Utter Nonsense...

Hmmm - 2 minute 'dock' at 50mph / 80km/h (typical max tram speed) - distance travelled =1.666 miles (about 2.6km). And if someone obstructs the doors...

So how far does the tram have to go out of your way, just to catch a moving train (that has still had to slow right down)?

Yup - it's nuts. Shame journalists don't all have basic maths...

Paul
 
paulzmay said:
Hmmm - 2 minute 'dock' at 50mph / 80km/h (typical max tram speed) - distance travelled =1.666 miles (about 2.6km). And if someone obstructs the doors...

So how far does the tram have to go out of your way, just to catch a moving train (that has still had to slow right down)?

Yup - it's nuts. Shame journalists don't all have basic maths...

Paul
Click to expand...

Perhaps they are assuming moving sidewalks to take you to the Tram, and maybe moving throw rugs to take you through your house to the front door?
 
Imagine you had 2 sets of golf clubs and a double bass, the trains start to seperate before you get fully across, bye bye to a few thousand pounds and a free trip to hospital..... Someone sould explan to the presenter about the existance of local and express trains, which is bassicly the same thing but without the trip to hospital.

:confused::confused:

Andy
 
paulzmay said:
Hmmm - 2 minute 'dock' at 50mph / 80km/h (typical max tram speed) - distance travelled =1.666 miles (about 2.6km). And if someone obstructs the doors...

So how far does the tram have to go out of your way, just to catch a moving train (that has still had to slow right down)?

Yup - it's nuts. Shame journalists don't all have basic maths...

Paul
Click to expand...
Easy to laugh but what so difficult about the transfer part? From the point of view of the passengers, the two cars are not moving. Unlike escalators and moving sidewalks that always have a speed difference between them and the stationary platform. It would be like transferring from one side of a moving car to the other side. I've seen people moving around flying airplanes, going from one side to visit a friend on the other side, all while they are moving at over 250 m/s though the air and no one faints from or stumbles because of the great speed.

So they would only have to build parallel tracks for 10 km to have a large margin of error, even longer if you want, and then enforce a strict protocol of no transfer during the last minute before separation.

Remember that stopping and starting are where the greatest energy losses occur so if that can be minimized it could be worthwhile. However, probably not practical for anything except between the highest speed trains and even then, the infrastructure costs would be enormous. No existing equipment could be used, everything would have to be purpose built. So we are never likely to see or ride in one. Then again I never though I would experience 431 kph in a train either until I went to Shanghai where it's a normal event for people going the the airport.
 
In fairness, there is some slight merit to the idea of non-stop stopping trains ('slip trains'), and it's certainly not a new idea.

A couple of years ago, this proposal was going around the news sites:

http://singularityhub.com/2010/04/20/the-train-that-never-stops-still-seems-appealing-video/

But the idea goes back way further, even the GWR experimented with (and operated!) such services:

http://mikes.railhistory.railfan.net/r134.html

Although they never got 'slip-on' trains working, and had to settle for slip-off (dropping passengers off at a station while passing through) only.

(India apparently still has slip train services in some areas)

Edit:

Also, a proposal almost identical to the one in the OP dates back to 1932 by an inventor from Buffalo, NY:

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/12/18/train-picks-up-and-drops-passengers-without-stopping/
 
Last edited:
At first go it makes you smile certainly in it's plan and could in simple terms be in principle, feasible. However the real practice does have some matters to challenge. The connecting doors obviously according to the video have a small side but that sticks out so no likliehood of falling through however now omes the "but". In the time taken to get alongside then depart again it assumes the railway is going to be straight and you cannot always guarantee that. In many places straight sections are not always suitably long for this. It may well be a thing a distance in the furture but the existing layouts of most of our cities doesn't make it easy to create at present?
 
I think the technology would work fine and get it off the ground and make it a success, it would be the stupid people that would cause the major problems.
 
It's not so much the physical possibility of the idea, it's the problems with the detail. The parallel tracks would have to be very long (perhaps not 10km), as they would not only have to have time for the transfer, but time for a synchronised emergency stop if someone blocks the doors. It also means that to catch the high speed service, you need to travel several km in the wrong direction first, and passengers alighting would be carried several km beyond the stop. Of course service delays would cause total havoc.

Trains that physically divide and rejoin whilst moving could be more practical, but when half the English speaking world has public transport that is honestly a complete joke (I'm in a suburb with a bus every two hours in the daytime), I think perhaps we should learn to walk before we theorise about how to run...

Paul
 
Gandalf0444 said:
Yea but just think, if we all did that the skies would be become a log jam of flying carpets and then we will be stuck in the normal everyday gridlock and traffic jams during rush hour...:hehe::p:o
Click to expand...

Yeah, kinda like the traffic jams in the air in 'The Jetsons'

Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top