h a l f b a k e r yWe have a low common denominator: 2
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,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Put simply, some knobbly, wide steel wheels for trains, so they can off-road. Ditto snow wheels.
Because as the petrol runs out, mass transportation will come back, and what could be more sociable than going off-road with three or four hundred like-minded souls?
Almost certainly end in spectacular
success, or multiple fatalities.
TC-497 Overland Train
http://justacarguy....c-497-overland.html
The problem is, the commies would laugh when they saw it coming. [DIYMatt, Apr 12 2013]
Choo Choo
http://www.mymodels...t---Ash-Mini-10.jpg
[skinflaps, Apr 12 2013]
On-road train in Weymouth
http://www.bbc.co.u...and-dorset-13295450
[pocmloc, Apr 15 2013]
[link]
|
| |
It's baked, but I won't MFD because they only made one and never used it. |
|
| |
skinflaps, I was thinking of something a little larger. |
|
| |
Wonders how the buffet car would cope on some of the steeper slopes of the Matterhorn? |
|
| |
Three, actually; two slightly smaller prototypes preceded
the 497. |
|
| |
I also give this a bun for concept, though it needs
considerable innovation from its current form. For
instance, steel wheels, no matter how knobbly, would fail
spectactularly in off-road settings. Better to use caterpillar
tracks or hub-driven monster truck tires. |
|
| |
It is
somewhat original, since the TC-497 wasn't designed for
broken ground, just relatively flat and smooth tundras and
snowfields (apparently it also excelled in loose sand). |
|
| |
It only carried 150 tons of freight. That's less than
what can be carried by 4 18-wheelers, although they
lack the off-road capability. |
|
| |
I suppose it's more efficient than stringing together
150 heavy-duty 4WD pickup trucks. |
|
| |
But not as practical as 15 5-ton trucks with tundra tires,
which is why the project was abandoned. |
|
| |
Your 5-ton trucks would have to make 2 trips each to
equal 150 tons. |
|
| |
Military trucks are always rated at half of their max.
capacity because the army knows that soldiers will
overload them. My deuce-anna-half, for example, actually
has a 10,000 lb. load cap. |
|
| |
So, 15 5-ton trucks carrying 10 tons apiece. |
|
| |
Or call FedEx and specify 2-day priority delivery and
let them fuss about the details. |
|
| |
Nope, trains it is. Big Spikey wheels it is, when necessary. And the eternal question of do the sherpas get to sit in the first class dining car on the Himalayas route? |
|
| |
You know how chef goes into a complete tizzy when the yak butter tea gets confused with the consomme. |
|
| |
Put the loaded 5-ton trucks on a C-5A and airdrop
them. That solves the first-class dining question. |
|
| |
What you really want here would be a bunch of 6- to 8-
seat rock buggies linked end to end with really rugged U-
joints. Give them 60-degree articulation 4-link suspension
with about 15" of travel, DANA 45s with full hydraulic
steering front and rear, 36"x10.5"R16 BFG Mud Terrains...
since they won't be going very fast and they'll all be sort of
helping each other along, they wouldn't need very big
engines; a Rotax or a Subaru boxer geared really low would
do it. Then design some kind of fly-by-wire system so
they'll play follow the leader, stick a driver up front and a
minibar in each passenger car, and enjoy the ride. Please
keep your 4-point seatbelts fastened at all times. |
|
| |
Use the rock buggies as bogies for cargo containers
suspended between them. |
|
| |
// cargo containers suspended between them. // |
|
| |
Not a half-bad idea, though the containers couldn't be too
big or they'd get hung up on the terrain. No larger than
2'Hx2'Wx3'L, assuming articulation points at app. 4' above
ground level. Make each one your battery box/fuel tank,
maybe. |
|
| |
Most of your cargo would be on roof racks, or
you could run a dedicated cargo pod. Now that I think
about it, you'd already need
one for parts, tools, and consumables, so just add another
for passenger luggage. |
|
| |
It's probably helpful to note that when somebody uses the
words "off-road" around here, I automatically started
designing something that could tackle Moab. It takes me a
little while to remember that people have many different
ideas of what constitutes rough terrain. |
|
| |
Depends of the wheelbase of the rock buggies. I was
thinking something with a short wheelbase, like a
Jeep CJ or Land Rover, having a 10 or 15-ft cargo box
suspended between the wheeled parts. The
articulation points would be above the axles on the
bogies. Each cargo box could carry a couple tons of
stuff. |
|
| |
"Rough terrain" means Upper Michigan (the "U.P.") to
me. |
|
| |
"off road" in the UK usually means parking illegally on the pavement. |
|
| |
//"off road" in the UK usually means parking illegally on the pavement. |
|
| |
Erm, I think it refers to having a drive in estate agents particulars, out in the country it does actually mean going off tarmac. |
|
| |
It would be very difficult to clamp a train parked on the pavement? Also, quite awkward to tow away, I would have thought. |
|
| |
//Put the loaded 5-ton trucks on a C-5A and airdrop them. That solves the first-class dining question |
|
| |
Come, come now, what about the sediment in the Chateau Latif, you can't go around shaking it. |
|
| |
// a 10 or 15-ft cargo box suspended between the wheeled
parts // |
|
| |
I've never off-roaded in Mishigan, but that would be far too
long and cumbersome for my backyard. Boxes that size
would severely hamper the turning radius, scrape along the
ground in gullies, and get hung up on sharp ridges and
protruding obstacles. |
|
| |
I've done some serious off-roading in a 4wd Chevy
Suburban. They work okay in most situations. If the
Chevy can't go there, I don't need to. |
|
| |
That's the kind of wheelbase I'm talking about. |
|
| |
I see. I'm into highly modified light 4x4s, the kind that
aren't about huge horsepower or looking badass but can
drive over a Prius without difficulty. Real off-roading (IMO)
is about suspension and power management; in the hands
of a skilled technical driver a stock Suburban can run rings
around your average dumbass in a 1-ton with 40" Boggers.
