Nick said:I've just had a scan through it, surely this scheme for a 25mph mini railway couldn't work in an urban climate as a people mover like say in Liverpool?
I think that's pointing out that light rail with stops averages at 20mph whereas the kiddy rail would be 25mph non stop.tramboy said:Interesting idea, the one thing thought that you'd lack would be the capacity. It looks like a scheme similar to the ULTRA lightrail proposed for Cardiff a while back. It could also be costly to install if things go wrong...and remember that miniature railways are slow speed. Light rail tends to get to 50kph (30mph) between most stops, apart from those in pedestrian areas, where 25kph is still the max. This thing would still be subject to the same rules and regs, so the speed bonuses wouldn't be noticed...as when LR is out of urban areas, it makes up time (80kph), and this would be limited to a slower maximum speed. A good thought for mostly urban american cities...where you get 19km of line all onstreet running, but not for Britain, where we are less built up...
Yes on a motorway everytime a car comes off at a slipway the ones behind slow down....tramboy said:Kiddy rail...I'll point out that the name may denote a few sizing issues. Also, it won't be 25mph all the way...as with certain portions leaving and joining the main guideway, there will always be one to slow down...which means that, if they are running in such close formation, the ones behind will slow down, etc, etc.
Well DLR is probably safter but systems that mix with cars won't be as safe.Also, as Zoltan points out, light rail is a lot safer, as there is always someone in a LRV, but not in an Ultra pod.
I'm sure it just has fast changing points. Even ones on the current railway take only 2 secs or so...yorkie said:How will points work here? Let's face it, the system is totally flawed and is a joke!
So you have loads of vehicles really close together, and one wants to take the diverging route. Do the points suddenly change in front of it? If it's really that close to the preceding vehicle you would need the points to be quick at changing. What if the points fail? Surely the route would be set to danger until the points are proven to have switched, but that would mean a lot of slowing down to take a diverging route.
I doubt it. If we could do the DLR 15 years ago we can do this now.This has all the technical disadvantages of car travel (lots of small vehicles competing for space) along with the disadvantages of light rail (limited to going where the rails take you).
The idea that loads of individual vehicles are cheaper to buy, run and maintain than much fewer proper size vehicles is clearly a joke.
I think this site is a deliberate attempt to fool people and they laugh at the people they've fooled who actually believe it!!!
Oh no they don't!Nick W said:I'm sure it just has fast changing points. Even ones on the current railway take only 2 secs or so...
But the DLR is the opposite of what they are suggesting. Consider how many people can fit in a packed 4-car DLR train, and consider the requirement for all of them to have their own seperate vehicle. It really makes no sense at all!Nick W said:I doubt it. If we could do the DLR 15 years ago we can do this now.
Well said! IF this is a serious suggestion then this problem clearly has not occured to them.Tomnick said:Yes, but the protecting signal can't be cleared for a route across any set of points until they've detected normal/reverse as appropriate. So any vehicle approaching said set of points must be in a position to stop short (i.e. slowing down! - and this ridiculous thought of stopping from 100mph in 2 seconds or whatever it is doesn't count as service braking!) until detection is achieved. Yet another flaw in the plan?
This system is robotic ie no human driver.Tomnick said:Yes, but the protecting signal can't be cleared for a route across any set of points until they've detected normal/reverse as appropriate. So any vehicle approaching said set of points must be in a position to stop short (i.e. slowing down! - and this ridiculous thought of stopping from 100mph in 2 seconds or whatever it is doesn't count as service braking!) until detection is achieved. Yet another flaw in the plan?
I bet the people now in heaven from Ladbroke Grove wished that the HST could brake from 100mph in 2 seconds.this ridiculous thought of stopping from 100mph in 2 seconds or whatever it is doesn't count as service braking!
Regardless of whether the driver is a human or a computer, junctions need protection if they are not set correctly.Nick W said:No human driver = no need for a protecting signal.
Even if was "instant", the system works on the basis of a tiny headway between vehicles, but such a tiny headway cannot possibly be maintained. If the switches are high speed, then they will be long, and consider that the rear of the preceding vehicle must be completely clear of the points before they can change, and the route cannot be proven until the points have changed and detected as having done so. In the mean time the route is unavailable and the 'pod' will have to be slowing down considerably.Nick W said:I'm guessing the points probably change instantly with a solenoid or something that only operates in 2 modes.
Either way the system works with a radar to detect how far in front the next pod is.
When you say "driving", do you mean "driving a car"?Nick W said:I'm sure the system cannot be less safe than driving....