3 ms·

There is also this Chinese concept train that never stops at a station: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9Ig19gYP9o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9Ig19gYP9o

by svisser 12y ago

jimmcslim 12y ago
And a European concept that is similar: https://vimeo.com/25403519 https://vimeo.com/25403519 Side-by-side instead of on-top. The Chinese concept has the benefit of using less space. I don't know if either could be engineered to be practical or safe. At any rate, the most important question is... Did you NUGGET your boots this morning?
- chrischen 12y ago
  European one seems really over-engineered.
- Someone 12y ago
  Practical or safe? Probably. Practical and safe? I doubt it. On a standard railway platform, leaving late because some passengers hold up the train is a nuisance. With systems such as these, it is lethal. For the EU one, the critical timing is in detaching from the fast train. It _has_ to happen before the two tracks split up. For the Chinese one, detaching can be postponed indefinitely, if slow cars in front know it soon enough, and can pull up fast enough. I think that makes this system slightly safer. Worst-case, an emergency command 'all trains to full speed' will 'just' move most passengers to stations a few hundred miles from where they wanted to go. In either case, I would expect that, to guarantee proper timing of detachment, the doors between fast and slow trains would have to close at least a minute, probably more, before separation. For the EU design, that means long side-by-side tracks. For the Chinese one, it limits the distance between stops of the docking train. One could solve that by allowing two slower trains to dock at the same time, but that increases the risk of collisions tremendously (two half-width trains docking side by side might be the best solution here)

3 ms·

There is also this Chinese concept train that never stops at a station: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9Ig19gYP9o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9Ig19gYP9o

by svisser 12y ago

There is also this Chinese concept train that never stops at a station: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9Ig19gYP9o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9Ig19gYP9o

jimmcslim 12y ago
And a European concept that is similar: https://vimeo.com/25403519 https://vimeo.com/25403519 Side-by-side instead of on-top. The Chinese concept has the benefit of using less space. I don't know if either could be engineered to be practical or safe. At any rate, the most important question is... Did you NUGGET your boots this morning?
- chrischen 12y ago
  European one seems really over-engineered.
- Someone 12y ago
  Practical or safe? Probably. Practical and safe? I doubt it. On a standard railway platform, leaving late because some passengers hold up the train is a nuisance. With systems such as these, it is lethal. For the EU one, the critical timing is in detaching from the fast train. It _has_ to happen before the two tracks split up. For the Chinese one, detaching can be postponed indefinitely, if slow cars in front know it soon enough, and can pull up fast enough. I think that makes this system slightly safer. Worst-case, an emergency command 'all trains to full speed' will 'just' move most passengers to stations a few hundred miles from where they wanted to go. In either case, I would expect that, to guarantee proper timing of detachment, the doors between fast and slow trains would have to close at least a minute, probably more, before separation. For the EU design, that means long side-by-side tracks. For the Chinese one, it limits the distance between stops of the docking train. One could solve that by allowing two slower trains to dock at the same time, but that increases the risk of collisions tremendously (two half-width trains docking side by side might be the best solution here)