digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at carectomy.com

Need a more efficient train, how about one that never stops?

carectomy.com — Taiwanese inventor Peng Yu-Lun has an innovative idea to make train transportation even more efficient: get rid of the stops. No, he's not proposing that passengers are thrown on and off of fast-moving trains or that passengers are eliminated from the equation altogether.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • prisoner24601, on 07/01/2008, -8/+23Outstanding idea. It seems like you could do this with less engineering (and more cheaply) if you made every train station as a siding and used a self-powered battery/electric "chase car" at each station. Main train goes past the station on the primary line, chase car guns the motors and quickly catches up in a mile or two and connects. Ongoing passengers move from the chase car onto the main train, offloading passengers for the next stop get into the chase car. Travel for 5 miles, etc. Then a few miles before the next "stop" the chase car separates, gets shunted to the station siding, and coasts into the station. (Use regenerative braking to recharge batteries on the chase car.) There would already be a new chase car at the stop which leaves to catch up with the train just before this chase car coasts in.
    • pixeldust, on 07/02/2008, -2/+11Wait, how is that cheaper and require less engineering? That's basically Pen Yu-Lun's idea except you have a more complicated and inefficient system of a motorized chase car. Why play catch up with the main train when it passes the smaller one and could just grab it?
      • prisoner24601, on 07/02/2008, -2/+3Honestly, isn't it obvious?

        1) I haven't ADDED a "more complicated and inefficient system of a motorized chase car" because the original design ALSO requires some sort of independent power to the "top car." There is NO WAY that Pen Yu-Lun is suggesting his transfer cars just "grab on" and get yanked into motion by the main train. Both designs require a second vehicle with some kind of secondary power.

        2) My way you don't have to build tracks or a support structure *on top of a train* that support *another train* to make it work. (Imagine the engineering that has gone into the design of a Japanese bullet train or French TGV in operation today. Now imagine you go to the designers and say "great work guys, we love it as it is, but we need to add just one tiny feature to it: We need you to re-design it so that the roof is strong enough to... HOLD ANOTHER TRAIN on it!" Oh, and not just *strong* enough, we also need you to figure out how to lay down *seamless* tracks over top of the entire length of a *sectional* train, so work out some way to have a smooth running surface with rails that are in perfect alignment on a straightaway, but don't have problems at the joints when the sections bend as the train goes around a curve.")

        3) The design I'm proposing doesn't have the problem that your "run-up time" to reach "mating speed" between the joining vehicle and the main train is limited by the LENGTH of the train. In my case, a "failure to reach full speed" on the chase car means it gently coasts to a stop on the tracks, never having joined the train. In the other case, failure to reach full speed means the "top car" FALLS OFF THE BACK OF THE TRAIN.
    • AchaIemoipas, on 07/02/2008, -1/+9Well, it could work. But it doesn't have a purpose.

      I really don't see how this will make the train more efficient. The length and speed required for the secondary wagon, and the infrastructure required to achieve these comfortably for passengers makes the idea useless.

      And it's not like there's more train. You would need to make everybody that wants to take the train at that time fit in a single wagon. That would divide the number of passengers per "stop" by the total number of wagons.

      More energy, more infrastructure. You can't simply attach to a fast moving train, everybody inside would slingshot accross the wagon. The sliding thing works but it's basically a puke machine unless you make it go real slow, which again defeats the purpose of a train that never stops.

      Especially is we're talking about urban areas, you need many stops at not so long intervals. And if we aren't, well, what's the need for a train that never stops?
    • megamod, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5psh...I could've thought of THAT

