Automated Couplers?

[eph]

Say, for example, you wanted to couple a 6 passenger PRT vehicle to
another 6 passenger vehicle on demand, how would you go about this?

Or say in Dual Mode, your bus driver was in his own vehicle and you
wanted to form a "train" of PRT vehicles for route pickup... Where
could you get such a coupler?

Or say, a Taxi service dropped off (or picked up) a vehicle at your
door as you need it...

Is there such a thing as automated coupler for PRT vehicles?

Something like a rail coupler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_%28railway%29
or like this flexitrain http://camdek.com/page12.html idea. Cheap and
easy to attach to a microcar would be ideal. Maybe just a tow bar?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tow_bar

Thanks,
F.

[Michael Weidler]

You do not physically couple them. You virtually couple them in a draft platoon.

[eph]

Yes, the tow bar is just for show and for those "oops" moments. Also,
it would help with safety on snow or ice conditions.

F.

On Jan 22, 1:02 pm, Michael Weidler <pstran...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You do not physically couple them. You virtually couple them in a draft platoon.
>

> eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Say, for example, you wanted to couple a 6 passenger PRT vehicle to
> another 6 passenger vehicle on demand, how would you go about this?
>
> Or say in Dual Mode, your bus driver was in his own vehicle and you
> wanted to form a "train" of PRT vehicles for route pickup... Where
> could you get such a coupler?
>
> Or say, a Taxi service dropped off (or picked up) a vehicle at your
> door as you need it...
>
> Is there such a thing as automated coupler for PRT vehicles?
>
> Something like a rail couplerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_%28railway%29

> or like this flexitrainhttp://camdek.com/page12.htmlidea. Cheap and

[Guala Luca]

Is anyone familiar with the French "Aramis" project? Has anyone read Bruno Latour's book about it?
regards, Luca

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: transport-...@googlegroups.com per conto di eph
Inviato: mar 22/01/2008 19.09
A: transport-innovators
Cc:
Oggetto: [t-i] Re: Automated Couplers?

[Jerry Schneider]

At 10:32 AM 1/22/2008, you wrote:
>Is anyone familiar with the French "Aramis" project? Has anyone read
>Bruno Latour's book about it?
>regards, Luca

Yes, and I believe they planned to use electronic coupling, not physical.
I highly recommend Latour's book to those who have not read it.

[Jerry Schneider]

At 10:32 AM 1/22/2008, you wrote:

>Is anyone familiar with the French "Aramis" project? Has anyone read
>Bruno Latour's book about it?

For those interested, here is the TofC:
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/aramis.htm

- Jerry Schneider -
Innovative Transportation Technologies
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans

[Guala Luca]

Aramis employed a "couplement virtuel" system which sparked some witty comments from the press. The cars were able to couple-decouple while running. I leave the description of the failure of Aramis to Latour's book.
cheers, Luca

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: transport-...@googlegroups.com per conto di Jerry Schneider
Inviato: mar 22/01/2008 19.53
A: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Cc:
Oggetto: [t-i] Re: RIF: [t-i] Re: Automated Couplers?

[eph]

Aramis - very interesting. Assuming platooning and joining/leaving
platoons was allowed...

This would help solve capacity problem (on arterial lines).

I tried a similar approach that grouped vehicles and people into
common destination platoons, but stations needed to be very large to
accommodate a staging area.

If you don't mind a "bus-like" mode where a platoon stops wherever/
whenever a vehicle needs to join or leave, that could work. Still
PRT, point to point in the same vehicle, but not as fast (rush hour
rules?).

F.

> winmail.dat
> 7KDownload

[Guala Luca]

> If you don't mind a "bus-like" mode where a platoon stops wherever/
whenever a vehicle needs to join or leave, that could work.

The statement above shows that you are NOT familiar with Aramis. The cars joined and left without even slowing down. Do read Latour's book, it's worth it.
cheers, Luca

[Michael Weidler]

You're right... twice the mass out of control is definitely better......

eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Yes, the tow bar is just for show and for those "oops" moments. Also,
it would help with safety on snow or ice conditions.

