Slashdot Mirror


Rethinking Rail Travel: Boarding a Moving Train

PolygamousRanchKid tips this article about an idea for revolutionizing the rail system in the long-term: "The idea is to have a city-wide network of trams that travel in a loop and connect with a high-speed rail service. But instead of passengers having to get off the tram at a rail station and wait for the next HSR service to arrive, the moving tram would 'dock' with a moving train, allowing passengers to cross between tram and train without either vehicle ever stopping. 'The trams speed up and the high-speed train slows down and they join, so they dock at high speed,' explains Priestman. 'They stay docked for the same amount of time that it would stop at a station,' he adds. While Priestman admits that it will be some time before his vision could be implemented, he says the time has come to rethink how we travel. 'This idea is a far-future thought but wouldn't it be brilliant to just re-evaluate and just re-think the whole process?' he says."

15 of 357 comments (clear)

  1. Caves by JustOK · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and perhaps to encase cities in caves of steel

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  2. Is the real problem here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe the time has come to rethink _how much_ we travel...

    1. Re:Is the real problem here? by Bucc5062 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      See, this is a thought that should get modded up. We walk around with smartphones and tablets, our laptops carry more power then most mainframes, yet there is still this requirement that we get into a vehicle and travel some distance to sit in a cube or office and do work. Seriously?

      Granted, not all jobs are suited for telecommuted, but more and more these days we have tools to start sending people home, with jobs. The energy savings would be huge I feel. It could help local business as more people shop near home and not work. Were I able to work from home, the savings in gas and food would be worth a raise. Companies would not need to spend so much on heating/cooling large buildings. They would also be able to save money by not having to maintain large networks for inter/intra office communication. As far as productivity goes, if an office is preferred, open smaller local offices or shops where people could go to work riding a bike, walking, or other mode other then a vehicle.

      Instead of trying to re-invent how to move the drones to and from offices, lets figure a way to bring the office, the work back home.

      --
      Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
    2. Re:Is the real problem here? by aristotle-dude · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dude, I like "my" smartphone and tablet for "personal" use because that is why "I" bought them with "my" money. I like having my work and home separate and I don't want to be available 24/7 because I have no interest in being a "drone".

      You might find this hard to believe but, as a software developer, I feel that I'm much more productive now that I work in the main development office than even when I worked from a satellite office. Modern software development is a very social pursuit with standup meetings, white boarding sessions and meetings with stakeholders.

      Software is no longer written using the waterfall approach where some analyst talks to the user to get requirements, writes up a large requirements document and then the developer works off that and later hands it off to QA for testing.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    3. Re:Is the real problem here? by billcopc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Funny, I get at least the same amount of work done, but I waste less time on the company dime.

      At home, I don't have to deal with

      - office gossip
      - stressed out coworkers yammering all day about their psychological issues
      - walking over to a boss/manager/secretary/idiot's desk to stare at an error message they could have pasted in an email
      - petty one-upmanship
      - bathrooms halfway around the building
      - staff managers timing my shit breaks
      - pointless unit meetings that exist solely to justify having so many goddamned staff managers
      - playing bejeweled for hours because the office environment depresses me
      - noisy coworkers threatening to call the union and/or burn down the building if I deprive them of their precious Kanyé

      If I want to waste time playing video games or watching TV, it's my problem and my boss/clients don't pay for that idle time. The corollary is that I am motivated to work more efficiently and waste less time, because that time is now MY money and not my employer's. In that sense, I get a heck of a lot more done since I started telecommuting, and cutting out that hour or two of bus/traffic every day makes a huge difference in my energy level and mood. I have no trouble pulling a 10 or 12 hour work day at home, when inspiration strikes, but in an office those 7.5 hours seem like eternity.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    4. Re:Is the real problem here? by Capt.+Skinny · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Software is no longer written using the waterfall approach...

      Speak for yourself.

      You agile folk like to claim that "requirements will always change, so let's plan for it and embrace it." Bullshit. Requirements only change when (1) people don't plan properly, and (2) developer and project managers cater to the whims of clients without charging what they should for change orders. If I hire an engineering firm to build a commercial building, I can't expect to keep changing the requirements after I sign off on the spec, the way people seem to think they can when they hire a software developer. The change order charges would be exorbitant, because with every change a traditional engineer will properly re-evaluate the plan from the ground up and adjust the infrastructure as necessary.

      There's a joke out there about what would happen if structural engineers built structures the way software developers build software. I don't remember the exact punch line, but it doesn't take much imagination to realize that it's along the lines of "no one would dare use bridges or enter commercial buildings out of fear that they would fail." It's funny because it's true. We've set such low standards for software reliability that there is now an entire development methodology that advocates (and attempts to justify) a lack of planning and QC only of completed work, rather than QC'ing design plans BEFORE we waste time building something that may or may not pass QC.