      didn't they already think of that for the Jetson's already? They would ride in one large car and when they passed by the school they would drop off Elroy and when they passed by the mall they would drop off wife in their own smaller pods?
    • bnuk013, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2I was kind of thinking that, except maybe have the one line the "express" that never stops and a parallel line be the local with lots of smaller, slower cars and when ever the express passes a local it briefly slows and allows you to switch trains. Energy savings would be nice but I doubt that is a huge cost for trains anyway, I see the main benifit as a HUGE time savings. Imagine taking the jersey train to NY without having to make a single stop.
    • MindStalker, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3Hell a self powered train might not even be necessary either because that constitutes a major investment in something new. Simply having a engine car at the tail of the train would work just fine. The only new technology that would need to be added would be a better coupling solution. The current couplings can't be attached/detached at speed safely, but that's probably solvable.
    • anttimik, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1This could be better idea, since I guess there could be a problem with going into a tunnel with a train on top of another without enlarging the existing tunnels (which would be quite expensive).
  • borez, on 07/02/2008, -2/+39And what happens in rush hour as everybody scrambles into and from the top carriages of a packed train?
    • mk3k, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1I'm sure the top car would have a capacity limit. Things not going to tip over or anything. People might get a little jostled or bumped into but who doesn't when they take a train?
      • borez, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2"jostled or bumped" Or chopped in half.
    • c4sh, on 07/02/2008, -1/+5The chase car idea is easily scalable to your traffic volume...construct data models for mean traffic flow at certain stops and times of day, as well as periodic higher-traffic events such as holidays and sporting events, and add more chase cars to suit.

      I'd like to see this implemented within 5 years.
      • TheStrongForce, on 07/02/2008, -1/+9LOL! Okay c4sh, we'll get on it right now! Call you in five years!
    • Dasliberdan, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Just like the Titanic, Women and Children first. I will stay downstairs with the orchestra!!
    • Farnn, on 07/02/2008, -0/+7This seems to not be a concept that would be used for commuter trains, but instead of long distance travel, where a 10 hour trip could be made more energy efficient and shorter by removing stops. You wouldn't have very many people getting off at each stop, so there wouldn't be massive crowding.
  • ed54, on 07/02/2008, -3/+75I think throwing passengers on and off is more fun. Plus, you wouldn't have to pay to design and implement this. Just open the doors.
    • pleasureismine, on 07/02/2008, -4/+1Buried for talking of potentially kicking somebody's grandma out the door while the vehicle's still in motion.
      • ed54, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1Buried for being a douchebag and not realizing that it was a joke.
    • icanrule, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Throw mama from the train. Sorry terrible reference to a terrible movie.
  • gavinhudson, on 07/02/2008, -8/+3Gotta love train tech!
  • elshizzo, on 07/02/2008, -2/+41Pretty fkn ingenius if it can actually be done. Stopping and starting over and over is a huge waste of energy. Imagine if we drove our daily commute without ever having to stop/start the car, and just cruise the whole way. You'd use half as much gas probably. Speakin of which, they need to get rid of all those traffic lights at intersections where there is never any traffic.
  • Britney90210, on 07/02/2008, -4/+6I would so go on this train.
  • phreak79, on 07/02/2008, -2/+5Superb idea. It will be interesting to see how this progresses and whether it can be implemented on a large scale.
  • bowserkid, on 07/02/2008, -6/+8Um, that sounds amazingly dangerous.

    They should just spit out the passengers in Jetson-like pods.
    • acs12798, on 07/02/2008, -1/+7Im not sure how its dangerous at all. At no point are you moving onto a moving object. I actually love this idea, combining this with high speed rail could actually make train travel a realistic competitor to flying, especially mid and short range flights.
      • bowserkid, on 07/02/2008, -2/+7"When the train enters a station, this car slides along on elevated rails that smoothly and gradually remove the car from the rest of the train and bring it to a stop."

        You're talking about two objects that are designed to connect/disconnect and which are moving at a high rate of speed. So many things can go wrong with that.
      • thefirelane, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6"At no point are you moving onto a moving object."

