this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
199 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

38631 readers
120 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

Well, I think they look cute.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That looks horrible. Cramped, the giant windows means it's hot and the sun is always in your eyes.... Any reason they need to only use one rail? We already have road & rail buses, trucks, etc...just use those.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

They use one rail so they can pass each other on single line tracks. Which are quite common for rural lines.

If only there was some sort of article you could have read.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

At least this one certainly can't pass each other on one track.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

They explained that one in the article as well.

This is a prototype so it has the mechanism so it doesn't fall over if the prototype fails. The actual production version won't have that. It's also running at low speed for the same reason.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I think "Draisy" is faster on the track and a much more realistic project. But "Monocab" is a University project, so it's ok for me that a few millions are invested there.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yes, this looks much better. My other thought would be road-rail buses, but getting on/off the tracks might be too much work to be worth the extra flexibility.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I've seen one of those in Japan. Even they admit that the only reason they continue to run it is for the novelty factor, it's apparently quite expensive to keep going and not really that efficient.

It takes a good while to convert between the two modes since you have to be really careful you don't misalign the thing and result in a derail. So it's done, very, very, slowly.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Looks like walking speed in their testing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Anything faster would be a safety issue.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

How else are they going to win the rail pod challenge?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

Fahr'n, fahr'n, fahr'n mit ein Gadgetbahn 🎶

[–] [email protected] 25 points 11 months ago (3 children)

JUST PUT A FUCKING TRAIN ON IT WTF ARE WE DOING

[–] [email protected] 17 points 11 months ago

FUCKING DOING OUR JOB AS TRANSPORT MODELLERS AND DOING A FUCKING COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS THAT SHOWS YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO GET FUCKING MODE SHIFT FROM RURAL USERS UNLESS YOU RUN A FUCKING METRO STYLE 10 MINUTELY SERVICE WHICH IS FUCKING UNFEASIBLE WITH THE FUCKING RESOURCES WE HAVE AVAILABLE.

IN THE FUCKING UK WE HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF FUCKING ABANDONED RAILWAYS FROM THE PERIOD OF FUCKING COAL MINING THAT WOULDN'T HAVE ANYWHERE NEAR THE FUCKING DEMAND NECESSARY TO JUSTIFY SETTING UP AN EXPENSIVE AS FUCK SIGNALLING SYSTEM TO BRING THEM UP TO MODERN FUCKING SAFETY STANDARDS, ALONGSIDE REPLACING THE FUCKING RAILS, SLEEPERS AND BEDS.

IF INSTEAD YOU CAN HAVE A FUCKING PUBLICALLY OWNED FLEET OF FUCKING ELECTRIC 'MINI TRAINS' THAT PEOPLE COULD USE FOR INFREQUENT BUT NECESSARY TRIPS, THAT COULD REMOVE A FUCKING SIGNIFICANT BARRIER TO MODE SHIFT, WHICH WOULD BE PRETTY FUCKING RAD

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago

Trains are expensive to run if you don't have enough passengers (like in small villages).

[–] [email protected] 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Read the article, that's literally the first thing they explain

Besides which, it's very obviously a train if you just look at it. It's a small monorail train specifically designed for this purpose using existing infrastructure.

People are never fucking happy.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

A train is a collection of rolling railcars propelled by one or more locomotives. These are individual self-powered railcars.

So no, there’s no train here. Just monorail pods that will get congested as density increases.

The whole concept of a train is that all the cars move together and the only congestion is at the switching yards, where it can be optimized.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

Isn't it better to have a train that runs when you want rather than having to wait potentially hours for the scheduled commuter train. Isn't this better?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago

These pods are only used on rails with very low ridership. They would switch to a train if ridership increased.

Look at it this way: you can have a train that has a capacity of 100 people, but it only runs once a day due to the low demand, and only 2 people want to ride it at that time of day..Or you can have 10 pods, which do not require as much railway maintenance, and they can carry the 10 people who actually want to use this railway, completely on demand.

Yeah, a train is better if you want to move ten thousand people a day at peak hour. But this is a cheaper way to move ten people at different times across a day. And it's a cheaper way of inducing the demand that would justify the more efficient kind of expansion.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Exactly what we need! More pods! SMH!

[–] [email protected] 31 points 11 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Trains suck if you don't have frequency, and because of the population density with a good frequency more than half of the trains will be completely empty and the rest almost empty.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago

Cars suck always.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 months ago (2 children)

If you out half the funding from car infrastructure instead into train and bus infrastructure this would not be a problem. Induced demand works both ways.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

Even with unlimited funding, you want to scale the size of the train to the population that could potentially ride on it.

A P42 locomotive pulling 7 Amtrak superliner cars is 700 tons of steel getting 0.4 miles per gallon of diesel. That's a crapton of mining and drilling and CO2, and it would be incredibly wasteful if it ended up carrying, like, two people at a time.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The population in rural areas is so low that no matter how you induce demand, it won't work.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Look up "interurban railways". Most towns east of the Mississippi used to have frequent rail service with whistle stops at every farm and crossroads. In addition to passengers these railroads also transported the harvest, Sears purchases, kit houses, even hearses!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

This almost certainly wouldn't work in the United States but it does in Europe because Europe has loads of these tiny abandoned rail lines (often single track) that were built in the 1800s and then abandoned. They don't go anywhere particularly densely populated, you know because of the industrial Revolution causing everyone to move to the cities, so there isn't the demand for a full rail service. Meaning they're not going to spend the money upgrading the infrastructure to modern standards.

This means they can be used at relatively cheap cost. As long as the tracks are still physically present all they need to do is cut some weeds down and put these things on the line and they're good to go. It's a cheap project that a local municipal authority can handle without having to involve wider government.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago

However, what if it were possible to hail a small electric vehicle right when you needed it – via a taxi- or Uber-style app

Uber style app. Seriously, fuck no. Send trains or don’t, fuck Uber and their business model.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 11 months ago

Why is it always fucking pods!? (Fucking-pods?)

load more comments
view more: next ›