News   Jul 30, 2024
 1K     4 
News   Jul 30, 2024
 1.8K     4 
News   Jul 30, 2024
 679     0 

String Rail - a low cost, low impact, high speed transport alternative

M II A II R II K

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,944
Reaction score
1,061
String Rail - a low cost, low impact, high speed transport alternative


June 3, 2010

By Loz Blain

Read More: http://www.gizmag.com/unitsky-string-transport-rail-suspended/15300/

Trains might be a reasonably cheap transport option - but rail infrastructure is very costly to build. Monorail, maglev systems and high speed rail are more expensive again - and prices really skyrocket when you have to build bridges, tunnels and winding mountain routes, or cover difficult terrain. Which is why Anatoly Unitsky's String Transport Systems look like they've got so much potential. The system uses solid steel/concrete rails, reinforced with extremely high tension steel wires, to provide an efficient and smooth rail system anywhere between 3 to 30 meters above the ground. It's earthquake, hurricane and terrorist-proof, and capable of supporting vehicle speeds over 500 kmh, too, making it a genuine high-speed rail alternative, for a fraction of the price of road or ground rail alternatives. Fascinating stuff!

- The UST uses steel or concrete rails, reinforced by hundreds of high-tension wires running through the middle of the rail, suspended above the ground on towers approximately 30 m apart. Unlike roads or rail systems, it can traverse mountains and other rough terrain in a straight line, and it's equally adept at crossing shallow waters, desert or forest, with minimal environmental impact at the ground level.

- A UST system is cheap to install for the simple fact that you can built it with a minimum of materials per km, and a minimum of ground preparation. You don't need to build expensive overpasses, tunnels or other infrastructure to make the UTS fit in around existing roads and other infrastructure - it's already up off the ground and out of the way.

- Cost estimates are so low as to look downright suspicious - Unitsky quotes a figure of as low as US$50,000 per km for assembled string rail. Compare this to the cost of recent low-speed surface rail installations in Australia - from which the cost of a double-track rail service, not including land acquisition or station building, is very optimistically estimated at around AUD4.12 million (US$345 million) per km. The real cost of underground rail is in the realm of 10 times higher.

- The smooth surface and negligible sag make the UST appropriate for high speed transit - Unitsky believes 350 kmh (~220 mph) should be immediately within reach, with 500 kmh (over 300 mph) possible after further development.

- Aerodynamics are on the UST system's side as well - the biggest issue for ground vehicles at high speed is the pressure generated by air passing underneath, which causes the vehicle to lift off the ground. Formula one cars and other high-speed ground vehicles combat this by using spoliers and other design features to catch wind on the top of the vehicle and push it downward.




unitsky-string-transport-rail-suspended-4.jpg


unitsky-string-transport-rail-suspended-3.jpg


unitsky-string-transport-rail-suspended-2.jpg


unitsky-string-transport-rail-suspended.jpg
 
I seriously doubt that this could live up to real needs that real rail transport addresses. I'm guessing that it can only actually carry those little 4 person pods. It's quite misleading to attempt to compare it to HSR or a subway or monorail.
 
This is absolute nonsense. They could take rail and string it through the air if this was true. The reality is that frequent ties and other structural support elements are actually adding value and that is why they are there in the first place.
 
MARK,

While I appreciate that you think that these ideas are fascinating, you should be aware of how transportation projects become viable in society.

Transportation is a very path dependent phenomenon; what I mean by that is that if you have an idea for a revolutionary form of transportation, the idea alone won't carry it to success. In order for it to work, you have to possess the resources to ensure that a significant enough proportion of the transportation system is changed to suit your idea from the get-go in order for people to actually begin to use it. The car didn't become the overwhelmingly dominant way of getting around because it was such a great idea, it only became dominant once enormous steel, rubber and oil corporations found consensus in the idea and began pressuring governments to radically transform the transport infrastructure in favour of road-building. These kinds of herculean efforts from the start also characterized the build up of civil aviation and high speed rail, as well as the railroad and canal systems in previous centuries.

Under these sets of circumstances, even an "inferior" idea will push out a better one because of the power and connections (hence resources and ability to secure path dependence) possessed by the makers of the inferior technology. The QWERTY keyboard is an example of this; somebody could come up with a more ergonomic arrangement of the alphabet on the keyboard and it would be guaranteed to flop. Millions of us have been trained in the use of the QWERTY keyboard; millions of QWERTY keyboards would exist even decades after the introduction of the new technology (meaning we would have to know how to use both systems for generations) and the result would be almost no desire among the general public to change and acquire this new technology. Once something becomes dominant - and this applies especially to transportation - it's hard to switch to anything else.

So, yes, you should post these articles but remember that the likelihood of any of these replacing the infrastructure we have right now is slim to none. I believe that one day we will radically alter our car-based transportation infrastructure, but it will be an incremental change (such as the gradual replacement of short-haul flights with HSR) and not something crazy that has no financial backing. It's also inconceivable that a variety of different transportation technologies will be used to cover the same market - one will win out due to the path dependent nature of transportation.
 
Last edited:
^^ Exactly what I was thinking (not to mention that I doubt that those cars are capable of even 300km/h.) And it doesn't have anywhere near the capacity of either HSR or even conventional road transport, because there must be some sort of weight limit on the tracks. I doubt that you could squish a bunch of those cars in while maintaing even something like a 15m pier distance, so it even loses to cars on a one-lane road. Sure it's cool, but it isn't useful.
 
When i saw the title of the thread I was suspicious...... and with good reason.
This is PRT not urban transit and would even be useless to get to the airport due to very small capacity.
 
When i saw the title of the thread I was suspicious...... and with good reason.
This is PRT not urban transit and would even be useless to get to the airport due to very small capacity.

Careful slagging PRT. A lot of proposals are pretty half baked, like this one, but the technology has a lot of promise, especially for urban transport.
 

Back
Top