Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

By Road and Rail? 240

Posted by michael from the iron-horse dept.
CygnusXII writes "Now this is a novel approach to Dual Mode Transportation. This is an interesting and refreshing approach, that could revolutionize the transportation industry. BladeRunner Dual Mode Transport, or see the main web page. The innovative vehicle will run on road as well as rail. It is as applicable to freight as to passenger transport. Branch-line infrastructure costs could be at least halved because signalling and points could be largely, if not totally, made redundant."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

By Road and Rail? More

By Road and Rail?

Comments Filter:
  • Did Alienware have something to do with its design? Where's the LCD's and cold cathode tubes?

  • Interesting and good ideas, but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rokzy ( 687636 ) on Saturday July 24, 2004 @09:22PM (#9792071)
    ...looking through their website, everything is cartoons and toy models. The colour scheme doesn't help make this look anything more than playtime-fantasy-imagination-happy-fun-hour either.

  • Youwant dual mode transportation? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Metallic Matty ( 579124 ) on Saturday July 24, 2004 @09:23PM (#9792075)
    Get on a train, and then switch to a bus. Its simpler, cheaper, and the system is already in place. The practical applications of this idea seem rather flimsy.

    • Re:Youwant dual mode transportation? (Score:4, Informative)

      by PaulBu ( 473180 ) on Saturday July 24, 2004 @09:35PM (#9792130) Homepage
      Takes out most rail infrastructure cost

      I guess this is the main reason. I guess it's designed mostly not for human transport, it's for freight. And a crate does not get off the train and attaches itself to a truck all by itself...

      Neat idea, I hope someone will feel like putting some $$ in.

      Paaul B.
      • And what makes this better than a low wagon for transporting trucks? You simply drive a truck onto the wagon and off you go. It's used all over Europe.

        • Re:Youwant dual mode transportation? (Score:5, Informative)

          by calidoscope ( 312571 ) on Saturday July 24, 2004 @11:04PM (#9792457)
          The common American term is "piggybacking" - more officially known as TOFC (trailer on flat car).

          The modern implementation of TOFC started in the mid-1950's - special flats cars were being built in the early 1960's (often owned by Trailer-Train) - the earliest implementation dates back to about 1920, didn't take off then because of opposition from the state highway authorities (trucks were avoiding road use fees).

          For long hauls - it makes more sense just to use the box (i.e. containers) - as it reduces weight and air resistance. The Espee pioneered double-stacks (i.e. stacking two containers on one car) with articulated car-sets to further reduce tare weight and train length (single stack trains were too long for the sidings).

          To answer your question - the onde advantage of this approach over TOFC is that you can have much smaller trains.

        • In the US, they just put the trailer on the train, not the whole truck (may be what you meant, but I read your post as saying that they put the cab of the truck on the train as well).

      • Re:Youwant dual mode transportation? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by SerialHistorian ( 565638 ) on Saturday July 24, 2004 @11:50PM (#9792621)

        Actually, this *has* already been done for freight. I can't find links at the moment, but Swift has trailers that they tie together with rail "dollys" ... you can recognize these trailers because they've got smaller wheels mounted on them than the standard trailers and they have locking points on the rear deck.

        Unfortunately, BNSF is the only rail line that'll run them right now because there's a significant risk of derailing. There's a lot of side-to-side flex put on any rail car, and most rail cars are stiff enough to take it -- but making a road/rail car stiff enough would end up making the trailer too heavy for the tractor to pull it. The road/rail cars that Swift uses have a tendency to twist while in motion, and things can break or snap and cause a derailment.

        Neat idea, but knowing what I know about those swift trucks, I wouldn't ride in a rail/road passenger vehicle ... no way, no how.

    • Youwant dual mode transportation?
      Use your left leg, then your right. Its simpler, cheaper, and the system is already in place.

  • Already been done (Score:3, Informative)

    by wombatmobile ( 623057 ) on Saturday July 24, 2004 @09:23PM (#9792079)

    Its already been done [ntlworld.com].

    Without rails.

