whistlehead
Lurking
Deleted...
Last edited:
Big idea - comments please!
- Thread starter whistlehead
- Start date
whistlehead
Lurking
Sampug, at the moment it is, but it may not be in future, If I manage to describe it properly...
OK, here's the pictures (I made a quick thingamadoodle in Gmax):
Diagram from the front, showing a cross-section of the rail... (Note there are no wheels in the tram's grips - There would be normally
- this is only a quick demonstration)
The beam that holds the rails up:
And a quick 3-D view (Those black lines are the power cables):
And of course, it can run as an ordinary tram, but that doesn't need demonstrating.
Does this answer anything?
Chris :wave:
OK, here's the pictures (I made a quick thingamadoodle in Gmax):
Diagram from the front, showing a cross-section of the rail... (Note there are no wheels in the tram's grips - There would be normally
- this is only a quick demonstration)
The beam that holds the rails up:
And a quick 3-D view (Those black lines are the power cables):
And of course, it can run as an ordinary tram, but that doesn't need demonstrating.
Does this answer anything?
Chris :wave:
Just a note Sampug394, Pantographs collect power from the overhead wires (positive energy) and release energy (negative energy) through the wheels, into the rails.
Thats why trams have one trolley pole and trolley buses have two. They can't release the power through their tires into the road....
So basically what i'm saying is that you would need two devices (for + & - power) on the tramcar/monorail contacting to two separate areas. :wave:
whistlehead
Lurking
whistlehead
Lurking
There will be no need to switch tracks on the monorail sections, as this can be undertaken on the conventional rails.
I understand the engineering issues, but also believe that there will be a way to overcome them.
For example, my trams as shown in the demonstration only have one grip on each of the major units. They would more likely require two.
The supports are also a problem, but this could be overcome by building them on both sides of the tracks, and not just one, or using toughened steel.
I'm more intelligent than I may appear.
Chris
Beg Pardon, but that is TOTAL Bull. :n: Several of my Friends around my age Know a lot about the Things they are interested in, Particularly one who is an Absolute Genius when it comes to Steam Powered Locomotives and things.
Try not be be Stereotypical. Age never defines the Intelligence of people, and you can't be too Young to know things.
magickmaker
New member
There was a similar attempt at this some years back, but the system was abandoned due to cost. However it's worth noting that the other system would have used busses in place of trams, but the example stands.
In that other situation, the design called for special carriages which would connect to the roof of busses through a system not unlike the ways in which containers are carried. In an ideal world, that system would have seen a transition time of about twenty minutes to go from rail to overhead monorail. This included switching over the power couplings, locking the connector down, and a handful of other safety measures. The original design was scrapped after a few years, with something similar to yours being fielded.
In the second design, it was theorized that special bogies could be build atop the busses, which would allow transition to an overhead guideway similar to what is currently in use in parts of Japan. The rails resemble two brackes facing into each other, with an opening in the bottom for the carrying pylon. This was not without its own problems, not the least of which being the height the bogies added to the busses. This height presented the biggest hurdle, since it meant that the busses wouldn't be able to be used in certain locations. Barring that the company which produced it (I have since lost it, all I remember is this was in the late 80's, early 90's) decided to at least try.
No actual test bed was built, but designs were fielded and after some engineering work it was figured that the traffic congestion which would be alleviated by this new system, unfortunately was outweighed by the cost to build it in the first place. Since it would require a number of transition stations in various places, as well as busses which could only be used in certain locations, it was decided that the idea would be scrapped. Though it was generally agreed that the system DID have its own merits, it just wasn't worth the trouble.
A similar system, in the sense of dual use, was tested and used for a number of years in Germany and Australia. This system allowed a number of busses, specially outfitted with guide wheels, to "self drive" themselves along specially built concrete motorways. As well as retrofitted trolley and tram systems.(see video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWfXFdaoRN4
Japan has taken the idea of dual mode a step further, and now has designed a number of busses which can operate on regular rails.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1GBcAlm-8
Lastly, Sky Trolley is already working on something similar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljjNCq8aYeQ
In that other situation, the design called for special carriages which would connect to the roof of busses through a system not unlike the ways in which containers are carried. In an ideal world, that system would have seen a transition time of about twenty minutes to go from rail to overhead monorail. This included switching over the power couplings, locking the connector down, and a handful of other safety measures. The original design was scrapped after a few years, with something similar to yours being fielded.
In the second design, it was theorized that special bogies could be build atop the busses, which would allow transition to an overhead guideway similar to what is currently in use in parts of Japan. The rails resemble two brackes facing into each other, with an opening in the bottom for the carrying pylon. This was not without its own problems, not the least of which being the height the bogies added to the busses. This height presented the biggest hurdle, since it meant that the busses wouldn't be able to be used in certain locations. Barring that the company which produced it (I have since lost it, all I remember is this was in the late 80's, early 90's) decided to at least try.
No actual test bed was built, but designs were fielded and after some engineering work it was figured that the traffic congestion which would be alleviated by this new system, unfortunately was outweighed by the cost to build it in the first place. Since it would require a number of transition stations in various places, as well as busses which could only be used in certain locations, it was decided that the idea would be scrapped. Though it was generally agreed that the system DID have its own merits, it just wasn't worth the trouble.
