Trains That Never Stop

[WhoozOn1st]

This oughta go over well...

"This Is the Train That Never Stops" -- http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/train-that-never-stops

"No stopping would mean no in-station 'dwelling' and an infinitely more predictable schedule in general. Trains would slow down to pick up the passenger 'pods' at the same rate every time, and would only halt for good at the end of the line.

"If an entire fleet of trains were outfitted with this technology, each train could be super-efficiently synched up with all others, and there'd practically be no reason for delays at all, barring maintenance and repairs. Nonstop trains would also save a boatload of energy, reducing the costs of acceleration and deceleration—and it'd shave hours off of the total travel time on a long voyage. It would require a high degree of automation—which would reduce the margin for human error—but that's well under way as it is."

Two videos are included, and though one is in Chinese its visuals make things pretty clear.

Inevitable wave of the future, or the latest iteration of wacko "pod transit?"

 

[CHamilton]

Why did I immediately think of this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VMSGrY-IlU

 

[railiner]

What a convoluted scheme! It must have been inspired by old time, on-the-fly pickups of bags of mail by RPO's......

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Inevitable wave of the future, or the latest iteration of wacko "pod transit?"

The only thing that's inevitable is the sun eventually consuming the earth. Other than that it's anyone's guess.

Trains that never stop is an idea that's apparently been around for decades. Most of the energy used in ground based transportation relates to acceleration and deceleration. If you could find a way to get around the need to start and stop a train (or car or bus) the total energy use could be much less over the life of the system. This concept could potentially work with both high speed and low speed hardware on both long distance short distance trips, although any of these systems would take some serious effort to implement. The problem isn't technical really, at least in my view, but there are some serious challenges on the legal and political side of the spectrum. It'd be easier to get behind something like this if we weren't stuck with a government made up by people who seem to hate the very idea of even having a government and are apparently willing to do anything they can to ensure everything the government ever does fails as spectacularly as possible.

 

[GG-1]

Why did I immediately think of this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VMSGrY-IlU

Because we are of the age that enjoyed this music

Aloha

 

[the_traveler]

And you say KIN is no good? :huh: Even The Kingston Trio has it in their name!

 

[afigg]

Inevitable wave of the future, or the latest iteration of wacko "pod transit?"

I vote for wacko idea. To save on braking, it would add whole levels of complexity with transfer pods that add weight and a design that requires very tight tolerance. What happens if a lot of people get on the rooftop pod at a station, but not everyone is able to transfer to the train in time before the pod gets dumped off at the next station? They get left behind? That is, assuming they don't get stuck in the access doorway or lift to the train and are at risk of getting cut in half if the rooftop pod. Same goes for the side car scenario, which at least could, in theory, be ADA compliant. The list of what could go wrong with these moving platform concepts in real world use is really, really long.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Inevitable wave of the future, or the latest iteration of wacko "pod transit?"

I vote for wacko idea. To save on braking, it would add whole levels of complexity with transfer pods that add weight and a design that requires very tight tolerance. What happens if a lot of people get on the rooftop pod at a station, but not everyone is able to transfer to the train in time before the pod gets dumped off at the next station? They get left behind? That is, assuming they don't get stuck in the access doorway or lift to the train and are at risk of getting cut in half if the rooftop pod. Same goes for the side car scenario, which at least could, in theory, be ADA compliant. The list of what could go wrong with these moving platform concepts in real world use is really, really long.

It's true that the ADA would probably kill most projects like this. If a blind and bumbling grandpa can't manage it then nobody can have it. But there are continuous motion proposals out there which make more sense than others, some of which are not much more complex than a system of carefully timed escalators. Keep in mind that the narrow minded ADA does not apply everywhere. Last I checked only one society had adopted the zero tolerance version.

 

[railiner]

Here's another hare-brained scheme for you's guy's to ponder....

You've seen that new 'drone' deliver system seriously being developed by Amazon.com to deliver its packages?

Imagine adapting that some how, for individual door-to-door transportation of the future...

 

[Ispolkom]

British railroads used slip coaches into the 1960s. You'd unhook a carriage from the back of the train before a station. The train would pass the switch for the platform line, the switch would be relined for the coach, and a brakeman on board would control the brake to stop the free rolling coach at the station platform. It worked just fine, back when wooden coaches were considered the height of safety.

ETA: Apparently slip coaches were also used when a station platform was directly on the main line. And, of course, there weren't any methods of attaching coaches to already moving trains, so that part is new.

 

[cirdan]

Signalling requirements don't allow too trains to be on the same track section at any one time. The slip coaches required a special exemption and there were very strict rules regarding their operation to prevent, for example, the slip coaches tail-ending the main train in case this had to stop unexpectedly. There was a little cab at the front of the leading coach of the slip section and a second engineer would sit there and work the brakes to ensure a minimum distance to the main train was kept, and to ensure the slip portion was brought to a safe and comfortable stop at the platform. There was also an interlocking mechanism to prevent the slip portion being detached prematurely or involuntarily, and to control the orderly interruption of the brake pipes etc. The rules were very strict. If certain conditions concerning visibility were not met for example, or the train was not going fast enough, the train had to be stopped and the slip coaches detatched in the conventional manner. As far as I am aware, there were never any accidents resulting from slip working, so with the rules being adhered to, the practice could be considered safe.

Today of course, a lot of that could be automated and made even safer. Just as there are automobiles that sense the distance to the vehicle ahead and automatically brake to avoid collisions, a train could do this too. If you are using multiple units, you could do a slip in reverse and brind two moving trains together with a very small speed differential so the couplers engage without a jolt and without risk of damage or derailment. I am sure this technology could be developed without calling for overly fundamental research. Doing so however, would require a rethink of signalling principles. Many rules would have to be re-written and a lot of new equipment would have to be installed. Would there be a business case for that? Would the advantages offset the costs? Maybe one day. But I guess not at present.

 

[MARC Rider]

Has some similarities to the moving sidewalks of classic science fiction. (See "The Roads Must Roll" by Robert Heinlein. I think Asimov used this concept, too.

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/treder20090809/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_walkway#Science_fiction

Heinlein's has a top speed of 100 mi/hr, with an arrangement of side by side moving belts with a 5 mph speed differential, so you could step from one belt to the other. The right of way would have to be 20 belts wide to get from stationary to top speed.

Apparently, they actually built one in 1900, though it only had 2 belts and a top speed of 8 km/hr.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjpCVQgKZsc