h a l f b a k e r y"Not baked goods, Professor; baked bads!" -- The Tick
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,
|
|
|
It has been brought to the attention of the BorgCo Mass Transit Engineering Department that London apparently suffers from overcrowded commuter trains.
Peversely, those involved seem to reject the simple, obvious solution of "not going anywhere near London, because it's a stinking, overcrowded plague
pit reknowned for dirt, crime, wretchedly poor quality of life, and overcharging".
The speed and traffic density of trains cannot be increased with existing signalling,track and rolling stock technology. The length of trains cannot be increased because of the length of existing platforms. Compressing commuters into an organic slurry and then pumping them through pipes at very high pressure only delivers the same approximate throughput as the District line (because the two methodologies are essentially the same).
Trains could be slightly longer if it were accepted that carriages at the front and rear of the train did not have access to the platforms at stations. This merely requires passengers to pre-position themselves when wishing to disenbark, and with a less crowded service this should be less problematic.
Obviously, the longer the train, the lower the density of passengers; they merely need to be persuaded to move to the front on boarding (as at terminal stations it is from the front that disembarkation is possible).
However, if the train is too long, its front will come in close proximity to the train ahead, violating track block separation rules.
If such trains were coupled together, they would extend between two consecutive stations. Thus a passenger could in theory board at one station and move along the length of the train via the vestibules, eventually arriving at the next station ahead where they may if they wish disembark.
With sufficiently long trains, it will be possible for passengers to join the train at any station and move forward through the carriages until they can alight at the terminus.
All that is needed is an adequate supply of rolling stock.
Since the front of the train remains against the buffers at the terminus, no driver is needed - only ticket collectors and a guard. Signals can be left at green all the time as there is known to be nothing on the track ahead. There will be plenty of seats available. Energy will be needed only for door operation lighting and air conditioning - not propulsion.
The cost savings will be enormous and everyone* will be happy.
*who owns shares in the company, that is.
worm train
worm_20train
Also an idea for a never-ending train - however with movement acheived by having compression waves travel down the train. [hippo, Nov 28 2019]
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.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
This would be a very safe system. |
|
| |
Interestingly, you can increase the passenger
throughput of a rail system by decreasing the
speed of the trains. This is that, taken to the
extreme. |
|
| |
We will remind the service provider which commissioned the design study (Oddly enough, MaxCo) to emphasise that point especially in the prospectus. |
|
| |
// taken to the extreme. // |
|
| |
Extreme things can be good. However, while "Extreme Croquet" is surprisingly entertaining, "Extreme polar bear wrestling" is not (for the participating human, anyway - the bears seem to enjoy it, as do the spectators ); even regular polar bear wrestling is not for the faint of heart. |
|
| |
//commissioned the design study (Oddly enough, MaxCo)//
We will remind [8th] that one of the conditions of the
commission was that the findings would not be shared with
any third party, and that violation of this condition would not
only absolve MaxCo of any fees for the study but would, in
fact, render [8th] rather spectacularly liable. |
|
| |
Sturton told us to publish it ... we have his written authority. |
|
| |
Well, we have a piece of paper with his initial in crayon ... |
|
| |
That's interesting. We have piece of paper, signed very
crisply in blue ink and bearing several very official-looking
stamps and crests, to the effect that Sturton, lovable rogue
though he is, is not considered a Competent Person under
English law. Or indeed under the law of any other sovereign
state, with the possible exception of the Republic of
Meringuestan, who failed to ratify in time. |
|
| |
Legally, he is considered to be "livestock", and therefore has
certain rights in most countries. Signing things, however, is
not one of them. |
|
| |
Yes, but the Queen's signed it too. It clearly says, "Singed, The Quene". |
|
| |
And? Why do you think it's called "the Queen's English"? |
|
| |
We don't know, she's German isn't she ? |
|
| |
This idea could be logically extended. Since //you can increase the passenger throughput of a rail system by decreasing the speed of the trains//, I submit that the speed of a train can be reduced further than to zero, by running it in reverse, so that its speed is negative. The quicker the train runs away from its destination, the less crowded it will be. |
|
| |
That's either incredibly profound, or indescribably crass and stupid. |
|
| |
We say let's take a vote on it. |
|
| |