Moving Platforms Could Let Travelers Change Trains While In Motion

[M II A II R II K]

Moving Platforms Could Let Travelers Change Trains While In Motion


06/23/11

By Timon Singh

Read More: http://inhabitat.com/moving-platforms-could-let-travellers-change-trains-while-in-motion/


There is nothing worse than having to wait an hour or more for your next train. Luckily, leading British transport designers Priestmangoode have revealed a concept for a high-speed train that would allow passengers to transfer from one connection to another while they are in motion, negating the need to stop at a station. The concept is called Moving Platforms and is a completely inter-connected rail network of non-stop high-speed trains where passengers could travel around a country without needing to get off a train. The system mimics the way the internet works in that it creates a system similar to the one that allows your home PC to connect to a computer on the other side of the world, via a series of connected networks.

High-speed trains that run on the system would be connected to a line that passes outside towns and cities. A network of local ‘feeder’ trams would then carry passengers from local stops out to meet them. As they near each other, the high-speed train would slow down slightly and the tram would speed up alongside it. The trains would then connect via a docking system allowing passengers to move across services. Once transfers are complete, the trains separate and the high-speed train continues along its route while the tram returns to the city.

The system would not only allow for faster long-distance journey times, but would save on money and resources needed to construct new train stations. The trains would also save vast amounts of energy by forgoing the need to slow down or accelerate. As rail infrastructure is already in place, Moving Platforms would also not take up any more land. “I can’t believe that across the world we are spending billions on high speed rail making it run on a network that was invented in the 19th Century,†said Paul Priestman of Priestmangoode.

.....




[video=vimeo;25403519]http://vimeo.com/25403519[/video]

 

[cil3xm]

This might not be a good idea. if anything goes wrong with ANY of the 2 trains, like a passenger is being harassed or something, that would throw BOTH trains off their sync, and potentially even all the other trains that it connects to. PLUS if someone misses their chance to switch trains, they'll have to make a full loop before getting on the next train. although i like the concept, it has quite a few flaws in it. im just too lazy to find more.

 

[EnviroTO]

This might not be a good idea. if anything goes wrong with ANY of the 2 trains, like a passenger is being harassed or something, that would throw BOTH trains off their sync

No, the one train would simply miss its connection with the other train. The only difference is that you would be on a train going somewhere you didn't anticipate going rather than sitting in a station you didn't expect to still be sitting in.

PLUS if someone misses their chance to switch trains, they'll have to make a full loop before getting on the next train.

Who is to say another long distance train would arrive before that loop is complete? It might not change your travel time at all.

although i like the concept, it has quite a few flaws in it. im just too lazy to find more.

Yet you replied to a post from June.

 

[M II A II R II K]

I brought this concept up last night in conversation, and now this thread has suddenly re-appeared.

 

[officedweller]

The crucial error in assumption made by this system is:

That the transfer station is no one's final destination.

If the train no longer stops at a station - what do disembarking passengers do to get off?

 

[M II A II R II K]

I guess the local are the only ones that stop to pick up and disembark passengers, and passengers never board the commuter or national rail services since all the passengers board those trains via local tram services and get off the same way.

 

[drum118]

Flaws:
Require extra land to put the 2nd train on as well rolling stock. Need extra manpower to operate this shuttle.

How do riders get to this shuttle train and how do the riders get back to the departure spot?

How much time is required to load and disembark riders?

How long does it take to get riders back to the departure spot?

What happens if the shuttle fails to connect to with the only train of the day?

The idea may sound great, but it has so many flaws that its not worth it. One tiny error or misstep can cause all kinds of problems to the point of killing people.

Cost of building a station is cheaper than this idea.

 

[officedweller]

Yeah, it's completely dependent on timed connections - and how often do those go off without a hitch?

 

[M II A II R II K]

Also wouldn't like 20 streetcars be required to link up with one express train when it passes....

 

[DSC]

Yeah, it's completely dependent on timed connections - and how often do those go off without a hitch?

It certainly would not work too well if run by the TTC. :->

 

[EnviroTO]

Yeah, it's completely dependent on timed connections - and how often do those go off without a hitch?

The entire system would need to be fully automated to adjust speeds as required to make up for any delays at stops and would need to be scheduled to run slower than it could actually achieve without the timed connection.

 

[dunkalunk]

The problem with this concept is that the trains are fixed to the track and you would need very precise scheduling to ensure the connection is made. However, the idea of changing vehicles does have merit.

Imagine if you will passenger planes which are designed to dock together and allow passengers on more local flights to connect to an overseas flight mid-air, thus saving the trouble and energy of landing the plane just to connect to another flight.

In addition, since planes don't run on tracks, it matters less if one of the two flights is delayed as they can correct course en-route.