A similar system, in the sense of dual use, was tested and used for a number of years in Germany and Australia. This system allowed a number of busses, specially outfitted with guide wheels, to "self drive" themselves along specially built concrete motorways. As well as retrofitted trolley and tram systems.(see video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWfXFdaoRN4
Japan has taken the idea of dual mode a step further, and now has designed a number of busses which can operate on regular rails.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1GBcAlm-8
Lastly, Sky Trolley is already working on something similar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljjNCq8aYeQ
Interesting discussion here. It is nice to see a young man with ideas like this and, although I agree it may not be feasible as others have pointed out, I would never discourage innovative ideas such as these. After all, the engineers of tomorrow are today's youngsters and have to start somewhere.
Cheers
AJ
Cheers
AJ
cascaderailroad
New member
If the tram is hanging, and is pulling downward on the tram support, how can the supports of the tram be pressing down on the roof of the tram ? Wouldn't the weight of the supports just be pulling down on the track ?
Can one push up on a rope ?American_Connections
AC MonkeyWrench Models
Read his words
The tracks (s) means on the ground. As with my overhead rail system, the suspending carrage would be built into the structure of the car framing. Mine allows switching just like the tracks were on the ground with special round-table junctions, so this could also be applied to the single monorail with the round-table parts set at ground level. The only thing I see a big problem with is sideways force in a turn at speed, my system allows the car to swing free so the sideways force is only a fraction on the trucks riding the rails. Even less than conventonal trains today.
Last edited:
whistlehead
Lurking
When I get home, I'll post a few simplified diagrams for you all. That should clear the whole mess up.
Chris :wave:
Chris :wave:
There are plenty of underhead monorails around. This one at Tokyo zoo has been runnig for years:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3373/3173279810_fee3abee19.jpg
Any of these things need massive support structures, unless they're high above the ground (like a cable car) and the cable can safely sag with the weight. Any monorail is costly to build and usually very slow.The idea of changing from conventional track to overhead probably has too many technical issues.
Did anyone see this clever monorail which ran under the US Senate in the the turn of the 20th century?
http://www.shorpy.com/node/7344
You can click on the View larger pic for a crystal clear shot.
or what about this one?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Einschienerp.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3373/3173279810_fee3abee19.jpg
Any of these things need massive support structures, unless they're high above the ground (like a cable car) and the cable can safely sag with the weight. Any monorail is costly to build and usually very slow.The idea of changing from conventional track to overhead probably has too many technical issues.
Did anyone see this clever monorail which ran under the US Senate in the the turn of the 20th century?
http://www.shorpy.com/node/7344
You can click on the View larger pic for a crystal clear shot.
or what about this one?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Einschienerp.jpg
whistlehead
Lurking
This is NOT just an overhead monorail.
whistlehead
Lurking
Here's a couple of simplified diagrams (I hope they make sense!):
/* */
I hope this helps a few people!
Chris
I hope this helps a few people!
Chris
You do realise you've just invented perpetual motion don't you...
@Whistlehead - it's an interesting idea, and I don't see anything technical that would prevent it working. It is, as my one time boss used to say, "just engineering". I suspect that it won't ever see the light of day because it is a complex and expensive way of obtaining a relatively small advantage over standard tramways. Only in a tiny handful of locations would the flexibility this system offers be worth what it would cost; this in turn means that a low adoption rate for the technology would make volumes low, and costs high.
I suspect that if it was ever used it would be somewhere like Disneyworld or Las Vegas, where the novelty would be a major selling point (no coincidence they already both have monorails).
By the way, have you ever seen the monorail in the introduction to Half-Life? That moves from over to under track and back.
Anyway,don't be discouraged, but always keep one foot on the ground when you have your head in the clouds...
Paul
whistlehead
Lurking
Thanks for support!
The main priority of this system is redevelopment & expansion of older networks, rather than building brand new ones. This is the reason it would have the advantage over a conventional monorail, as it can easily be connected to an existing system. If you were building a new network, you'd be better of with a simple overhead monorail, but in cities already equipped with a tram network but without the land space to develop it, this could be a good idea.
Chris :wave:
The main priority of this system is redevelopment & expansion of older networks, rather than building brand new ones. This is the reason it would have the advantage over a conventional monorail, as it can easily be connected to an existing system. If you were building a new network, you'd be better of with a simple overhead monorail, but in cities already equipped with a tram network but without the land space to develop it, this could be a good idea.
Chris :wave:
Hey Whistlehead, I don't mean to be rude, but please don't be selective when you quote people. This is what I said:
. . . .The idea of changing from conventional track to overhead probably has too many technical issues.
I think I knew what you meant the first time around. I actually read your entire post and watched your video. I think that's more than you did for me. And BTW, "technical" doesn't mean "mechanical". If there's an easier way of doing something, that is technically the best way.
. . . .The idea of changing from conventional track to overhead probably has too many technical issues.
I think I knew what you meant the first time around. I actually read your entire post and watched your video. I think that's more than you did for me. And BTW, "technical" doesn't mean "mechanical". If there's an easier way of doing something, that is technically the best way.
Last edited: