The circle is an idealisation

It is probably geographically and economically impossible to create a precise ring for a transportation system. But for this simulation the ring is a very conveniant form because it is easy and clear for demonstration and also for calculating the position of the trains.

The circle also represents the geometrical ideal form and it shows the maximal capacity a continuos set of tracks could provide.

Any form of continuous line of high speed tracks is possible, as long as the main conditions – constant speed and no stops – is met.

Thus Even an straight line ( that is not a closed kind of circle ) comes into question.

There is a separate page showing the  fictive example of a circle form.

Stop points on the wind rose

Of course placing the stop points symmetrically on the 4 symmetric points on the compass rose is a simplification too. In reality this would never be the case, as destination points will be near greater urban areas.

The geometric position eases to follow and check the run of the trains. This eases demonstration and is also useful for a final test of the runs and the results.

The stop points can be anywhere around the circle – outside and also inside of the circle, but not on the circle.

Entry and exit Cross ways on the circle as a point

Another significant simplification is the reduction of the cross ways to enter and exit the circle to a point. In the simulation this is just a simple point. First a preciser form would not even show with the scale used. The aim of this version of the simulation was to check the overall transport figures a circle could deliver.

Another important aspect not yet fully discussed here is the decision to run one way or two way traffic, this is shortly discussed separately. 

One way traffic

The traffic can run one way or two ways

This simulation shows the traffic going one way only. This is again a simplification, that eases orientation a lot. If trains would run both ways the simulation looks like an anthill, where it is neither possible to get an overview nor identify the individual actions. Also from the numeric part the simulation of the 2 way traffic is not worth the effort: It will be a about the double of the transport capacity of the one way run, probably insignificantly less.

The impact of this decision will be huge and need to be considered in a separate study. There will be a page discussing this fundamental aspect here shortly.


If the traffic was choosen to be one way or both ways will be the biggest influence. For one way traffic, all cross ways will be even. For two way traffic bridges (or will be needed  if a line should be one way  If the basic assumptions turn out to be promising, the details of these cross ways might be the goal of a future study.


There are several smaller aspects of simplifications which are not all mentioned here, if their impact is not significant.

The entry and exit point in a real implementation will be technically complex and build a significant part of the investement cost for such a system.

Total length of trains

For clarification it is mentioned, that the total length used in the calculation does not include the traction unit, it only describes the length of the payload waggons. The full length would be 5-10% or about 50 meters longer. In comparison to the safety distance of almost 4 kilometers used, this seems to be negligible.