F.

On Jan 22, 1:02 pm, Michael Weidler wrote:
> You do not physically couple them. You virtually couple them in a draft platoon.
>

[eph]

Well, it shows you haven't read my post. Did you read the first
line?

"Aramis - very interesting. Assuming platooning and joining/leaving
platoons was allowed... "

If you can't get 0.5s headway approved, how will you get vehicles that
join each other at speed approved?

I suggested a few alternatives that don't have this requirement.

F.

> winmail.dat
> 5KDownload

[eph]

GOOD GOD MAN!!!

It's a wonder trains work.
It's a wonder dual tankers work.

Following closely - not allowed.
Following linked by an approved towing device - allowed.
See the difference?!

Stopping on ice isn't guaranteed. A tow bar would help prevent run-
ins or runaways.

F.

On Jan 22, 2:11 pm, Michael Weidler <pstran...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You're right... twice the mass out of control is definitely better......
>

[Gérard Massip]

I'm familiar with aramis, also with the cycab and praxitele project. In 1998, I wrote the text "Transports automatiques de proximité" http://membres.lycos.fr/adtcep/TAP.htm  . "Actualisation du dossier" is a link to updates of the subject. The step two of praxitele was programmed as electronic coupling, but first véhicle drived by a (wo)man, I suggested a step "two bis" where heading véhicle can be a bus, trolleybus, etc. or an existing automated véhicle like Poma 2000 http://images.google.com/images?qt_s=1&q=poma+2000+laon&sa=N&tab=gi .

 

Cheers

Gerard Massip

 

Sorry, my english isn't a marvel. 

 

2008/1/22, Guala Luca <gu...@systematica.net>:

[robbert@2getthere.eu [2getthere]]

Nice discussion. I would also consider physically coupling them as the
distance between the vehicles would be reduced further.

The headway between vehicles will be largely dependent on the maximum
braking rate of the leading vehicle and the minimum, fail-safe
guaranteed braking rate of the following vehicle. The larger the
difference between the two, the larger the required headway is! If there
is a physical connection the braking rate of the trailing vehicle would
be guaranteed to be equal to the leading vehicle; having a positive
effect on the headway.

Of course you sacrifice the possibility of the vehicles in the train
going different directions at intersections. I am not sure why you would
consider coupling them - I would rather opt for a combined system of PRT
and GRT. The GRT would operate as a bus, stopping at every station,
operating on-schedule and having passengers pay their fare based on a
single seat. The PRT would operate as an automated taxi, requiring
passengers to pay for the complete vehicle (if there are multiple
passengers its up to them to decide if they share the costs), operating
on-demand and providing direct origin to destination travel. If this is
accomplished, I don't see a requirement for coupling of vehicles :-)

Robbert

Michael Weidler schreef:

> You do not physically couple them. You virtually couple them in a
> draft platoon.
>

[eph]

Well, if you are suggesting using a larger grt vehicle, you can't fit
2 (or more) in the space of one HOV lane.
Otherwise, the issue of maintaining different fleet vehicles could be
a concern.
I don't know what it would cost to pay someone to manually couple and
decouple vehicles for peak hour operations. Not too much I suppose.
43% percent of vehicles would end up having to be parked off the
guideway anyway though (if my numbers are right).

A single larger grt vehicle wouldn't have it's load spread over as
many axles nor as much area increasing giudeway load.

F.