      Apologies for the rant, but the whole agile mindset just pisses me off.

  3. Is Sandra Bullock Driving? by A10Mechanic · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah, I saw this on that movie, with the bus. Taking passengers out the door, at 55 MPH. I think it was called, "The bus that couldn't slow down".

  4. Already foreseen? by greichert · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've seen some time ago another concept for the same, apparently in China. Here is the link to a video explaining how it would work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snFmLkOmkjE

  5. Ummm ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, when we have our city with flying cars, domestic robots and all of the other commensurate sci-fi amenities which will never happen, we will also have a train we board at speed.

    I'm sure in some abstract, never-going-to-happen way this is a really cool idea.

    But it's so far detached from anything which will ever happen as to basically be a meaningless suggestion. These fantastic cities of the future will never actually happen unless we suddenly have unlimited cheap energy or resources ... the cost of rebuilding any major city would be absolutely ridiculous.

    Harumph ... I must be getting old. Time was I'd think this was something cool. Now it's just another pointless futurist thought experiment.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  6. Re:Asimov. Strips. by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you mean Rule 34...no thanks.

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  7. And the problem with this plan: by HappyHead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Have you ever been at the station when there was a really slow moving old lady at the front of the line, trying to get into the train, but moving at a snail's pace, holding up the whole line, and then still being in the doorway when it starts trying to close? Remember the loud buzzer that sounds to signal people to get out of the doors, that she's too deaf to hear, and ignores as she slowly continues toddling her way into the car, holding up the train, and still nobody else has managed to even get in?

    I've been behind her several times. It's weird, almost every time I go to Toronto (the nearest place I've had to ride the subway), she's there in line in front of me. She's a really nice lady, but oh so very slow moving, and she won't accept help.

    This proposed system would ensure that I would only ever be behind her once, because when the high-speed train and moving tram were not able to un-dock because she was still toddling along in the gap between them, they would either end up crashing and killing everyone, or they would separate anyways and either tear her in half, or drop her between the tracks and grind her into paste on the ground.

  8. God no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    lets figure a way to bring the office, the work back home.

    Home is home. Workplace is workplace.

    The problem we have with all the smart phones and tablets and wifi and the internets is that we CANNOT shut ourselves of from our daily grind.

    No thanks. I'm much happier knowing that when I leave my offices I'm done. There is no expectation that I am available to do work.

    This is just moving back to 'cubes' where instead of being in a cube in an office space, your 'cube' is your room at home. That on so many levels is horrendous.

    Why not instead of bring the work back home, all move in and live at work like.. oh I don't know.. those folks at Foxconn.

    Yeah sounds great.

    1. Re:God no! by AlecC · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are already solutions to this where you go to work at a generic office within waling distance of your home. You have co-workers, coffee machine or water cooler, a work-style environment with no family interruptions. There is a reception for deliveries if needed. You have the "commute" of a ten minute walk, which allows you to switch between home and work modes.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  9. Re:Why? by monkeythug · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In the UK back in the late 1800s/early 1900s I believe that trains often used to drop off carriages as they passed stations so the people going to that station would roll into it and stop while the rest of the train carried on

    This.

    Why have trams catch up to HSTs, engage in a complex procedure of transferring passengers, then needing to circle back round (potentially taking ages to get back to their 'route')

    Much better to have the trams double as carriages. When you want to get off at a destination you simply go and sit in one of the last few carriages and when the train passes the station they automatically detach and roll up to the platform. At the same time trams with new passengers leave the platform, catch up with the train and attach as replacement carriages to the end.

    --
    Don't you wish you hadn't wasted 3 seconds of your life reading this sig?
  10. Mass transit is an energy hog by dbc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The inconvenient truth is that mass transit must be sized for peak loads, and therefore runs no where near capacity most of the time. A train, tram, or bus fully loaded is very energy efficient. A train, tram, or bus lightly loaded uses way more energy per passenger-mile than a car. No transit authority remakes trains between rush hour and mid-day, nor do they have two fleets of buses so that they can switch from long articulateds at rush hour to mini-vans during mid day. Mass transit wastes huge amounts of energy, and we can't afford it any more.

    The answer is self-driving cars. We already have door-to-door infrastructure for cars. With self-driving cars road capacity increases because the cars can run closer together and at higher or at least more consistent speeds. A self-driving car is a self-valet-parking vehicle, so parking lots and structures can be moved further from office buildings.

    People working on any kind of mass transit solution that involves large vehicles like trains are exactly the fools that are wasting our fossil fuels the fastest. Show me solutions that scale up/down with the daily load fluctuation, and you have my interest.