  • I can't exactly see the railroad companies being eager to let these on their rails. And who pays for the cleanup when one of these bails - the operator, the company that owns the rails or some insurance company that is supported by a federal government?
  • Really I don't see any advantages to this idea. From a consumer standpoint it's not much different from a normal bus unless you happen to also be going on a long train ride. I'm not sure how well devoloped the British rail system is but hardly anyone in the US uses them. Specialized markets like bus (short range travel) or train (long range) will most likey be cheaper than anything like this which tries to move in on two areas at once. The duel logistical costs will almost certainly drive up the prices to u
    • I'm not sure how well devoloped the British rail system is

      Very developed, I would say. I've been in the country for ~10 months now and it's impressive to see the amount of people using the service. I've grown fond of it myself :) Some people keep complaining about delays and so, but I haven't found it particularly irritating (however, bear in mind that I usually travel once a month or so)

      More on topic, I agree with you in that this idea is not very promising. Heck, even here, were trains are massively

    • Re:interesting idea but I doubt it will succede (Score:4, Interesting)

      by CaptainCheese ( 724779 ) on Saturday July 24, 2004 @09:55PM (#9792196) Journal
      I'm not sure how well devoloped the British rail system is

      Currently [networkrail.co.uk] it's approximately 21,000 miles of track, 1,000 signal boxes 9,000 level crossings, and 2,500 stations. There's about 10,000 mainline passenger train movements each day in and out of central London alone. In infrastructure terms britain has the best railway in the world, and that's after more than 2/3 of the original network was decomissioned in the sixties.

      For a country about the same area as Oregon or Colarado that's a lot of rails. Of course in many ways the trains are not very good, but as long as America keeps her railroads running, we know we're not the worst! ^_^
  • "Hello, my name is Rick Deckard and I'll be your steward this afternoon..."

    Honestly, if Darryl Hannah is on board, I'll take this bladerunner thing anywhere.

  • Unholy Transformers union (Score:5, Funny)

    by worst_name_ever ( 633374 ) on Saturday July 24, 2004 @09:29PM (#9792098)
    Well, I guess now we know what would happen if Optimus Prime and Astrotrain had a baby together...

  • Never, ever going to happen... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HotNeedleOfInquiry ( 598897 ) on Saturday July 24, 2004 @09:29PM (#9792102)
    I know a little about the railroads and they'll never let this thing on their tracks. They are absolutlely paranoid about safety and the idea of semi's moving onto and off of their mainline tracks would be totally unacceptable.

    Here's an example. Another parallel-running railroad has a damaged track and they need to run on another railroad's track for a distance. What does the other railroad require? That at least one of it's employees ride along as a "pilot". In addition, steep fees are assessed the other railroad to use it's tracks.

    Cute models and a hopeful business plan are nice, but it's just not going to happen in the US.
  • Does it come with Harrison Ford?
  • It's far too ugly. Nobody'll ride it. Neat idea, let down by overenthusiastic designers wanting something futuristic.
  • How many Bladerunner jokes do you think there will be in this article's discussion? I'll be taking all bets. Also, what percentage do you suppose will break off into discussions about the differences between Bladerunner and Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"?

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) * on Saturday July 24, 2004 @09:32PM (#9792111)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • The Norfolk Southern railroad has used a variation of this idea for years in their Triple Crown Service.

      The difference is that this new thing provides it's own propultion, where the
      Roadrailers [wabashnational.com] used by NS and others are meant to be coupled together into a long train.

      The last thing the railroads want is a bunch of small vehicles cluttering up the system. North America's railroads are set up to run best with fewer, but larger trains.
    • The Union Pacific service trucks also use a variation on this idea. I couldn't find any links to pictures, though. Basically, their service vehicles are pickup trucks with rail wheels that they can raise and lower while on the tracks.
  • Color me unimpressed. Specially modified "dual mode" pickups and construction equipment roll up and down the train tracks outside my work all the time. The supposed breakthrough of providing propulsion through contact between the road wheels and the rail isn't even new. That's how they work. The only thing special about this is that they're proposing to move people and freight using dual-mode vehicles. Something tells me this has been considered and rejected before.

  • Jack of all trades, master of none. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CaptainCheese ( 724779 ) on Saturday July 24, 2004 @09:33PM (#9792120) Journal
    Innovation is A Good Thing, but this project has all the complexities and drawbacks of both systems. The more components something has, the more likely it is to break.

    Plus the main benefit of rail is that you know exactly where everything is supposed to be. The signalmen are not going to want this thing wrecking their entire schedule because it's stuck on a minor road doing 15mph behind Granny Betty.
    • Yes, you might be right...

      And if one adds bufferring at the entrance to the rail he will definitely lose the public transportation side.

      Paul B.
    • Exactly. Risky, complex, and a waste of infrastructure. Why would you put an entire 18 wheeler on a train track?

      Containerized shipping today is so much more efficient. Leave the 18 wheeler at home, load the containers, and ship those across country. We already have risk of train-train collisions... now you want to put 18 wheelers in the mix? Bad idea.

  • By being able to change from rail to road transit, the dualmode vehicle can go off rail and steer past another vehicle or obstruction on a tramway.

    Wwwaaait a second... You can't be serious! You're telling me this bus-train will leave the tracks, get past another train, and the get back on the railroad?

