|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 4, 2015 8:10:39 GMT
You do realise why Heavy trucks have rubber wheels.... You. You personally. I dont trust YOU.
Shocked?... I hope the rest of the audience is reading this, because I dont mean Greg as a single person, I mean YOU as well. I dont trust ANYONE else on the road... the smaller the vehicle, the less trust I have, until I get to Bicycles who not only have negative trust, they worry the heck out of me, because as soon as I cant see them, I know they are doing something extremely silly....
And this is a trained in response I inherited from all of my driving instructors, experience, other Heavy goods drivers, and everyone in the trade.
The rubber is there for Braking. It is there to stop me punting the (beep) outa some goit who deserves it at 50mph who just did the silly.
If I didnt need the brakes, I may get about another six or seven trailers behind my current cab... Volvo FH series with a good chunk of 1,000 horses. Up to speed on a good level straight.... MPG per ton may get quite nicely close to something respectable.
So why not get the road train on and use Train tracks.... Then the trailers get unhiitched and used straight on the road, no handling required, no unloading....
I aint trying for steel wheel, I am trying for better than what we currently have?....
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 4, 2015 15:04:49 GMT
You do realise why Heavy trucks have rubber wheels.... You. You personally. I dont trust YOU. Shocked?... I hope the rest of the audience is reading this, because I dont mean Greg as a single person, I mean YOU as well. I dont trust ANYONE else on the road... the smaller the vehicle, the less trust I have, until I get to Bicycles who not only have negative trust, they worry the heck out of me, because as soon as I cant see them, I know they are doing something extremely silly.... And this is a trained in response I inherited from all of my driving instructors, experience, other Heavy goods drivers, and everyone in the trade. The rubber is there for Braking. It is there to stop me punting the (beep) outa some goit who deserves it at 50mph who just did the silly. If I didnt need the brakes, I may get about another six or seven trailers behind my current cab... Volvo FH series with a good chunk of 1,000 horses. Up to speed on a good level straight.... MPG per ton may get quite nicely close to something respectable. So why not get the road train on and use Train tracks.... Then the trailers get unhiitched and used straight on the road, no handling required, no unloading.... I aint trying for steel wheel, I am trying for better than what we currently have?.... and if the tracks aren't already in use for trains... this is what multimodal transport is: they put the trailers onto a train, run the train from hub to hub on the tracks at 450 ton-miles per gallon, and then put them on the roads for the local stuff. what you are suggesting is like if you take the kegs and casks out of a pub to put in a more efficient bottle refrigerator.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 4, 2015 15:20:09 GMT
You do realise why Heavy trucks have rubber wheels.... You. You personally. I dont trust YOU. Shocked?... I hope the rest of the audience is reading this, because I dont mean Greg as a single person, I mean YOU as well. I dont trust ANYONE else on the road... the smaller the vehicle, the less trust I have, until I get to Bicycles who not only have negative trust, they worry the heck out of me, because as soon as I cant see them, I know they are doing something extremely silly.... And this is a trained in response I inherited from all of my driving instructors, experience, other Heavy goods drivers, and everyone in the trade. The rubber is there for Braking. It is there to stop me punting the (beep) outa some goit who deserves it at 50mph who just did the silly. If I didnt need the brakes, I may get about another six or seven trailers behind my current cab... Volvo FH series with a good chunk of 1,000 horses. Up to speed on a good level straight.... MPG per ton may get quite nicely close to something respectable. So why not get the road train on and use Train tracks.... Then the trailers get unhiitched and used straight on the road, no handling required, no unloading.... I aint trying for steel wheel, I am trying for better than what we currently have?.... The house I grew up in was right next to a train yard. They had a piggyback operation where they would unload the semi truck trailers that arrived two-up on flat cars. It would take them under 2 minutes to unload a trailer. probably just as fast as unhooking a string of trailers from a truck train. And no drivers lounge was required.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 5, 2015 8:40:45 GMT
Fantastic..... So someone had the idea before me.