A Suburban cannot, however, make it up some of the
mountain trails around here, so therein methinks lies the
difference in philosophy. |
|
| |
They actually drive on "rail-roads." |
|
| |
Which in the industry are simply called 'roads'
(both the railroad companies and the tracks themselves). |
|
| |
Erm, some trains do ride on the road, but then they are called trams, whereas train line tend to be separate to roads, but can tend to be parallel to earlier systems such as old roads and canal routes. |
|
| |
But anyway, plans with the full electrification of the Himalayas routes have fallen foul of environmentalists, so it's plan old coal bunkering at intervals of 5000 ft. |
|
| |
Why did you go off the tracks, you could have killed
us? Well there was a rabbit on the tracks. So? You
should have run over the rabbit rather than endanger
400 people's lives. I tried to, but it ran off the tracks. |
|
| |
Yeah, that's pretty much it. In the industry 'railway' and
'railroad' are exchangable and neither is prevalent. The
actual track is typically called 'the line' but sometimes 'the
road'. The railroad companies are called 'roads'. Whatever
the terminology, the salient point is that conventional
trains run on roads. The earthworks supporting the tracks
are called the 'road bed', a change in elevation is called a
'road grade', etc. |
|
| |
Erm, that is a route. Never figured out why it's not the Northern Southern line as obviously the trains must return to where they came from. |
|
| |
In the manner of "all the rivers run into the sea, but yet the sea is never full, and so the water returns from whence the river came" etc. |
|
| |
I do not understand...forgive my small brain. |
|
| |
Ok, Cunard Line, it's called a Line, but it's not a route. Like the Plimsoll line, but let's not get into that right now. |
|
| |
The Northern Line, is a line. Whatever the owning company may be called, it's still the Northern Line, even though it should be "The Northern Line (but you can go to southwards on it as well)". |
|
| |
On a recent drive through the Southern Indiana
countryside, I happened to notice a very old, not-
well-traveled railway crossing, the kind with the
crossed-bar sign, flashing lights and warning bell but
no barriers: the sign distinctly says "Railroad
Crossing." |
|
| |
"Old" as in dating probably from 50 years ago. In this
part of the world, those ribbons of steel are still
referred to as "railroad tracks." |
|
| |
"Chemin de fer", or in Arabic "al sikket al hadeed" (from memory) which both mean "road of iron". |
|
| |
[21], why are you still arguing this? As of 2008, which is
when I left the railroad, the terms 'railroad', 'road',
'roadbed', 'road grade', 'road crew', 'exempt road', and 'key
road' were all
still in common usage. Common usage within 5 years
certainly constitutes modern vernacular. Can we
please agree that a road is, as stated (in part) by the OED: |
|
| |
a wide way leading from one place to another, especially
one with a specially prepared surface that vehicles can
use. |
|
| |
the part of a road intended for vehicles, especially in
contrast to a shoulder or sidewalk. |
|
| |
[with modifier] historical a regular trade route for a
particular commodity:
the Silk Road across Asia to the West |
|
| |
(Mining) an underground passage or gallery in a mine. |
|
| |
(British) a railroad track, especially as clear (or otherwise)
for a train to proceed:
they waited for a clear road at Hellifield Junction |
|
| |
I'm still working on my excuse. |
|
| |
Still wondering at the ticketing options. On the east Asian route, it's proving tricky to get the ticketing machine to accept the cowry shells. |
|
| |
You don't need an excuse, [n_m_r]. That's one of the
advantages of being right. |
|
| |