        Ummmm, the point is you are moving between two fast moving objects. So it means if there is an issue with people moving between the two trains (or someone holds the door) the whole train system must go into emergency braking mode. Contrast this to a normal train where something gets caught in a door, or someone holds it.... it just doesn't start.
      • nycmac247, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2"Im not sure how its dangerous at all"

        no on the subway I ride daily - people do crazy ***** and I have seen near death (really) on NON moving cars
      • Ramble, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Put the top carriage resting on the braking rails and raise them for boarding, if the train can't engage because of an issue then the main carrier train slips by underneath, if there is no issue then the rails can be lowered and can engage with the carrier.
    • Stormwern, on 07/02/2008, -2/+1It's dangerous because if the chart gets full or something goes wrong and you don't have time to stop, you're screwed. Good in theory, but with the human element introduced there would be too many problems. Generative breaks is a better solution.
    • spxiii, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1That's what it would have to do if you were in a wheelchair.
    • tolgafiratoglu, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2think that there's an elavator within the train, before the train reach the stop the doors of the elavator close, and when it's closer to stop that car gets the passengers with that elavator..

      no danger in this case.
  • cavefish01, on 07/02/2008, -2/+7But can they make a plane that never stops? O.o
    • Pittance, on 07/02/2008, -2/+9Yes. Refueling craft. We've been using it for fighter jets for years. Now getting people on and off, that would be a pain.
      • slifty, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5If only they could invent some sort of chute technology to at least handle the "getting off" part. It wouldn't actually BE a chute though, it would just function as one... We could call it a pseudochute!
      • erichw1504, on 07/02/2008, -1/+4There's this thing called a parachute.
      • TwiztOG43, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4what about maintenance?
      • intangible, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4Zip-Line.....
    • Stormwern, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6But can they make a plane that never stops, with snakes?
  • Pittance, on 07/02/2008, -5/+29Good god this could go so horribly, horrible wrong.
  • phorty40, on 07/02/2008, -7/+56Trains :
    NOW WITH TWICE THE CHANCE OF DYING!
    • Iztikeit, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0Sounds like the best thing that could ever happen to America. We need a decent public trans system to badly.....
  • ninjan, on 07/02/2008, -4/+6I just hope that it won't result in passengers split in half.
  • Pharacon, on 07/02/2008, -1/+8I think we should ditch trains and go with Robert A heinlein's vision in "The roads must roll"
  • JajaGaddi, on 07/02/2008, -6/+5efficient train ei? how about a train that does stop but exactly in my damn house?
  • LordKaT, on 07/02/2008, -3/+3Cool idea, but that's absolutely going to suck at rush hour when everyone's getting off at the same few stops.
  • AlexWiggy, on 07/02/2008, -2/+19I don't see how this is going to work on a realistic scale.
    Unless they've been generous with their wording and just saying no stopping, as I'm fairly sure that the train will have to slow down considerably to connect to the "baby" train.

    On the physics side of thing it's pretty hard to get something stationery to attach smoothly, then stay put within a couple of seconds, when the other object is travelling 50mph or so.
    • TwiztOG43, on 07/02/2008, -2/+1lets say the train is going 80mph, that would mean by the time the "baby" train comes in contact it has to reach that speed. well the only way for that to work and using tracks at the most minimum is for the "baby" train to speed up to 80mph like a mile or so ahead of the nonstop train so by the time they connect they are at the same speed.

      because if the nonstop train passes by the "baby" train and the "baby" train takes off at the same time as the non stop train it will take longer for it to catch up because the nonstop train is already going at a constant 80mph while the "baby" train has to catch up by going 0-80mph and by the time it catches up it might have used an enormous amount of track
      • Mavital, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2I really think the train slows considerably. Energy savings aside, the time gained on a train that never "stopped" would be huge (even if it slowed to 10mph). Today, a train commute from downtown Ft Worth to Downtown Dallas is about 45 minutes. Remove the stops, and there is no reason why it can't make this trip in 25 minutes or less.