Unfortunately that doesnt happen the world-over... Over here, they have to unload from Truck to Railway truck, then back again at the other end. The thing you describe would do exactly for what I am wanting.
The nearest we get here is transferring the shipping crates from truck to train.
Perhaps we here, the inventors of the train, UK, have got it all wrong... But that eurpoe wide as well.
The nearest we get is the channel tunnel, where they drive the whole bloody wagon onto the train, with the Cab, Driver as well. Talk about a waste of time?...
But even that, the idea of chucking the whole truck onto a covered train (thats better for aerodynamics) is only done in one place... the chunnel... surely it could be done on other lines?...
And why CANT the train lines be widened to allow a lane of Road traffic for commercial use only. Its not as if they dont have enough space in many places.
And all the old railway lines no longer in use?... why cant they be used as roads. Perhaps Road-Train use.
Seams like with a little thinking they have though this through elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 5, 2015 15:35:35 GMT
Fantastic..... So someone had the idea before me. Unfortunately that doesnt happen the world-over... Over here, they have to unload from Truck to Railway truck, then back again at the other end. The thing you describe would do exactly for what I am wanting. The nearest we get here is transferring the shipping crates from truck to train. Perhaps we here, the inventors of the train, UK, have got it all wrong... But that eurpoe wide as well. The nearest we get is the channel tunnel, where they drive the whole bloody wagon onto the train, with the Cab, Driver as well. Talk about a waste of time?... But even that, the idea of chucking the whole truck onto a covered train (thats better for aerodynamics) is only done in one place... the chunnel... surely it could be done on other lines?... And why CANT the train lines be widened to allow a lane of Road traffic for commercial use only. Its not as if they dont have enough space in many places. And all the old railway lines no longer in use?... why cant they be used as roads. Perhaps Road-Train use. Seams like with a little thinking they have though this through elsewhere. here, they do two options - they can shift the cargo box between the railcar and a skeleton trailer built for it, or they can load the trailer directly onto a railcar with a hitch fitting to latch the trailer onto. and I don't know about your rail lines, but here, they don't have enough space to add a haul road in many places. my proposal would be the opposite - widen the feeway right of way enough to add one or two rail lines, then come up with a good efficient way to load and offload road vehicles for rail transport.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 6, 2015 8:34:14 GMT
Widen the freeway and enter a lane "Commercial transport ONLY"...? This kind of fits, because some people see the "slow lane" as only for trucks anyway?...
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 6, 2015 15:27:11 GMT
Widen the freeway and enter a lane "Commercial transport ONLY"...? This kind of fits, because some people see the "slow lane" as only for trucks anyway?... or just widen the freeway. that would make a huge difference in many places - especially if you created a "bypass lane" in traffic jam areas where nobody could jam into or out of the lane. (by which I mean you physically can't change into the bypass lane)
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Feb 8, 2015 13:41:35 GMT
my idea is simply to have an easy load system at stations, allowing easy loading and assembly of trains - allowing travel from hub to hub theoretically with good car design, there could be an electric merging section at the hubs where the trains could break and reform in motion. I'll be totally honest - the concept needs a LOT of work. ONe thing I have wondered about is something as simple as installing those railroad guides on normal cars. You have a road with rials imbedded in it that a normal car can drive on top of and then lower the rail wheels. Once there, you set adaptive cruse control.* You can either set a mileage limit or GPS coordinator for when to turn the system off so the driver can exit. During this rail cruse, steering is provided by the rails and cruse control keeps speed. So the driver is not needed and can do something else. * Adaptive cruse control uses sensors (typically laser or radar, but Subaru has a vision system based setup) to measure distance between the car and the car in front of it and maintain a safe distance for the given speed. This is currently available on most luxary cars and some regular cars.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 8, 2015 15:28:11 GMT
