Comments on: Train Picks Up and Drops Passengers Without Stopping (May, 1932)

By: garbarhar

garbarhar — Mon, 10 May 2010 19:32:30 +0000

“Yeah. This was a good idea lol.
Have you seen how pokey people are leaving an airplane? What happens if someone is only halfway through the door when the monorail needs to start braking? Yikes.”

People tend to pay a little more attention when the situation merits.

By: Jari

Jari — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:12:21 +0000

Let’s see, it must be near equator, preferably as high as possible. Mt. Kilimanjaro is 330km south of the equator and is ~5800m high. then there are several +4000m high peaks in Ecuador, which are exactly at the equator.

If my trigonometry was right, required tether length is still about 500 meters shorter in case of Mt. Kilimanjaro. Who knew. So Mt. Kilimanjaro wins.

Of course then there are things like political stability, what would happen, if elevators tether snaps, etc.

By: jayessell

jayessell — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:44:42 +0000

Jari:
D’Oh!
Of course I do.

But…

Where would be the best locations for Space Elevators?

By: Jari

Jari — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:27:32 +0000

Jayessell:

I think you meant western side, as the Earth rotates counterclockwice looking from north.

By: jayessell

jayessell — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 02:07:05 +0000

Sean:
Mt. Kilimanjaro : Yes.
Maglev train: Almost.
On its eastern side, build a maglev ramp to launch SCRAMJET/Rocket hybrid
Two-Stage-to-Orbit shuttles.
Zero to 500mph: Magnetic propulsion. Altitude: 5 miles.
500mph to 2000mph: SCRAMjet. Altitude: 20 miles.
2000mph to 18,000mph. LH/LO Rocket Altitude 200 miles.

PS: This is hardly about the train of the article.

By: Sean John

Sean John — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:19:05 +0000

Today, I was thinking we should have a maglev to the top of a equatorial mountain where it docks into an already moving spaceship. If we’re all going to have headaches and be afraid then lets have fun doing it.

By: spuffler

spuffler — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 09:08:01 +0000

Someone will always muck up the timing, every time. Problem is, you have to take a look at all possible ‘what happens if…’ scenarios.

By: Floirt

Floirt — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 00:17:08 +0000

I honestly see no problems with that plan. Since movement is relative, the exchange happens at exactly 0km/h using the train as referential.
The only problem would be sealing the corridor so air doesn’t leak in while you pass from one to the other.
And the time window would be much larger than taking a metropolitan.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:03:02 +0000

What about infants and the elderly?

By: jayessell

jayessell — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:46:50 +0000

#13, see #9.
The passengers could endure the acceleration and de-acceleration if the
transfer car seats were modeled after those of roller-coasters!

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:15:36 +0000

Passengers wouldn’t be mangled, the car is connected to the train until the door is closed, then it is detached from the train. The risk occurs if the monorail track runs out before the door is closed. Lets assume that the monorail runs the entire length of the track.

The issue would be accelerating the transfer car with passengers in it. The acceleration required may be too much for passengers to handle. Deceleration wouldn’t be an issue as time is not an issue.

The biggest issue is cost, stopping the train would be less expensive who cares if passengers have to wait. Except the passengers

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:35:41 +0000

actually, since trains can switch tracks at even high speeds, couldn’t they have it like this:

1) approaching the station, the train switches onto a track that is essentially a circle going around the station so it just keeps going round and round

2) The transfer cars are on a similar circular track on the inside of the circle. They pick up speed as the train approaches and will match up with the train at the same speed.

3) As the passengers embark/disembark, the train and cars are going around at the station in circle. This ensures that, given a problem or some sort of delay, you wouldn’t have that ticking clock problem.

The problem here is that it partially defeats the point of the fast passenger transfer, but it increases safety and still eliminates the stopping and start up times.

OR………

a jet car that flies to meet the top of the train and lands on it. people transfer, then the car takes off from the top of the train. Any good artists want to take a crack at some concept art?

By: Torontoooooooo

Torontoooooooo — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 03:07:28 +0000

No mangling? Where’s the fun in that?

Happy Halloween!

By: happysmoker

happysmoker — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 00:12:23 +0000

Great idea. And you couldn’t mangle passengers if the doors to the transfer car shut well before it started slowing down.

By: jayessell

jayessell — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:58:24 +0000

It would work as long as getting on and off the train was automated.
Have the passengers stand in elevator-like boxes.
As soon as the transfer car matches speed with the train and docks,
the passenger boxes are exchanged and the car decouples and brakes.
On the train, as soon as the newly boarded passengers leave the transfer
box it is moved to the disembarking position for the next terminal.

PS: Were the car fail to decouple, the entire train would have to stop.
….or be destroyed. Whatever.

By: Don

Don — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:24:03 +0000

In order for this to work, the side cars would have to function like the aforementioned slip coach. If the cars stayed with the train until the next stop, it would give people plenty of time to embark and disembark the train. The trick is designing a safe way to pick up and drop off the cars.

By: Milligan

Milligan — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:03:56 +0000

This is essentially how many of the rides at Disney World work, although they use a continuous moving walkway running at the same speed as the passenger cars rather than an enclosed car. I don’t think it would work very well at higher speeds, though.

By: davee

davee — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:32:20 +0000

This was used in the UK between 1858 and 1960, for dropping passengers off at a station. Instead of a separate car, the last coach in a train was uncoupled before a wayside station. It used it’s own brake, and some clever point switching by the signalman…!

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slip_coach

By: Stuart

Stuart — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:37:22 +0000

I love this idea. Would speed up travel time as most time is spent waiting for people to get on and off. You would have 2 of them one ready to go and one just arriving letting people off.

To stop people from being trapped in doors you only have the doors open once it connected to the train or platform and closed & locked prior to arrival or departure.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:02:53 +0000

What could possibly go wrong?

By: Chris Radcliff

Chris Radcliff — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:08:29 +0000

This was actually proposed again recently, but with the “mono-rail” on top of the train instead of alongside:

http://technabob.com/blog/2008.....-stopping/

The same comments about mangling passengers still apply.

By: Craig G Noble

Craig G Noble — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:59:16 +0000

Sweet Jumpin’ Jeebus. Do inventors actually try to find ways to mangle people?

By: Kenneth

Kenneth — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:24:55 +0000

Yeah. This was a good idea lol.

Have you seen how pokey people are leaving an airplane? What happens if someone is only halfway through the door when the monorail needs to start braking? Yikes.