        If I knew I could get to work FASTER by taking public transportation, I would do it in a heart beat. If you begin to move more and more people from the roads on to public transportation, you don't really need huge energy savings in the train, you are gaining them in the cars NOT on the road.
      • thorseth, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3Does your car use a mile to accelerate from 0-80 mph ??? May I suggest you replace your Ford T with a slightly newer model. The baby is really a baby, it has no or little engine and it is magnitudes lighter than the "mother". Now safety is a another issue, if the babies fail to stop or start you could have some pretty ugly accidents.
  • edrainkona, on 07/02/2008, -17/+4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _________
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./ It's a trap!
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _,,,--~~~~~~~~--,_ . . . .________/
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ : : : :::: :::: :: : : : : :º ‘-, . . /. . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . . . . . .,-‘ :: : : :::: :::: :::: :::: : : :o : ‘-, . . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ :: ::: :: : : :: :::: :::: :: : : : : :O ‘-, . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . . .,-‘ : :: :: :: :: :: : : : : : , : : :º :::: :::: ::’; . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . .,-‘ / / : :: :: :: :: : : :::: :::-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ; . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . /,-‘,’ :: : : : : : : : : :: :: :: : ‘-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;;| . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . /,’,-‘ :: :: :: :: :: :: :: : ::_,-~~,_’-, ;; ;; ;; ;; | . . . . . . .
    . . . . . _/ :,’ :/ :: :: :: : : :: :: _,-‘/ : ,-‘;’-‘’’’’~-, ;; ;; ;;,’ . . . . . . . .
    . . . ,-‘ / : : : : : : ,-‘’’ : : :,--‘’ :|| /,-‘-‘--‘’’__,’’’ ;; ;,-‘ . . . . . . . .
    . . . :/,, : : : _,-‘ --,,_ : : : ||/ /,-‘-‘x### :: ;;/ . . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . / /---‘’’’ : # : : : : : | | : (O##º : :/ /-‘’ . . . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . /,’____ : : ‘-# : , : : : : ‘-,___,-‘,-`-,, . . . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . ‘ ) : : : :’’’’--,,--,,,,,,¯ :: ::--,,_’’-,,’’’¯ :’- :’-, . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . .) : : : : : : ,, : ‘’’’~~~~’ :: :: :: :’’’’’¯ :: ,-‘ :,/ . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . .,/ /|\| | :/ / : : : : : : : ,’-, :: :: :: :: ::,--‘’ :,-‘ . . . . . . . .
    . . . . .\’|\ |/ ‘/ / :: :_--,, : , | )’; :: :: :: :,-‘’ : ,-‘ : : : , . . . . . . .
    . . . ./¯ :| | : |/ :: ::----, :/ :|/ :: :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : ‘’-,,_ . . . .
    . . ..| : : :/ ‘’-(, :: :: :: ‘’’’’~,,,,,’’ :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : : : :,-‘’’\ . . . .
    . ,-‘ : : : | : : ‘’) : : :¯’’’’~-,: : ,--‘’’ : :,-‘’ : : : : : : : : : ,-‘ :¯’’’’’-,_ .
    ./ : : : : :’-, :: | :: :: :: _,,-‘’’’¯ : ,--‘’ : : : : : : : : : : : / : : : : : : :’’-,
    / : : : : : -, :¯’’’’’’’’’’’¯ : : _,,-~’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : :| : : : : : : : : :
    : : : : : : : :¯’’~~~~~~’’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : | : : : : : : : : :
  • liuite, on 07/02/2008, -2/+6i don't see why you can't hitch trains cars together with powerful electromagnet, and release some cars as a approach a station only for them to rejoin the rest of the cars later. though i can't say it would improve fuel efficiency much but maybe it will run faster. this is assuming this is like urban electric trains where all cars are motorized.
    • nycmac247, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3Yes, it would also cut off my wrist as my watch is attracted to the magnets?
      Or my pacemaker??
      (ever tour a dam?)
    • bnuk013, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2I like this even better. The back car has it own motor and can fall off before the station. then the car that was already at the station takes of and joins the back of the train. Brilliant.
    • pixzor, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0At least, with this idea people could stay in the same carriage, without getting chopped in half, as they tried to exit. But another idea could be to have the floor of an individual carriage, rise upwards to be replaced by the next one, which could accelerate in front before joining up and being lowered down..
  • obbytoo, on 07/02/2008, -3/+3Seems like a good idea upon first glance. But considering that, if, the host train travels at very high speed, the parasitic cars would have enormous acceleration from rest which is a safety concern. It could work if the host train travels at moderate speed.