my idea is simply to have an easy load system at stations, allowing easy loading and assembly of trains - allowing travel from hub to hub theoretically with good car design, there could be an electric merging section at the hubs where the trains could break and reform in motion. I'll be totally honest - the concept needs a LOT of work. ONe thing I have wondered about is something as simple as installing those railroad guides on normal cars. You have a road with rials imbedded in it that a normal car can drive on top of and then lower the rail wheels. Once there, you set adaptive cruse control.* You can either set a mileage limit or GPS coordinator for when to turn the system off so the driver can exit. During this rail cruse, steering is provided by the rails and cruse control keeps speed. So the driver is not needed and can do something else. * Adaptive cruse control uses sensors (typically laser or radar, but Subaru has a vision system based setup) to measure distance between the car and the car in front of it and maintain a safe distance for the given speed. This is currently available on most luxary cars and some regular cars. my primary concern about that is that the added weight of the trackster kit might negate all the efficiency advantages. however, that said, I would suggest that the adaptive cruise control also receive external speed control signals. by which I mean, the road sets your travel speed based on conditions and road structure. (I.E. the road itself has a maximum safe speed based on the laws of physics, and then the system can adjust the speed for weather conditions - and when you engage the on ramp, the road sends signals to your car and it matches speed with traffic, instead of one timid driver impeding the rest of the traffic)
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Feb 8, 2015 17:40:02 GMT
Having seen those track guide system up close, do they really need to be built that stoutly? I think part of the problem is that in the US, they grade railroads up to the top of the ties. My understanding is that Europe like to cover the rails with gravel up to just below the top of the rails.* The added height of the rails means you need a vehicle with a large ground clearance. If you built our train road with the rails only sticking up an inch or two above the pavement, you allow a lot more efficient car designs without as much ground clearance.
My idea behind the rails is to control car steering. The trackster system being reliable, well established, and low tech. If we are looking at self driving cars, is there a system that could be built to do the same job? High precision GPS? Vision systems? Markers imbedded in the road that cam be read wireless on-board?
My original thought was that to be able to drive on such a road, the road would have a set speed for everyone to drive and the adaptive cruse control would set that. However, I like you idea of radio or satellite based download of information on current conditions and updating the road speed accordingly.
One side question, how would this be taken by the trucking industry? If a truck driving on an automatic road like this, I would say a truck would them be exempt from mileage and time limit laws. So a truck could drive all day stopping only for fuel, food, and bathroom breaks. With the right tractor design, you would only need to stop for fuel. So trucks could deliver long haul loads faster, but would that also result in a decrees in the amount of trucks needed?
* It has been explained to me that the extra gravel reduces track damage from normal ware and also thermal expansion. However, it costs more to construct and a lot more to maintain, so pick your poison.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 8, 2015 21:46:53 GMT
Having seen those track guide system up close, do they really need to be built that stoutly? I think part of the problem is that in the US, they grade railroads up to the top of the ties. My understanding is that Europe like to cover the rails with gravel up to just below the top of the rails.* The added height of the rails means you need a vehicle with a large ground clearance. If you built our train road with the rails only sticking up an inch or two above the pavement, you allow a lot more efficient car designs without as much ground clearance. My idea behind the rails is to control car steering. The trackster system being reliable, well established, and low tech. If we are looking at self driving cars, is there a system that could be built to do the same job? High precision GPS? Vision systems? Markers imbedded in the road that cam be read wireless on-board? My original thought was that to be able to drive on such a road, the road would have a set speed for everyone to drive and the adaptive cruse control would set that. However, I like you idea of radio or satellite based download of information on current conditions and updating the road speed accordingly. One side question, how would this be taken by the trucking industry? If a truck driving on an automatic road like this, I would say a truck would them be exempt from mileage and time limit laws. So a truck could drive all day stopping only for fuel, food, and bathroom breaks. With the right tractor design, you would only need to stop for fuel. So trucks could deliver long haul loads faster, but would that also result in a decrees in the amount of trucks needed? * It has been explained to me that the extra gravel reduces track damage from normal ware and also thermal expansion. However, it costs more to construct and a lot more to maintain, so pick your poison.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 8, 2015 21:55:04 GMT
we do have technology for embedding tracks in roadways - it is most commonly used in industrial areas where material is transported by both truck and train traffic. however, the reason for the trackster kits being so heavy is because the train wheels are actually providing the guidance force to the car. if you used it more as a slot car guide, it could be a much lighter system - but you have to keep in mind - you don't want it so light your system skips like a scratched record..