    I don't know how railroads are built over there, but where I come from you don't have roads going immediatly on the side of tracks. I mean, most times the tracks were built in the countryside, and have gra

  • And this is news? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nacturation ( 646836 ) <nacturation@gmai l . c om> on Saturday July 24, 2004 @09:34PM (#9792123) Journal
    They've had vehicles equipped with this for decades on all the local train tracks. Typically it's a pickup truck used for railway maintenance. The only potential new thing is the use of this on non-maintenance vehicles as a means of long-distance consumer/commercial transportation.

    A quick google search returned this page [fairmonttamper.com] which looks about the same as what these dual-mode vehicles look like.

  • The Canadian Railroad and these Rail-Road Busses (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Recovery1 ( 217499 ) on Saturday July 24, 2004 @09:38PM (#9792138) Homepage
    I would love to see how this flies in Canada with the railroad system here. They don't like to share their railroads with anyone (ask the shortlines if you doubt this) and one little secret they rather not let be known is they hate transporting two things: Grain and People. Of course their PR department begs to differ.

    But this would be an absolutely brilliant thing in Western Canada in places like Saskatchewan where horrible roads have made travelling by vehicles dangerous. Send these things by rail a large chunk of the distance to a location like Eastend for example, and they can get off and drive the rest of the distance to wherever they need be.

  • Track Motor Car (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rfc1394 ( 155777 ) <Paul@paul-robinson.us> on Saturday July 24, 2004 @09:41PM (#9792147) Homepage Journal
    In the 1957 book, "Atlas Shrugged," Dagny Taggart, vice president of the railroad, is on a track-side phone trying to get a dispatcher to send a crew out to her where the previous train crew simply shut down the train she was on and walked off the job en masse. She asks the dispatcher if they have a diesel, a coal burning engine, a switch engine or anything at all. Nothing. Then she asks if they have a track motor car. Which they do, so the crew can come out on that.

    A track motor car is an automobile that has an additional set of wheels to allow it to drive on train tracks. This technology was commonly known in the rail industry in 1957, so there's nothing new about it.

    • Re:Track Motor Car (Score:4, Informative)

      by dachshund ( 300733 ) on Saturday July 24, 2004 @10:00PM (#9792213)
      A track motor car is an automobile that has an additional set of wheels to allow it to drive on train tracks. This technology was commonly known in the rail industry in 1957, so there's nothing new about it.

      If you read the site, they note that there have been previous solutions that do exactly what they're trying to do here. The advantage they claim is that their design doesn't attempt to power the rail wheels, and instead uses the main tires to provide power and braking. They say that this results in a significant cost savings.

      There's also what appears to be some clever design work which allows the operator to reduce the amount of weight placed on the tires to increase fuel efficiency while cruising, but then rapidly change the weight distribution so as to press down hard while braking.

      • The advantage they claim is that their design doesn't attempt to power the rail wheels, and instead uses the main tires to provide power and braking. They say that this results in a significant cost savings.

        This has also been done before and it's in use on one or two lines in the subway system of Paris, France.

      • Re:Track Motor Car (Score:2, Insightful)

        by timpaton ( 748607 )
        reduce the amount of weight placed on the tires to increase fuel efficiency while cruising

        That's something I'm having trouble to get enthused about. The articles go on about the fuel efficiency benefits of rail operation, due to reduced rolling drag.

        By far the biggest contributor to fuel consumption on a truck or bus at 100km/h is aerodynamic drag.

        The most effective way for trucks and busses to reduce their fuel consumption is to slipstream. Other than a token futuristic streamlining job, this Bladeru

    • they're still used all the time [alaskarails.org] by track crews today - usually a pickup truck ... I'm not sure what rand has to do with it other than trying to date it in the past

  • road+rail dual mode vehicles (Score:3, Funny)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Saturday July 24, 2004 @09:41PM (#9792148)
    already exist [freeservers.com], albeit with a less classy look than a tupperware tub-shaped bus.

  • Bad idea done poorly (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ralph Spoilsport ( 673134 ) on Saturday July 24, 2004 @09:43PM (#9792156) Journal
    Think about it.

    you have a dual purpose buss rolling along a rail route at, ummm, what, 80kmph? It weighs, what? 10 tons? 20 tons? Then right behind it is a kilometer long train full of, oh, I dunno - NAPTHA - that's roaring along at what?140kmph? ANd it weighs how many hundreds of tons? And takes how long to stop?

    And then Brer Rabbit pulls the STOP AT NEXT CORNER pull tab in the dual purpose bus, and while he's getting his geriatric bones off the bus, everyone is sighing and wondering WHEN THE HELL HE'S GOING TO GET THE HELL OFF THE BUS. And as he ever so slowly mosies off the bus BLAMMO! Hit from behind by a train full of naptha.