    Also another factor to consider is the center of gravity. The hosting car with the parasitic car on top would increase the risk of the hosting car tipping over.
  • wrillo, on 07/02/2008, -4/+3am I missing something or does this whole thing depend on a TRAIN? What exactly is the huge mass of passenger cars (the non-stopping train) for if they aren't to be filled with people?

    How about we use the same tracks we have, instead of building some train humping station. The same idea could be implemented by adding cars to the front of the train and dropping off the last one at the station.
    • sskuartfe7, on 07/02/2008, -0/+8I'm pretty sure you would only be in the pod if you were getting on or off the train.
      • asnider, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3Yeah, I'm pretty sure the idea is that, once the pod connects to the main train, you would then enter the main train and find a seat. When it was time to get off of the train, you'd go back up into the pod before it disconnected at your stop.
    • TheStrongForce, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Dugg for train humping.
  • vsaint, on 07/02/2008, -4/+3Leave it to the chinese to figure out how to effectively train mobs.
  • ihavebeenseen, on 07/02/2008, -13/+1(Oooooooh, here come that train!) You betta not miss it, baby!
    (Oooooooh, here come that train!) Betta get yo' ticket, baby!
    (Oooooooh, here come that train!) And don't be actin' ashamed!
    (Oooooooh, here come that train!) Here come dat party train!
  • BigBadaboom, on 07/02/2008, -3/+7It's an ingenious idea, but doesn't seem very practical. What happens if more people want to get off at a station than fit in the 'sidecar'.
    What percentage of a trains journey is spent accelerating? A few percent at most? Are the potential savings in fuel and/or journey time going to be enough to overcome the complicated and expensive modifications to trains and stations? Seems unlikely to me.
    • phorty40, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1Monorails with independent passenger parachutes FTW!
    • Mattarang, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3"What happens if more people want to get off at a station than fit in the 'sidecar'."

      Than it's the window for you!
    • BeforeSputnik, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3It's a start. The concept is good, the excecution needs work. That's how most new ideas get implemented.
    • asnider, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Not sure why you're getting dugg down. Seems like a reasonable set of questions to me.
    • Adamlite, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1You're right that only a small portion of the trip is spent accelerating, but energy consumption is significantly higher during acceleration; eliminating the stops will save money, time, and energy, resulting in a quicker, cheaper ride for passengers.
    • thorseth, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1In areas with many stops up to half the time is used holding completely still at stations. The "mother train" could just stop at large stations with many people getting in or out.
    • numb, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1In cases where too many people need to get off then the train could still stop at the station, so that's solvable. I imagine the train might need to slow to transfer the cars as well so there would probably be some deceleration and acceleration at each station, but overall you would have an energy savings.

      I think the biggest advantage would be the time passengers would save by not having to sit there and wait for the train to stop, unload, load, and take off again at each station.
  • zacharytelschow, on 07/02/2008, -2/+6Pretty sweet, but requires two sets of tracks. What about figuring out a way to simply drop the last car and add a new one to the front without stopping?
    • thefirelane, on 07/02/2008, -2/+1Then the size of the train becomes limited. Since it now moves faster, it can cover more stops faster.... however passengers must walk the entire length of the train to exit... meaning the time to walk the train could exceed the time taken to travel through several stops... so passengers can no longer "hop on and hop off", but rather must use the train exclusively for longer distance travel.

      To solve this, you must make the train shorter, which limits capacity.

