this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
198 points (97.6% liked)

Solarpunk technology

2346 readers
76 users here now

Technology for a Solar-Punk future.

Airships and hydroponic farms...

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 104 points 5 months ago (5 children)

Why is it always these goddamn pods that are supposed to improve public transit? What's wrong with trains?

[–] [email protected] 32 points 5 months ago

Here's an amazing business plan: take the old designs for a railbus. Remove chassis, design a new chassis, but make it all futuristic. Show it to the investors. They'll say "but I want a pod!" And then you say "But it is a pod. A megapod, even!" And they'll squint and go "oh I see. Let's make 1000 of them."

(And actually this is exactly what people have done in the past. Cool futuristic exterior hiding what's basically just a diesel bus with train wheels.)

[–] [email protected] 31 points 5 months ago (2 children)

They're too expensive. These pods are designed to run of tracks whose commuter train lines have been abandoned due to low ridership.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Is it though?

  • You're still going to need rail workers to make sure the tracks are healthy.
  • The cost of a fleet of these self-standing pods versus one or two older decommissioned trains It's about the same price.

I'm struggling to see any benefit here.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If ridership is low, you can’t run train often. And if you can’t run it often, people will not use it. It just does not work. This one has chance to work, since essentially you can run it on demand, like Uber.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like they need a shuttle bus which would be a TON cheaper and more efficient.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

No, these pods on existing rails are potentially a TON cheaper. Even if you don't count the cost of maintaining the road (which is significantly more than maintaining rail tracks), the need for paying a driver makes most small shuttle bus services prohibitively expensive.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

But the roads are already there. And R&D of this new and untested technology isn't cheap, either.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

In this case the rails are already there but unused.

That is also several strike against this. Those rails exist but they are all in really bad shape as they were nearly universally used without maintenance until it was no longer feasible. They are also generally in bad areas where there isn't much need for more transport - we already have roads in good shape (to run a bus on). The only thing this has over a bus is you can run them fully automated - which isn't enough IMO.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

I think part of what makes tracks unusable for regular trains is when the rails become too misaligned. Of course that isn't an issue for a vehicle that only requires one rail. I kind of like this idea.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

The tracks are also already there, and gyroscope stabilized monorail is a 100+ year old technology, not much new to develop about it other than using modern battery technology and some basic self-driving features for it.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago

Sounds like they really found a gap in the market.. /s

[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 months ago

Their entire goal is to commercialize it. Its not about efficiently moving large numbers of people. That makes too much sense for this endeavor since you need a set/rigid schedule and predictable travel patterns.

These abominations, are for the convenience of the individual, in the most poorly thought out way. Rather than waiting for the 3PM, they want to advetise you can show up at 2:51 and get on the next available pod and embark, and charge a premium for no waiting and probably try to jazz up the idea that you don't have to worry about other riders ruining your trip or being a distraction.

It entirely ignores the basic engineering problem of more moving parts means more chances of failure per trip and a single pod going down at best causes the entire line to shut down and at worst a catastrophic pile up as following pods fail to slow or stop and ram into the broken down pod.

Regular trains have conductors who can contact the control station or manually slow the train if an obstruction is on the track and some trains even have engineers on the train or on call who can report to a troubled train in short order to deal with the issue. These smaller pods probably arent all going to have gps or location trackers in them to cut costs so even if the pod can accurately report problems there is no garuntee the engineers will be able to quickly and easily find or know its general location to render assistance as needed.

Id also wager enough of these pods to carry enough passengers to equal a common commuter trainer would have a lot higher maintenance requirements compared to that commuter train, so despite charging higher ticket prices the company probably won't be making any more profit than if they just managed regular trains. I'd be willing to be anyone that concerned about privacy for commuting and willing to pay higher would just find that buying or renting a car or bike was just as cost effective and less restrictive than these pods.

TL;DR this entire exercise is a solution looking for a problem and is generally worse in every way that matters.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Let's forget trains and go to trolleys. Cheaper than these new pods, simpler, can hold more than 2 people.

You don't need as much power as a commuter train.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

I cathegorized them in the same way. 😅

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Simpsons did it!