    The thing goes up like a tactical nuke.

    This idea of a dual purpose bus is dumb dumb dee dumb, dumb dee dumb dee dumb dee dumb.

    RS

    • Yes, the idea is to simply unleash these upon train tracks with absolutely no scheduling, training, or signalling equipment, without giving any thought to the scenario you describe.

      Or not. One of the two.

    • Think about it.

      you have a dual purpose buss rolling along a rail route at, ummm, what, 80kmph? It weighs, what? 10 tons? 20 tons? Then right behind it is a kilometer long train full of, oh, I dunno - NAPTHA - that's roaring along at what?140kmph? ANd it weighs how many hundreds of tons? And takes how long to stop?

      A good rule of thumb for stopping distance is roughly 1 meter per kph in daytime, about 1 1/4 at night; I've heard that at 80kph (which is exactly 50mph for those of us in the States) the distance is about 81 meters (about 245 feet) and at night it's about 95m (about 300 feet).

      And then Brer Rabbit pulls the STOP AT NEXT CORNER pull tab in the dual purpose bus, and while he's getting his geriatric bones off the bus, everyone is sighing and wondering WHEN THE HELL HE'S GOING TO GET THE HELL OFF THE BUS. And as he ever so slowly mosies off the bus BLAMMO! Hit from behind by a train full of naptha.

      Not a chance. You don't know anything about railroads, do you? They already thought of this.

      Every railroad operates on a "block" system. This is an interlock designed so that only one rail vehicle may enter an area of track at a time. At the start of each block is a red / green signal and either a speed limit sign or an automated transponder to tell the operator the maximum speed limit for the block they are about to enter. The area of a signal block is something large enough for a train to come to a complete stop, or if necessary, when a train enters a track the signal for the block it is in and the block before it (to allow for any train following it) become red. The faster trains run in an area the larger the block is (or the more preceding blocks are also interlocked). Once a train enters a block, the signal behind it at the entrance to that block turns red and stays red until they enter a new block or change to a different track. It may also cause the transponder in the block behind it to order approaching trains to reduce speed in case they get to their block before they are clear so that they won't have trouble slowing down if necessary. Only once it is completely clear of a block will the signal for that block turn green again. A train operator who sees a red signal will stop their train and not enter the block until it turns green, same as you will stop at a red light when operating a motor vehicle on a street.

      An automated train will warn the operator that the next block is occupied and if he fails to bring the train to a stop and crosses the red signal anyway, it will trip the emergency brakes and the train slams to a stop. This is why it's said when a rail engineer runs a red signal he "tripped a signal." If the engineer enters a block at a speed faster than the transponder it will either apply braking or give a warning then trip. The rail system is designed to prevent this sort of thing from happening. This system is also in place in the event of rail fissures, there is a small electrical current running along the rail, if any rail comes loose, it breaks the connection and turns the block red so a train can't enter it, or possibly opens an earlier switch so trains can be routed around the block, I'm not exactly sure.

      I do know that rail systems are specifically designed to prevent this sort of thing in the absence of negligence or intentional misconduct. If a train operator ignores signals in some cases they may be able to run red lights (on non-automated trains) but the scenario you describe can't happen except by intentional misconduct or flagrant negligence. Besides that

      • if the bus was routinely stopping for passengers, obviously they'd pull off the track for that exact reason, so as not to disrupt the flow of trains not stopping there.
      • a transport line - bus, trolley or train - runs on a schedule, and the stop times are accounted for in operating the line.
      • the train usually has fixed amounts of time it waits at a stop in order to account for

      • Re:You don't know anything about railroads, do you (Score:4, Informative)

        by Randall Shane ( 320595 ) <randyshane@yahoo.com> on Saturday July 24, 2004 @11:47PM (#9792609)
        An excellent and accurate response, except for one thing...



        you have a dual purpose buss rolling along a rail route at, ummm, what, 80kmph? It weighs, what? 10 tons? 20 tons? Then right behind it is a kilometer long train full of, oh, I dunno - NAPTHA - that's roaring along at what?140kmph? ANd it weighs how many hundreds of tons? And takes how long to stop?

        A good rule of thumb for stopping distance is roughly 1 meter per kph in daytime, about 1 1/4 at night; I've heard that at 80kph (which is exactly 50mph for those of us in the States) the distance is about 81 meters (about 245 feet) and at night it's about 95m (about 300 feet).