I think the "google car" system is designed to guide itself optically, and successful prototypes have been made for special optical guide roadways.
and I would say drive time rules should NOT be waived. the amount of time drivers are allowed to drive, now, are based on how long a human can reasonably be expected to remain awake and alert - and I certainly don't think you should have a driverless vehicle with nobody available to take control with minimal notice in an emergency situation. - basic point: what does the truck do if it needs to exit the freeway and the driver won't wake up?
so we either go to 100% drone operation, or require the driver to remain awake.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 9, 2015 8:35:44 GMT
Bloody good idea, in that it was theoretically tested, until that is someone did the silly. What do you do if there is a humongous fool in front of you going sideways on a broon trooser moment.... Yes of course, you grab them controls and then do what?.. you cant just disengage and hope to hell your ABS will allow you to stomp -and-steer out of the fools way.
BTW, as TLW has nearly hit upon, the fool can be the timid who cant quite line up the rails and engage and could therefore halt the whole line whilst the spend half an hour parking the car on the rail. Can it be engaged at speed?... Maybe now with the right lazer guided technology. But then, why cant it just be set to "Follow" the car in front?.... (Until such times as car in front changes direction, lanes, or proves to be the fool....)
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 9, 2015 15:41:36 GMT
Bloody good idea, in that it was theoretically tested, until that is someone did the silly. What do you do if there is a humongous fool in front of you going sideways on a broon trooser moment.... Yes of course, you grab them controls and then do what?.. you cant just disengage and hope to hell your ABS will allow you to stomp -and-steer out of the fools way. BTW, as TLW has nearly hit upon, the fool can be the timid who cant quite line up the rails and engage and could therefore halt the whole line whilst the spend half an hour parking the car on the rail. Can it be engaged at speed?... Maybe now with the right lazer guided technology. But then, why cant it just be set to "Follow" the car in front?.... (Until such times as car in front changes direction, lanes, or proves to be the fool....) remember that section of track in your model train set which you used to guide your railcars onto the track? now granted, the rule about building a better idiot would still apply.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 10, 2015 7:17:46 GMT
Erm... no?.... Hornby didnt have anything like that in the 70's and 80's. Or if it did, we didnt know about it.
They did have a derailment "Fixer" that would re-set the wheels when you dragged something over it, but not an actual guide for putting it there in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 10, 2015 14:44:19 GMT
Erm... no?.... Hornby didnt have anything like that in the 70's and 80's. Or if it did, we didnt know about it. They did have a derailment "Fixer" that would re-set the wheels when you dragged something over it, but not an actual guide for putting it there in the first place. you mean you didn't use your derailment fixer to set your cars on the rails?
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 13, 2015 7:14:30 GMT
Erm.... no?.. it was much easier to just put them on the rails.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 13, 2015 14:23:26 GMT
Erm.... no?.. it was much easier to just put them on the rails. O and S gauge, no problem. With HO and N, the railers definitely come in handy. And Z gauge, I can't even see the cars.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 14, 2015 7:32:07 GMT
Hornby Double-O, and Pico N gauge here. Z Gauge ?... there is a Marklin Z gauge, I have something near to that with a "Thomas the Tank" thing the kids got one time, dunno what gauge it is but it looks about that size....
The N gauge were easy when you had the practise though.
|
|