      Plus, if a stationary train has someone hold the doors it can't start, and the whole thing must go into crazy braking emergency mode.
      • directrix13, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Well, why add the thing to the front even? Have x cars disconnect from the back whose acceleration is used to accelerate x loaded cars at the station which simply gets attached to the back.
  • PaperJesus, on 07/02/2008, -12/+5So...all that space on the actual train is wasted?
    • Kvasaari, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2So, how about reading the article watching the video?
  • erichw1504, on 07/02/2008, -5/+3Screw this, i'll just wait for my portal gun.
  • zyklon, on 07/02/2008, -2/+13Tuck and roll grandma!
    • GPSCenter, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1I don't think grandma is gonna be able to keep her teeth in her mouth on this thing! :/
  • erichw1504, on 07/02/2008, -8/+1Screw this, I'll just wait for my portal gun.
  • hokie47, on 07/02/2008, -2/+1What would happen if it hit something? The thing would go flying. Newton's Laws can be a bitch sometimes.
    • stanleyford, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4"What would happen if it hit something?" -- Hitting things would be a problem for regular trains as well. We still use them.
  • nitrams0, on 07/02/2008, -3/+0It's like a high-tech piggyback ride...wait, how many times did I drop my brother with piggyback rides? Nvrmnd...
  • iPirate, on 07/02/2008, -2/+6Simpsons did it!
  • jferrari, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3What about a big spinning wheel.. you walk in at the middle thats moving slow then walk to the edge which is going as fast as the train.

    They do it on some amusement park rides, like rapids & log-flume, obviously would have to be a lot bigger.
    • urinalpoop, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2That's what I was going to say. This guy just invented an overly-complex version of the WEDway Peoplemover. Nice Work.

    • directrix13, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Is that really that practical at those speeds? That would have to be a huge spinning wheel. Why not just a long conveyor belt that stores its momentum in fly wheels in between trains?
    • Ramble, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3Because if a wheel like that were to spin to match the speed of the train then the forces acting on people would fling them off the sides (into the track).
      • directrix13, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Well, if it was big enough they wouldn't, but it would have to be huge.
      • Ramble, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1In which case the air flying into you at 80mph would throw you off the side.
  • aftern9ne, on 07/02/2008, -5/+0What will the train itself then hold? Seems a waste of space when nobody can get in the actual train because it doesn't stop and everybody is sitting on top of it. Unless the train compartments will be the detachable cars, which could be a a safety issue.

    Hell while we're at it, why even have a train to begin with if you're in a moving car.
  • bryanwebster, on 07/02/2008, -4/+1How would this work? Say I am going 2 stops, I would be thrown of the train at the first stop and then have to get back onto the little car and wait for another train to take me to the second stop.

    • bryanwebster, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3Or would I go into the little detachable car from the main train only when it is time to get off?
  • nycmac247, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3Too much chance for mechanical failure leading to death.
    You may say "no way" but just like amusement park rides are safe 99.999+% of the time there is still that little sliver where they break down.
    ...and it seems like if 15 people were to die in a malfunction of one of these that everyone would remember for a loooooong time.
  • lou2005, on 07/02/2008, -3/+3I don't think you can appreciate what a good idea this is till you watch the video.
  • thisguy457, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0oh man, i mean, digg has some dumb comments sometimes, but did you read this site's comments? wow, sorry i'm off topic, but this is hilarious:

    "Why do you clam it's a Taiwanese Invention and the video is in Taiwanese? It says right at the beginning (upper right corner) that the Name of the Designer is Chen Jianjun of China, and the YT video is in the Chinese language."

    "so what if i don't want to get off at the next stop? i would hope they have an access to the bottom of said train so that a large number of passengers can sit and relax for longer trips while those taking a shorter trip (to the next stop perhaps) would be able to stay on top"

    HAHAHAHAHA, wow, okay, back to discussing the merits of the actual idea....
  • MatildaMiller, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3The "chase car" idea makes sense, except that you wouldn't really need a battery to power the chase car. Just have it powered by electricity as it quickly accelerates.

    As for slowing the chase car, I imagine in a lot of instances you could just let it coast to a stop. Just give it a half mile of track to coast on its own momentum, with a little braking at the end.

    The cool thing about the "chase car" idea is the flexibility. If the train is late, it can latch on to whatever train is coming down the line and then switch off to another train if necessary later.
    • kh99, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Or use the braking of one chase car to accelerate another,
  • DeadFox1, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5I commute via train and thought of something like this over a year ago. damnit- i could have been a millionaire.
  • Maxmaxxwell, on 07/02/2008, -1/+5Yeah right, this looks like an engineering nightmare
  • luftrofl, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1Seems expensive, dangerous, and difficult.