        The stopping distances quoted above are for automobiles on dry pavement. Trains take quote a bit more distance :

        150-car freight train stopping distance
        30 mph =3,500 feet or 2/3 of a mile
        50 mph =8,000 feet or 1 1/2 miles

        8-car passenger train stopping distance
        60 mph =3,500 feet or 2/3 of a mile
        79 mph =6,000 feet or 1 1/8 miles

        (Data from various Operation Lifesaver websites...)

      • Actually it does not necessarily work like that. In countries which still have a well-developed passenger rail network, the UK being one, the passenger train usually, but not always, has priority. Freight trains are commonly held in loops for a while so several passenger trains can overtake. Passenger trains are invariably faster, freight are faster than they once were, due to better suspension on the wagons, such as the so-called low track force bogie (I hear you don't have these in the US yet, we buy your
    • this isn't intended to be a city bus, silly- nobody's gonna be pulling any tabs to get off at the next corner. what this is intended to do is be a bridge between long-distance passenger bus service (greyhound) -where it has the drawback of being able to get stuck in traffic- and long-distance passenger rail service (amtrak) -where it has the drawback of only being able to go where the rail goes, and only being able to stop at rail stations.

      this is intended to be the best of both worlds- pick people up whe
    • you have a dual purpose buss rolling along a rail route at, ummm, what, 80kmph? It weighs, what? 10 tons? 20 tons? Then right behind it is a kilometer long train full of, oh, I dunno - NAPTHA - that's roaring along at what?140kmph? ANd it weighs how many hundreds of tons? And takes how long to stop?

      This idea of a dual purpose bus is dumb dumb dee dumb, dumb dee dumb dee dumb dee dumb.

      So you've got this dual purpose airplane which carries passengers AND cargo flying through the air at what, 200mph? 300mp

  • Been slightly done (Score:2, Interesting)

    by SWTP_OS9 ( 658064 )
    Not hard since Jessy and the boys/gals did this on Monster Garage a few week back. As stated the power comes from the tires runing on the railes while the Train wheels guide it.

    Think they did is in Lethal Weapon 3.
  • If this thing was automated you might run into some problems [katu.com], but then again it could be worse [tfu.info] or just annoying. [soweirdproductions.com]

  • Nothing to new here (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Saturday July 24, 2004 @09:52PM (#9792183) Journal
    The idea of a road vehicle driving on rail part of the time, even the way of doing it (guidance by retractable wheel while power is supplied through the road wheels) is in daily use. Just check track maintenance vehicles.

    I also seen several ideas on regular busses being fitted with guide systems so that could be driven without steering in between concrete guiderails. The advantage? It would require only track not a full road. The "hole" in the middle would make watering a lot lot easier while also leaving the area greener (and stop passenger cars from driving accross buslanes). At the same time the busdriver has less to concentrate on.

    This idea seems more aimed at existing tracks. Plenty of places in the world where the old local railroad never been pulled up after the line was cancelled that could use the "faster" route for rural lines. I personally travelled by bus along a previous railroad route. Or rather the bus detoured a lot to zigzag accross highways while passing villages that if it had been following the railroad it could have served. I know because the railroad is used as a museum and the historical steam train journey is shorter then the bus journey.

    So I do think the idea got some merrit, just not for freight. No big operator of a railroad is going to allow a vehicle like this. The biggest problem on the highspeed networks (where you need the signalling to be able to drive insanely fast in the worst of weather, old dutch commericial had a race driver boasting he could beat the speed limit in thick fog. He was sitting in a train :p ) is the number of vehicles that can be fitted. Better to run a few big trains then try to fit countless tiny busses on your major lines.

    Since old rural lines tend to run from city center to village center a truck would have little point going there.

    So a nice idea to breathe some life back into old rural lines without all the problems of busses (busses often don't really "fit" onto rural roads wich are often not designed for fast local traffic).

    But as I said I seen this kinda thing before. About the closest I seen in practice is de "noord-zuid-as" bus "road" that operates in Amsterdam around the airport. Wich is a normal bus but a bit longer and drives on its own concrete road bypassing other traffic.

    In Arnhem there is a trolley bus that can more easily leave the electric grid it is usually connected to by carrying its own generator. Allowing clean silent transport in the city but even more room to manouver then a normal trolley bus (they got tiny generators making off grid travel slow and noisy).

    One thing I got a problem with however is their boasting about braking distances. Trains brake a lot slower and this is a good thing. People walk in a train, last thing you want is to stop so sudden all the people end up in the first carriage. Busses have a slight advantage that if they have an accident then it tends to be with passenger cars meaning they sorta just keep going. Fast braking with all your passengers loose is not a good thing. There been a few accidents with busses and lorries and the results are people dying at slow speeds. Unless this thing enforces the use of seatbelts they better make sure that emergency stop is not used.

