5 ms·

This is solving the wrong problem, badly. More on why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJNvpG5gktM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJNvpG5gktM https://www.yout

by ajuc 5y ago

This is solving the wrong problem, badly. More on why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJNvpG5gktM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJNvpG5gktM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUpST_cQ1hM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUpST_cQ1hM

goodpoint 5y ago
The idea might be indeed just a grift, however the analysis in the video is very poor.
- lpcvoid 5y ago
  Why do you think it is?
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    In the first video the author makes a lot of assumption around operating these things in the existing railways without changing how they are managed. It does not consider the cost savings and increased flexibility in having cars arrange themselves and route autonomously to their destinations. Industrial warehousing/logistic robots are becoming very widespread and significantly changes the workflow and reduces human intervention. You can't make a fair comparison by treating autonomous robots as if they were regular train cars. The second video is simply mocking the boisterous style and claims of the ads.
    - lpcvoid 5y ago
      I think they don't consider that because it's a rail system. Re-arranging cars on route would require many junctions, and would probably slow down the whole system when they separate. It's also a different problem that they are solving with warehouse robots - goods need to be transported individually to destinations. Trains solve mass transport. And besides - autonomous rail robots would still be bound to a rail, and thus can't really plan any fancy avoidance or path finding that a warehouse robot could.
    - zardo 5y ago
      > In the first video the author makes a lot of assumption around operating these things in the existing railways without changing how they are managed. It does not consider the cost savings and increased flexibility in having cars arrange themselves and route autonomously to their destinations. Are they selling the bogie cars, or are they selling new rail infrastructure? If it's just the former then they have to work with the existing infrastructure, including manually switched tracks
    - mike_d 5y ago
      > a lot of assumption around operating these things in the existing railways without changing how they are managed. It does not consider the cost savings and increased flexibility in having cars arrange themselves and route autonomously to their destinations. Assumptions that are deeply rooted in reality. Rail is extremely cheap because it offers a fixed set of interconnection points with other modes of transportation and has extremely rigid standards that ensure at every step nobody has to stop and think about how to handle something. This is like Tesla announcing the Cybertruck will be 25 feet wide and insisting that all roads nationwide be updated so they will work.
- elkos 5y ago
  There are two videos in the previous comment, though. Do they both do poor analysis?
epistasis 5y ago
I wish I hadn't spent my time watching that. Argument through incredulity and mocking might be entertaining for some, but it's very low signal and all noise. Leaving this comment as a warning for others.
- halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
  Based on what? You offer no more evidence of your claims against what’s presented in the videos other than vagarities yourself.
  - yreg 5y ago
    I watched only the second video and also find it poor. It basically just says that using this system to transport a train-load of cargo between two train terminals would use more energy than a train. Well, you don't say. Also, as other videos on the channel it is arrogant and mocking.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Tade0 5y ago
  I didn't have to click to know that at least one of these links was Adam Something. Guy jumped the shark and his smugness lately has been tiring, especially that his clips are at times factually incorrect. The other link explains why this idea is DOA well, though.
morcheeba 5y ago
What's in the video? A one-sentence summary would save everyone a lot of time.
- yosamino 5y ago
  I haven't watched the video, but based off of the title "Pod train" the argument is probably along the lines of this: There is a futuristic theme in logistics that envisions humans or cargo to be shipped in "pods". This is in contrast to the more efficient way of shipping humans or cargo in larger vehicles like trains or busses. These pod-ideas inevitable run into some bottle-necks or have to make trade-offs that in the end give them so much lower efficiency than the "traditional" way which is already the (almost) optimal solution to a given problem. Examples of this are various incarnations of hyperloop, that do not actually solve all real-world problems existing solutions have to deal with, but rather only a subset of them - but they are better at this subset plus they look fancy in their renderings. This makes it so these impractical solutions get a lot of hype, and money is spent on prototypes, but there is a lot of hot air and little substance.
- mike_d 5y ago
  TL;DR: Someone who actually knows trains points out that the designers eliminated all the benefits of rail while designing something that requires the entire existing rail network to be changed to support it (which will never happen). I think the biggest nail in the coffin is that they are targeting short haul lines, which are often the least maintained and require human supervision to operate on for safety and logistical reasons. For example, short haul lines use manual switches - so every time two tracks split or come together you have to have a human present.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
junon 5y ago
+1 on the second link. Adam Something is the authoritative voice on this.

