3 ms·

Wait, 8,600 TON trains?! How big are these things? 8600 tons of lead would be 680 cubic meters - so ten or so standard sized shipping containers. Two locos,

Wait, 8,600 TON trains?! How big are these things? 8600 tons of lead would be 680 cubic meters - so ten or so standard sized shipping containers. Two locos, four cars... I still don't see how that fits. Unless these are HUGE trains, or they're using exotic matter, I don't see how that's possible.

zimpenfish 11y ago
Going off https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaviest_trains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaviest_trains I'd reckon probably about 1000m length for 8600t trains. (And also that 8600t isn't anything special.)
- madaxe_again 11y ago
  So 200m long cars, given that there are four in a train of that mass from TFA? I suppose it's not inconceivable, but it seems weird to be re-inventing the railway carriage format. Also, having a long train is surely undesirable for this application, unless you have a plateau at the top and bottom at least as long as the train.
  - secabeen 11y ago
    If you look at the video, they have a neat system where the mass is stored perpendicular to the rails in the storage yard, then cars come in, pick up the masses, rotate them parallel to the rail for transport, then re-rotate them back to perpendicular for storage at the other end.
    - dragontamer 11y ago
      That's probably how they'd scale. It looks like they're just going to be moving the trains up/down the slope.
maxerickson 11y ago
An example in one of the patents I linked discusses having 240 regenerative units in a single train. So it sounds like the plan is to make them quite large.
- madaxe_again 11y ago
  But they say in that same sentence that it'll be two locomotives and four cars, weighing that in total... but then again perhaps if you don't have to deal with any curves, you can have reaaaaaaaaaallly long cars.
  - beat 11y ago
    I would imagine an advantage of the rail design is that you can build them in existing factories already hooked up to the rail system and just drive them to the location, rather than having to truck-transport the parts and assemble locally.
franciscop 11y ago
Totally true, however if "8,600-ton trains" just means 8.6/8,6-ton trains then that would be certainly too little (unless it means per car and not per train).

zimpenfish 11y ago

Going off https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaviest_trains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaviest_trains I'd reckon probably about 1000m length for 8600t trains. (And also that 8600t isn't anything special.)

madaxe_again 11y ago
So 200m long cars, given that there are four in a train of that mass from TFA? I suppose it's not inconceivable, but it seems weird to be re-inventing the railway carriage format. Also, having a long train is surely undesirable for this application, unless you have a plateau at the top and bottom at least as long as the train.
- secabeen 11y ago
  If you look at the video, they have a neat system where the mass is stored perpendicular to the rails in the storage yard, then cars come in, pick up the masses, rotate them parallel to the rail for transport, then re-rotate them back to perpendicular for storage at the other end.
  - dragontamer 11y ago
    That's probably how they'd scale. It looks like they're just going to be moving the trains up/down the slope.

maxerickson 11y ago

An example in one of the patents I linked discusses having 240 regenerative units in a single train. So it sounds like the plan is to make them quite large.

madaxe_again 11y ago
But they say in that same sentence that it'll be two locomotives and four cars, weighing that in total... but then again perhaps if you don't have to deal with any curves, you can have reaaaaaaaaaallly long cars.
- beat 11y ago
  I would imagine an advantage of the rail design is that you can build them in existing factories already hooked up to the rail system and just drive them to the location, rather than having to truck-transport the parts and assemble locally.

franciscop 11y ago

Totally true, however if "8,600-ton trains" just means 8.6/8,6-ton trains then that would be certainly too little (unless it means per car and not per train).