  • I might be wrong (didn't RTFA), but does this really seem viable?

    I mean you take a train sized vehicle off tracks and put it on the road, and there's all sorts of trouble. Most roads are rated to handle a specific weight vehicle. I mean you wouldn't even be able to navigate train sized vehicles on any street except the widest straightest ones.

    Then you look on the other side, what if the train-car thing is smaller? Then there's no point! The whole attraction of trains is the amount of stuff they can ca

  • It will never happen (Score:3, Interesting)

    by andyring ( 100627 ) on Saturday July 24, 2004 @10:03PM (#9792224) Homepage
    While this is an interesting concept, trust me, it will NEVER happen. I am a contractor in the railroad industry (working with all levels of railroading, from engineers/conductors to high-level management) and have a long family history of railroading. Union agreements currently in place will continue to make it unprofitable for railroads to serve the occasional branch-line customer when BLE [ble.org] locomotive engineers continue to price themselves so friggin' high. They manage to demand and make close to and more than $100,000 a year, simply for driving a locomotive.

    They would NEVER let anyone other than a locomotive engineer, making that sort of obscene salary, drive one of these things without implementing a union strike, and making it significantly unprofitable for railroads to use.

    It's a nice idea, certainly, but thanks to the choke-hold that the BLE and UTU [utu.org] have on railroads, it'll never (profitably) happen.

    • Maybe it will not happen in the US, but in the UK where this is being developed, road-rail vehicles like this, but slightly smaller, have been in use for some years for track maintenance etc. They vary in size from medium lorry down to Landrover at present, also JCB diggers etc, so this is not really new, but many of its details seem to be quite innovative. But it has been done long ago, with bus type vehicles for carrying passengers.

      If instead of being short-sighted and closed many branch lines in the earl

  • Apparently, this author has never seen a "container". They've been around for what... 30 years? 40 years? The go on tractor trailers, ships, and rail. They're self-contained, cheap, and the infrastructure for quick switching of them from one mode of transport to another is already there. Freight is already past these little cartoons. Whether there's any need for passenger transport that's dual mode is another question entirely.
  • If used for cargo, it's going to be far less efficient than to just use a locomotive, because of the savings in doing things in quantity.

    If used for passengers...wait, why WOULD you want to use it for passengers? It's a bus, that can go on railroad tracks. If you're going long-distance, you could just go on the highway instead, and go faster! For short distances, why would you not use a normal bus (at a fraction of the cost) or a car?


    Completely, and totally, pointless. Like those plans for strappin

  • Think smaller (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Saturday July 24, 2004 @10:09PM (#9792249)
    I think dual-mode vehicles make sense, but on an individual scale rather than for buses or trains. If you imagine a kind of scaled-up hotwheels track, fill it with smallish electric vehicles, then add centralized computer control, you could get a transportation system that has the best of both worlds: individual trip scheduling like cars, but avoiding the huge waste of time of having to control the car yourself. This could free up time to write public works pipe-dream posts on /. while you commute to work.

    The cars could have smallish batteries that allow for short range driving under human control off of the tracks to/from your final destination (they would recharge from the grid and would run under fully automatic control while on the tracks). In urban settings, you might always be less than 1 mile from the nearest track on-ramp, so range wouldn't be a issue. For long drives in the boondocks, a small trailer or module with a gasoline or diesel engine could be attached to create a hybrid vehicle.

    People would punch in their destination at the start of the trip, and the central control system would schedule the entire trip ahead of time, thus avoiding all traffic jams (barring software bugs). If the system lacks the capacity to instantly add the trip, it could make a reservation and tell the rider to chill out and get something done before starting; this would be much better than sitting in traffic.

    What if you need to haul cargo? You might check out a virtual trailer at the lumber yard that's programmed to follow a few feet behind your vehicle. Unload it, guide it back to the on-ramp, and then it automatically returns to the store. Or, if you move a lot of stuff, you could buy your own trailer(s); you could make a whole train if you want.

    The vast majority of standard truck and train cargo is comprised of packages small enough to fit in these smallish vehicles. Large numbers of them could automatically move most cargo around the country when traffic is otherwise low. This could save a lot of money on labor, but current truckers would not be pleased.

    Of course, the Denver airport baggage handling system fiasco demonstrates just how hard something like this would be to implement. However, I think that it's still worth thinking about ways to improve over our current choices of wasteful overpowered, oversized automobiles and inconvenient slow public transportation (which is also wasteful because of its low average load factor).

    What if you really just like to drive? I think that the freed-up Interstates could be reallocated as amusement parks. Remove all speed limits and rent out Ferraris and Porches for high-speed joy riding.

