h a l f b a k e r yFunny peculiar.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
In remote areas, where trafic is not much, usually govenments don't build bridges because they can not justify spending.
In such low trafic areas, one can use zipline/cable car to transport people; This has been done long time back. However cable way should also transport empty cars, two-wheelers,
minivans etc. Most of the cable ways can easily take up weight upto one ton.
So people can drive upto cable car; transport themselves in a cable car. Transport the empty car saperately by hanging it to cable. Once reached other side, continue journey in the car.
This could be a lot cheaper than building a bridge.
Something like this, but with modification.
http://www.youtube....watch?v=PLH00zaqs_s
Looks cheap enough... [VJW, Jun 18 2011]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
This is called a transporter bridge, and they exist but
are not common. I suspect the cost isn't that much
lower (since you still need the cable support
structure and machinery) for a huge reduction in
efficiency. |
|
| |
Cableways can be installed in day and transported elsewhere as required. .i.e. they can be temperorily installed. Transporter bridges seem to use much heavier structures, like rails on which cart moves. Cableway, which need just one cable are comparitively lean-and-mean setups. |
|
| |
Cableways that are capable of carring even a single car are not temporarily installed. At a bare minimum you're going to need two gantries with a high load capacity, both also tall enough that cable sag doesn't hit the water; extensive anchoring; and a motor that is capable of pulling the car back up from the low point of the sag. |
|
| |
That bare minimum set-up will not work in even moderate winds and will have zero redundancy in case of failure (two cables is kind of the minimum). |
|
| |
There is no conceptual difference between this and a transporter bridge, it's just that the transporter bridge is built to a practical scale and safety level. |
|
| |
I'm imagining a ski lift combined with the electromagnets they use with car crushers. A continuously moving cable loop with spaced electromagnets that snap onto the roofs of cars and haul them and the passengers to the other side. You might lose a car or two in the gorge when they have luggage on the roof, but people would quickly learn. |
|
| |
ldischler, - yes, exactly. |
|
| |
How much maintenance, for even
minimal safety? With that, would it really be
cheaper than a
bridge? |
|
| |
One advantage with cableway is that it can have a steep incline. Bridge, can't. |
|
| |
Are ski-lilfts that high mentainence ? |
|
| |
Well, if skiers weighed as much as automobiles
they
might be. And ski-lifts *do* require regular
maintenance for safety. You wouldn't leave a ski
lift
running for long unattended, for example, while
you
can
certainly do that with a bridge, inspecting ...
what,
annually? Biannually? Repaving and repainting
what ... biennially? But
good
point. |
|
| |
It seems crazy for people heading north to haul their vehicle over the chasm, while other people heading south haul their vehicle the opposite way. Just provide hardstanding for people to leave their car parked on, for flks disembarking in the opposite direction to drive off in. Legally enforcible notices, with lump hammers and hotwiring kits attached, announce that any car parked nearby is available for use by cablecar travellers. |
|
| |