by ajuc 5y ago

goodpoint 5y ago

The idea might be indeed just a grift, however the analysis in the video is very poor.

lpcvoid 5y ago
Why do you think it is?
- goodpoint 5y ago
  In the first video the author makes a lot of assumption around operating these things in the existing railways without changing how they are managed. It does not consider the cost savings and increased flexibility in having cars arrange themselves and route autonomously to their destinations. Industrial warehousing/logistic robots are becoming very widespread and significantly changes the workflow and reduces human intervention. You can't make a fair comparison by treating autonomous robots as if they were regular train cars. The second video is simply mocking the boisterous style and claims of the ads.
  - lpcvoid 5y ago
    I think they don't consider that because it's a rail system. Re-arranging cars on route would require many junctions, and would probably slow down the whole system when they separate. It's also a different problem that they are solving with warehouse robots - goods need to be transported individually to destinations. Trains solve mass transport. And besides - autonomous rail robots would still be bound to a rail, and thus can't really plan any fancy avoidance or path finding that a warehouse robot could.
  - zardo 5y ago
    > In the first video the author makes a lot of assumption around operating these things in the existing railways without changing how they are managed. It does not consider the cost savings and increased flexibility in having cars arrange themselves and route autonomously to their destinations. Are they selling the bogie cars, or are they selling new rail infrastructure? If it's just the former then they have to work with the existing infrastructure, including manually switched tracks
  - mike_d 5y ago
    > a lot of assumption around operating these things in the existing railways without changing how they are managed. It does not consider the cost savings and increased flexibility in having cars arrange themselves and route autonomously to their destinations. Assumptions that are deeply rooted in reality. Rail is extremely cheap because it offers a fixed set of interconnection points with other modes of transportation and has extremely rigid standards that ensure at every step nobody has to stop and think about how to handle something. This is like Tesla announcing the Cybertruck will be 25 feet wide and insisting that all roads nationwide be updated so they will work.
elkos 5y ago
There are two videos in the previous comment, though. Do they both do poor analysis?

epistasis 5y ago

I wish I hadn't spent my time watching that. Argument through incredulity and mocking might be entertaining for some, but it's very low signal and all noise. Leaving this comment as a warning for others.

halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
Based on what? You offer no more evidence of your claims against what’s presented in the videos other than vagarities yourself.
- yreg 5y ago
  I watched only the second video and also find it poor. It basically just says that using this system to transport a train-load of cargo between two train terminals would use more energy than a train. Well, you don't say. Also, as other videos on the channel it is arrogant and mocking.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Tade0 5y ago
I didn't have to click to know that at least one of these links was Adam Something. Guy jumped the shark and his smugness lately has been tiring, especially that his clips are at times factually incorrect. The other link explains why this idea is DOA well, though.

morcheeba 5y ago

What's in the video? A one-sentence summary would save everyone a lot of time.

yosamino 5y ago
I haven't watched the video, but based off of the title "Pod train" the argument is probably along the lines of this: There is a futuristic theme in logistics that envisions humans or cargo to be shipped in "pods". This is in contrast to the more efficient way of shipping humans or cargo in larger vehicles like trains or busses. These pod-ideas inevitable run into some bottle-necks or have to make trade-offs that in the end give them so much lower efficiency than the "traditional" way which is already the (almost) optimal solution to a given problem. Examples of this are various incarnations of hyperloop, that do not actually solve all real-world problems existing solutions have to deal with, but rather only a subset of them - but they are better at this subset plus they look fancy in their renderings. This makes it so these impractical solutions get a lot of hype, and money is spent on prototypes, but there is a lot of hot air and little substance.
mike_d 5y ago
TL;DR: Someone who actually knows trains points out that the designers eliminated all the benefits of rail while designing something that requires the entire existing rail network to be changed to support it (which will never happen). I think the biggest nail in the coffin is that they are targeting short haul lines, which are often the least maintained and require human supervision to operate on for safety and logistical reasons. For example, short haul lines use manual switches - so every time two tracks split or come together you have to have a human present.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

junon 5y ago

+1 on the second link. Adam Something is the authoritative voice on this.