  • Read Friday's Wall Street Journal. There's a major article on serious problems plaguing Union Pacific. The short of it:

    Pro: This dual-purpose truck would eliminate many of the problems rail carriers face, eg. crippling inefficiency in forming long trains together at various rail yards, and "last 100 miles" solution to get to the loading dock.

    Cons: -> ALL of Union Pacific's tracks converge into one track for much of the midwest. They have serious logistical problems because of it. The WSJ articl
  • Call me back when they've perfected the dual mode housepet/bus design [yimg.com]. I think the big hang up is the emissions, namely building a catalytic converter that can handle hairballs.

  • Find the right markets... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by buckhead_buddy ( 186384 ) on Saturday July 24, 2004 @10:30PM (#9792333)
    There are places that this would be a hit.

    I'm in Georgia and there are a huge number of rail lines in use for moving agricultural products around. Most people don't notice or mention the trains at all anymore (except maybe at a murmur [athensclarkecounty.com]). But there are many lines still around that are in use and many that have only been out of use since the train companies started downsizing in the eighties due to better roads and cheaper truck shipping costs undercut their monopolies.

    Rails stretch to the more remote parts of Georgia which are barely touched by commercial air. Though in replacement and downsizing theres still a large rail infrastructure that goes to Atlanta suburbs and so forth. The problem is that the roads have become the dominant and unasailable mode of transport here. There are many places that air, river, and rail will not get you even if they are less expensive and with less impact on the environment.

    Imagine a shuttle service on these dual mode transports that can take people from Augusta to Marietta (probably for some religious or S&M convention). Rail could get you most of the way there (and at one fifth of the fuel cost of bus traffic) while the final legs would have to be taken on road.

    Athens has a van shuttle service that goes to the Hartsfield airport in Atlanta on a regular basis. Many people take it because it will get them to Atlanta without a car and they can ride the MARTA train system around Atlanta. The dual mode vehicle, variable destinations of certain passengers, and fairly regular schedule would be a purpose for these vehicles.

    Heck, even Atlanta's Metro transit system (MARTA) could strongly benefit from these vehicles. Right now they have a limited fleet of busses and an electric heavy rail system with a very limited set of destinations. While it would take major restructuring and expense, a hybrid rail/bus system would be very beneficial. Being able to offer. It might be a scheduling nightmare, but having recently gone to San Francisco and seen what a well run mass transit system can do I fully believe they need to start over on MARTA anyway.

    Roads are the only growing, funded, maintained transportation system in Georgia. A hybrid vehicle that allowed use of the extensive rail infrastructure in this state could be a major boost for mass transit.
  • This is an interesting and refreshing approach, that could revolutionize the transportation industry.

    Don't use a comma to separate a subordinate clause from a main clause, except in cases of extreme contrast.

    BladeRunner Dual Mode Transport, or see the main web page.

    The first clause needs a verb badly. Adding "It's called" to the beginning of the sentence might be a good start.

  • Already been done in the 60s (Score:3, Informative)

    by docotron ( 799894 ) on Saturday July 24, 2004 @11:25PM (#9792519)
    This is certainly not new news. Similar vehicles were in use in the 1960s in Germany [railfaneurope.net]. The whole concept of putting a bus on rails, i.e. building a light-weight DMU with bus components, isn't exactly new either..

  • Car trains (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Saturday July 24, 2004 @11:29PM (#9792536) Homepage Journal
    I want to see car trains along major long-distance highways. They'd ferry parked cars along heavily trafficked arteries. That would reduce the tremendous waste of commuter traffic on local streets.

    For example, the shortest road across Brooklyn, from Manhattan to Long Island, is about 10 miles on Atlantic Avenue. It runs from a major confluence of 10 subway lines, a commuter rail, the Brooklyn and Manhattan bridges, a dozen bus lines and a water taxi, out to two major highways and JFK international airport. But it's a local street, with cross traffic, stoplights and turns - so it takes about 45 minutes for each of the literally hundreds of thousands of commuters to drive each way, each day. Under it, and a block over, run 4 subway lines and a pair of commuter rail lines.

    I'd like to drive up a ramp, filling up a railcar, and parking, as the railcar drove away from the downtown terminal headed to the airport. And the same coming the other way. Railcars would leave continuously, as they filled, with a parking lot to accumulate extra arriving cars as railcars departures are occasionally delayed. Another lot at the end would accomodate extra cars accumulating when the exit highways are backed up. That start and end capacity would also allow railcars to be staggered on the existing rail lines, allowing existing rail traffic to share the lanes in the loop.