On Jan 22, 3:58 pm, "robb...@2getthere.eu [2getthere]"

<robb...@2getthere.eu> wrote:
> Nice discussion. I would also consider physically coupling them as the
> distance between the vehicles would be reduced further.
>
> The headway between vehicles will be largely dependent on the maximum
> braking rate of the leading vehicle and the minimum, fail-safe
> guaranteed braking rate of the following vehicle. The larger the
> difference between the two, the larger the required headway is! If there
> is a physical connection the braking rate of the trailing vehicle would
> be guaranteed to be equal to the leading vehicle; having a positive
> effect on the headway.
>
> Of course you sacrifice the possibility of the vehicles in the train
> going different directions at intersections. I am not sure why you would
> consider coupling them - I would rather opt for a combined system of PRT
> and GRT. The GRT would operate as a bus, stopping at every station,
> operating on-schedule and having passengers pay their fare based on a
> single seat. The PRT would operate as an automated taxi, requiring
> passengers to pay for the complete vehicle (if there are multiple
> passengers its up to them to decide if they share the costs), operating
> on-demand and providing direct origin to destination travel. If this is
> accomplished, I don't see a requirement for coupling of vehicles :-)
>
> Robbert
>
> Michael Weidler schreef:
>
> > You do not physically couple them. You virtually couple them in a
> > draft platoon.
>

> > */eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com>/* wrote:
>
> > Say, for example, you wanted to couple a 6 passenger PRT vehicle to
> > another 6 passenger vehicle on demand, how would you go about this?
>
> > Or say in Dual Mode, your bus driver was in his own vehicle and you
> > wanted to form a "train" of PRT vehicles for route pickup... Where
> > could you get such a coupler?
>
> > Or say, a Taxi service dropped off (or picked up) a vehicle at your
> > door as you need it...
>
> > Is there such a thing as automated coupler for PRT vehicles?
>
> > Something like a rail coupler
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_%28railway%29

> > or like this flexitrainhttp://camdek.com/page12.htmlidea. Cheap and

[Michael Weidler]

I see, so now you are proposing using a tow motor of some sort? The vehicles are not individually powered? A tow bar makes two vehicles into one vehicle with an altered center of rotation. Ever see a train wreck or a semi wreck? 

eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:

GOOD GOD MAN!!!

It's a wonder trains work.
It's a wonder dual tankers work.

Following closely - not allowed.
Following linked by an approved towing device - allowed.
See the difference?!

Stopping on ice isn't guaranteed. A tow bar would help prevent run-
ins or runaways.

F.

On Jan 22, 2:11 pm, Michael Weidler wrote:
> You're right... twice the mass out of control is definitely better......
>

[eph]

No, but it might be a possibility for suburban travel - attach a
fossil fuel powered generator/pusher to a vehicle and you have
unlimited range and power (without electrification).

I'm talking about increasing pph by coupling (self powered/propelled)
vehicles. Tow bars are accepted (even if they don't make sense).

Although, as you point out, if the vehicles were built powerfully
enough, we could have a simpler/cheaper trailers to increase peak-hour
capacity. Or the trailers could have their own power, batteries and
environmental controls, but no special guidance electronics.

F.

On Jan 23, 1:10 pm, Michael Weidler <pstran...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I see, so now you are proposing using a tow motor of some sort? The vehicles are not individually powered? A tow bar makes two vehicles into one vehicle with an altered center of rotation. Ever see a train wreck or a semi wreck?
>

[eph]

According to my numbers...
At 40 km/h, 3 second headway, 4 passenger/vehicle, 4 vehicle coupling,
we get 12,500 pphd in GRT mode and 3,700 pphd in PRT/platoon mode and
1290 pphd in pure PRT mode.

I bet with these numbers, Raytheon could have sold some systems.

F.

On Jan 21, 1:02 pm, eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Say, for example, you wanted to couple a 6 passenger PRT vehicle to
> another 6 passenger vehicle on demand, how would you go about this?
>
> Or say in Dual Mode, your bus driver was in his own vehicle and you
> wanted to form a "train" of PRT vehicles for route pickup... Where
> could you get such a coupler?
>
> Or say, a Taxi service dropped off (or picked up) a vehicle at your
> door as you need it...
>
> Is there such a thing as automated coupler for PRT vehicles?
>

> Something like a rail couplerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_%28railway%29

> or like this flexitrainhttp://camdek.com/page12.htmlidea. Cheap and