Comments on: A Train that Never Stops

By: Wordpress Link Digest 03/02/2011 | Meandering Vaguely Around Timnah

Wordpress Link Digest 03/02/2011 | Meandering Vaguely Around Timnah — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 04:54:52 +0000

[…] A Train that Never Stops | Mike Industries […]

By: rlf135

rlf135 — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 01:07:11 +0000

I agree elclapper. With the technology available today the decoupling and coupling of the cars could not only be comfortable but barely noticeable. The advantages of the concept cannot be ignored. The concept could further be exploited by operating two trains on the same track. The trains would start out heading towards each other. At the point where the trains meet the tracks could be arranged so the trains could pass by each other without stopping. The advantage would be the trains could exchange pods so people could begin their return route without having to wait for the train to complete its entire route. The operating of two trains on the same track could effectively double the capacity while increasing the speed of the overall trip. I would not mind heading the wrong direction for a short distance if it meant I would get home quicker and not have to wait for the train to return after completing the entire route. This concept could be applied to bus transit as well. A bus could go around picking up and dropping off pods to reduce loading and unloading times. The bus stop could be replaced with the pod itself.

By: elclapper

elclapper — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:59:52 +0000

I think that even at slow speed throughput of the main train that the rate of acceleration required for the pod to leave the station with the main train would be more taxing than the human body would find bearable never mind comfortable. In the pictures shown I could imagine all the people piled up against the back wall of the pod. I thought you were going to suggest the last car detaches and decelerates and pulls into the station while a full car leaves the station accelerates and joins the train. all on a side by side rail system. people exit and ride on the main train. With sensors and plc’s the pod car could speed match and mate with no appreciable bump.

By: David Robarts

David Robarts — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:01:24 +0000

I just watched a TV show about giant wheel observation rides. When they built the London Eye, they wanted it to run continuously. My having the cars moving pass the platform at one mile per hour, passengers are able to walk on without difficulty. Needing to change strips for each mile per hour speed increase or decrease means Asimov’s idea is not practical.

The pod idea could be made to work if the length of the platform and length of the train were both utilized to accelerate/decelerate the pod. Time for the pod to accelerate/decelerate on the train, as well as time for passengers to transfer between pod and train would mean that pod stations could be no closer than several minutes apart. Assuming this system is being used to keep the train running at fairly high speed the spacing of stations is to far apart for intra-city commuter trains. However this idea could be used to allow low volume stations on inter-city routes access to express trains.

By: Jenny

Jenny — Wed, 19 May 2010 01:06:09 +0000

I agree with Jacques. How does a person go from a pod that just got picked up to the pos that is being dropped if they only want to go one stop?

By: Isaac Lin

Isaac Lin — Wed, 05 May 2010 16:51:44 +0000

This topic reminds me of Isaac Asimov’s _The Caves of Steel_, where the mass transit system was essentially a continuous stream of moving train cars (it may have been just seats and poles on a moving strip without the actual car bodies). Passengers matched speeds with the train by moving from one strip to another, each one slightly faster than the next; the reverse was done to disembark.

By: Kevin Cannon

Kevin Cannon — Sun, 02 May 2010 10:56:35 +0000

This is quite similar to the idea of PRT (Personal Rapid Transport) systems, which I did some reading on a few years ago. Essentially, a personal taxi on a rail line.

While it’s a nice idea and has some benefits, when you scale it up to the way you’d like it to be, you hit fundamental issues you have with cars and traffic, and also safe g-forces for people.

We’ll get automated cars before any systems like this, but I think the main reason trains & buses are scalable is fundamentally because they transport large groups of people to the same locations. One you tinker with that fundamental, the whole thing falls apart (at least financially)

By: Jacques

Jacques — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 20:42:23 +0000

I later thought of the same (referring to the video) – what if only 1 or a few people get off – it would still take a complete pod, so the train might run out of pods.
In your scenario, people should indicate where they want to get off – then at that station that number of pods is waiting to be added. Pods should be so cheap that they should be over-available (almost like carts at the grocery) – and be relocated at night-time.
The biggest hurdle to me seems the speed-increase: you’re waiting in your pod and then picked up by a train that runs 100(?) mph. I figure that is a few G’s – similar to a jet-fighter that accelerates.

By: Mike D.

Mike D. — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 20:05:35 +0000

Jacques: In my model, the pods would actually run along the side of the train and they could easily be shuffled back and forth down the length of the train. The hard part in my scenario, however, would be off-track pod management. For instance, what if 100 people got off in the same spot? You’d then have 100 pods sitting off-track at that spot and maybe an imbalance of pods elsewhere. You’d have to have some sort of system which was smart enough to automatically rebalance the pods at different locations. This, in the end, may be why it doesn’t exist yet. Seems like a complicated thing to solve.

By: Jacques

Jacques — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 19:31:27 +0000

The only problem would be making it to the pod for the next ‘drop’. The pod you’re in is added at the front of the train, yet the pod to be dropped (next) is at the back of the train. Depending on how crowded the train is and how fast it goes between your boarding- and exit-drop, you might need sneakers to make it :-)

By: Martin

Martin — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 07:09:31 +0000

tony and Mike: If you’re aiming for a nice efficient railway system, privatisation REALLY isn’t the way to go. Ask anyone in the UK!

By: Mike D.

Mike D. — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 19:58:53 +0000

tony: Yep, definitely have to get the safety part right, but it seems like we’ve made more dangerous things safe in the past. With regard to Amtrak, isn’t it already private?

By: tony

tony — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 19:56:40 +0000

seems really dangerous if there were a malfunction. how about the US just invests in some nice bullet trains like europe has? (and privatize amtrak)

By: Mike D.

Mike D. — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:21:35 +0000

Martin: Very interesting about the slip-coach. Can’t believe the general concept has been around so long and nobody’s been able to pull it off on a grand scale yet.

Drew: The advantages (at least in my variation) are that since the train never stops, it’s much much quicker and also you can pretty much get off and on wherever you want along the way. Both very big advantages.

By: Drew Pickard

Drew Pickard — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:59:44 +0000

Mike,

It’s a really interesting idea – I’m just not sure I’m seeing what the benefit is

Is there a fuel/energy savings because the main ‘train’ doesn’t stop?
I see that it is more time efficient.

The only weird thing would be that a lot of people recognize locations or stops visually and aren’t good at paying attention to signs or audio cues (eg: me)
However – maybe there’s a solution to that, too.

Pitch this to the City of Seattle so we can vote for it multiple times and have it never get built. ;)