    A cartrain trip would take 15 minutes. Drivers could stay in their parked cars, but would be required to reenter their cars for departure by at latest 5 minutes before arrival. A fare of 2 dollars each way might even get people to carpool more, especially if carpool lanes were available leaving the exits. The drive time would be predictable, allowing less time alloted to the entire trip. The stressful drive across Brooklyn would be removed, benefitting the drivers and the Brooklynites along the way. Local congestion would be relieved as much as the commuters would be accelerated. Accidents, pollution, road and car wear, and fuel consumption would plunge. And an underutilized transit resource would be used properly, rather than laying idle under a 10-mile traffic jam. All aboard!
    • Here is the problem. You think that by passing traffic jams around the city and landing there in the center will solve your problem. NOT. These jams happen because too much cars around, and if you implement such railway you will simply shift traffic jams from roads to railway station, either to the source station or to the destination one. Either you keep railway traffic low enough to keep city's small streets able to cope with traffic and your source station will have a long-long-long queue (not better tha

    • Re:Car trains (Score:3, Informative)

      by tiger99 ( 725715 )
      We tried this in the UK for many years. It was too expensive to attract many users, simply because, for good structural reasons, the train is many times heavier than the cars it carries, so the energy saving, if any, is not sufficient to cover the fixed costs. I am not sure, but I think it may still be operational on one route (it was a few years ago), if so it will be overnight on a sleeper train, again added cost, so people don't use it much.

      But the concept works very well indeed in the Channel Tunnel, wh

  • I've seen a lot of people panning this idea as completely unfeasible, but I think they're overlooking some potential here. For instance, in Atlanta they are looking to create an beltline [cathyatlanta.com] of railway circling the city. They would use existing tracks that originally served as a trolley system. The problem is there are portions of the proposed route that seem problematic. In some places, there are slight gaps between the existing railines. Other rails are used by commercial rail periodically. This transport ve

  • This idea is not new (Score:2, Informative)

    by strider44 ( 650833 )
    The Adelaide O-Bahn [adelaidemetro.com.au] has been around for years, going on the road in the inner city but gliding around on tracks at over 100km/h on tracks to destinations.

    It's supposedly (according to their advertising) the fastest bus service in the world, as well as extremely cost-efficient. I think that it's fun as well and a great tourist attraction!
  • Micromaning trains is easy, but when the AI starts taking shortcuts off the rail onto side streets and beating my production times, I think I'm going to retire stock in T3H TR41N TR4X0RZ (my virtual rail company).
  • I thought this is what containerization was for, so you could transport freight using generic trucks and trailers on road and rail.
  • Who'll drive it? Two separate workforces of rail drivers and road driers? Not likely.
    Well, I wouldn't ride it if the driver is NOT an experienced truck driver.
    And I wouldn't ride it if the driver IS a typical cowboy-aggressive U.S. trucker.

  • Trains and busses (Score:2, Interesting)

    by skywolf ( 757605 )
    One thing I keep wondering:

    They say their system reduces rail wear, because of the way in which it corners. Rail maintainence should be reduced to once every 25 years - incredible!

    Why wouldn't regular trains be able to use the same system to reduce rail wear.

    AC

  • hmm (Score:2)

    by man_ls ( 248470 )
    maybe couple this with the adaptive scheduling algorithm to allow all sides of an intersection to travel through it at once, for ultra efficient, highly versatile light rail through cities?
  • For a minute I had my hopes up and thought this might be paving the way for technology like that in Minority Report.

    You know, where all the cars go on a special highway that is automated, allowing the drivers to kick back and relax as they move at much higher speeds because of the computer control.

    I mean, I'd still require that I be able to take manual control of my vehicle off that track, but it would be great if I could take a car that I owned, and just set it on cruise control to work every morning while

  • It seems like a lot of the rebuttals are based upon the logistic or bureaucratic blocks to running this on current railways. I think that this, and new passenger-only railways along the interstate highways, is just what the USA needs. It has a lot more potential than just adding another regular lane.
  • Unless you could couple a load of the trailers together it is of no use for freight. The main benefit of Railfreight is the fact that you can move a lot at once; thousands of tonnes of train at a time. You can already split trains up and send them down branch lines. What limits the usefulness is the fact that sub-container sized freight has not been a popular commodity for Rail for morethan 25 years and the facilities for dealing with pallet freight on rail have all but gone. The irony being, of course that
  • Here (Adelaide, South Australia) we have a system like this called the O-Bahn, it's a German technology and I think that this is the only place in the world outside of Germany to have one.

    Click here [adelaidemetro.com.au] to read about it.

    It's said that it's cheaper to run than trains, but I prefer to travel by train. There's just something about the motion of a train that's so more reassuring and comfortable than a bus.

Slashdot Top Deals

If I want your opinion, I'll ask you to fill out the necessary form.

Close