    Unless the trains are really long and the train slows waaaaaaaaaay down for the stations, wouldn't this be incredibly uncomfortable for the passengers.
  • dupswapdrop, on 07/02/2008, -0/+10Why not use the hanging bags that they used to use for mail? Put people in the bags then all they need to add to the train is a hook.
  • ramkam, on 07/02/2008, -2/+0unless you're Jackie Chan, how do you walk into/out of the upper car from/into the other cars as the train moves?
  • Kvasaari, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2Pretty nice idea. Sure, there are some practical problems, but that's why we have engineers.
  • londonflare, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1I wouldn't want to be on the joining car. Assuming the train is extremely long (1000m) and going fast (300 km/hr) you would need to accelerate from 0-300 in something like 24 seconds. That would be some pretty serious G's.
    • Ramble, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4I work it out to be about 3 m s^-2 for those figures you gave me. That's approximately the acceleration you'd feel if you were in a car that did 0-60mph in 10 seconds.
  • mogebier, on 07/02/2008, -2/+1Oh yeah, that'll work.
    Sure.
  • baudbwoy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4i see dead people
  • Charlie4bis, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1It looks like an excellent manner to reduce travel time in trains as well. You can reduce time to get on and get of for all passengers, and you save time acceleration and braking. Another big advantage is that trains can run more often on the same tracks, now there is a significant time gap between trains for safety reasons, when trains are running at one speed this can be reduced.
  • f4nt0m4s, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1Interesting idea. But, as someone mentioned, this might be hard to pull off in reality due to the nature of physics and collisions. How is a train barreling 50mph through a station going to pick up one of these cars? The overhead car would almost certainly have to be moving in the same direction as the train before contact is made, and it would have to be moving at a speed that almost matches the train below it. This would mean you would have to extend the train station, and provide power to the overhead car, two things that might cancel out the cost you could save if the train didn't have to stop at every station.

    Oh, and there's the fact that you're going to be moving passengers through large, moving mechanical devices.

    Somehow, I don't see this ever happening, at least not like this.
    • Majink, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1As far as getting the secondary train up to speed, they could have it move off prior to the primary train reaching the station and have it continue on the tracks until the primary train has reached the secondary. Then in order to minimise shearing possibilities, they could perhaps deploy some sort of locking mechanism to secure both trains to each other? Then using human operators to ensure all persons/objects are clear and ready they would detach the locks and either brake into the station or coast depending on how close they are to it.

      Obviously there are a lot of logistics and engineering problems to account for but when you think about the problems that might happen, there are solutions but are they financially viable?
  • andy7079, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0Interesting, but not feasible. I'd be willing to bet that the energy spent getting the small car up to speed in a reasonable time (few seconds in the video) would be more than brining the entire train to a stop and accelerating at a moderate speed.

    The other issues involve completely replacing existing rail infastructure, which will cost a lot of money. And in some places it will not be possible becuase the extra height needed isn't available (track going under viaducts).

    Also, whats to stop people from being struck by the trains constantly speeding along. We already have crossing gates and people still think they can beat the train.

    Personally, I think regenerative braking would be much easier to implement.
    • HappyScrappy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1The problem with regenerative braking on a train is it produces so much energy it's difficult to store it.
      • andy7079, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0With current battery technology we can't store the energy, I agree. But I'd be willing to bet that electric trains could pump power back into the network. The problem there lies in the power not being constant, but the same thing happens with wind turbines and they're being connected to our electrical grid at a crazy pace. It would involve some high level communications so that the power network knows what trains are using and supplying power to the overall network, but still possible.
      • davidron, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1You don't need to store the energy in a battery. You can use a flywheel to store up mechanical energy instead of electrical/chemical energy:
        http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980 ...

        This seems like a much more logical way to store energy than some sort of error-prone, relatively expensive, and dangerous chase car to me. But, what do I know, I'm a software engineer not a mechanical engineer.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.