Chinese conference on urban transportation, Beijing, August 2-4, 2007
Jerry Schneider
Dominated by MIT people. Vucan Vuchic from UPenn also invited (I
wonder what he will talk about!)
- Jerry Schneider -
Innovative Transportation Technologies
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans
Walter Brewer
2), Will someone please wake up USDOT?
Walt Brewer
Jerry Roane
I just got a message from your USDOT boys at the federal highway administration. Their crack team of review panel experts rejected the TriTrack proposal we prepared from their request for pre-proposals. The good news is they did a pre-proposal rather than a full proposal so that lowered the damage they do to emerging technologies. According to the president of the United States we are supposed to be going into oil rehab but the review panel apparently is still in the denial stage the step required before rehabilitation can even start. The experts first have to say yes we are addicted to oil and yes we have to change if we are ever going to be free of the addictive behavior.
The federal government has been the very worst at discussions about any new ideas. They think they can move the CAFE from 21 to 21 to 30 and be saved. I have news! They are not protecting the interests of the American public. They may think they are "protecting" American large companies but in the long term they are hurting us all. In addition to hurting the US taking a head in the sand approach will not create technology that can be utilized world wide to ease oil political pressure.
Yes, I am pissed off.
Jerry Roane
Michael Weidler
Guala Luca
http://www.microcarmuseum.com/tour/messerschmitt-kr200-58-bg.html
cheers, Luca
Jerry Roane
Yes Messerschmidt was an aircraft company and they understood the
principles behind aerodynamics. They did stay with a rough underbelly
though which hurts their design some and their windshield is abruptly
angled into the wind but with 9.7 hp it goes 100 kph. Try doing that
with a Hummer boxlike body. Ours is considerably larger at 20 feet
long. There is a misconception about short cars and high fuel mileage.
As you can see from the Messerschmidt design that the tail is long for
its width. The flaw that I see in their design is the flare between the
body shell and the front wheels is too large overall. That blocks the
air more than the rest of the car and is unnecessary. Also the width of
the front tires is a little narrow and and it is made of heavier
materials which will make it more tippy. The other car design that took
a similar tack is the Buckminster Fuller car. His next car after the
one that wrecked was going to have front steering like the TriTrack
rather than the top heavy rear steering design that wrecked shown in the
attachment. There have been other cars that used similar concepts. In
the patent we mention all the prior art. There was a car in the 1930s
that was a half circle, again with a rough underbelly. There have been
lots of tricycles in the past. All the designers were thinking along
the same vein to come to similar devices.
Ixnay on the izpray till they give permission to announce. My bad.
Jerry Roane
Guala Luca
clearly my comment about your vehicle being a heir to the Messerschmitt was a bit tongue in cheek, but not too much. The two vehicles comply to very different sets of constraints and the resulting compomise is different. The Messerschmitt had to be small, in order to appeal to motorcycle and sidecar customers, hence it could not be so aerodynamical as the TriTrack, which seems to be rather free from contstraints of length (the average European car of today, is about 4.25 m long, your TriTrack is over 6 m long!! You wouldn't sell many over here!!!).
The misconception about short cars and high mileage stems from the fact that smaller cars typically have smaller motors and less weight, which both contribute to reaching better mileage. Short cars however are more difficult to make aerodynamically sound so they achieve their best fuel economy at low speeds and stop-and-start regimes where inertia forces dominate over drag.
The Messerschmitt had to be cheap to be sold in post war Germany: hence the almost vertical plexiglass vs. your sloped plexi: plexi screens are expensive and vast, sloping ones with double curvature are expensive to make.
The large wheel fairings probably hide some complicated steering and suspension system, which would be very un-aerodynamical if left in the aiflow. You clearly managed to make all the pushrods joints and suspension stuff fit into one singe beam per wheel.
the Messerschmitt had a stinky, polluting and energetically inefficient two-stroke Schnuerle-scavenge two stroke motor: that was the cheapest and most reliable motor available at the time, and pollution was not a concern anyway.
Buckminster Fuller was a genius, but he was also an architect, witl all due respect, so he was more used to doing bright things than making them function. His car was indeed far ahead of its times and if it had been enginnered better, and better industrialized, it could have sparked a revolution in the car world. I don't know how much good this revolution would have done: we might have had cars able to achieve a far better fuel economy, or perhaps cars that exploited the better aerodynamics to go faster, and not to save fuel.
cheers, Luca
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: transport-...@googlegroups.com per conto di Jerry Roane
Inviato: sab 19/05/2007 6.10
A: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Cc:
Oggetto: [t-i] Re: non-guideway TriTrack
gerar...@gmail.com
I've created two threads in french on narrows véhicles :
1 - http://www.joinville-le-pont.info/article-6647295.html
2 - http://jojo.lepretre.club.fr/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=269
Regards
Gér
gerar...@gmail.com
I've created two thread in french :
- http://jojo.lepretre.club.fr/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=269
- http://fabien.natalie.free.fr/trains-de-jardin/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=503
Regards
Gérard Massip
Jerry Roane
Actually the web site has been going crazy in Spain for some reason.
Spain seems to like the TriTrack concept even though it is long. I did
some international work in France a few years back and although their
cars are probably bigger than the ones in Italy there were always full
sized trucks and buses running everywhere. It would seem that if you can
navigate Paris with a full sized tractor trailer that you could get a
TriTrack in its American size down that same street. You know it parks
on its tail right? On its tail it takes up 1 square meter in the street
parking. We rented a Renault and it was hard to park in the city. We
would probably do a European version that is smaller but the butt has to
still fit side by side no matter what country you are in to maintain
conversation as you travel. From a purely energy standpoint it would be
small like a luge. Can't quite get your mother-in-law onto a luge so we
grew it some. In the US I usually get comments the opposite way asking
that it be bigger still. I have resisted going even larger. Whatever
length is picked someone will not like it and so any product design is
modified by the opinions of the customer. The first composite body I
built was 5 meters long. You may like it better. I picked 5 meters
because it sounded metric but when I sit in that car I do feel like I
would not want to sit with my mother-in-law that close. Maybe an
Italian babe would not be a problem. ;-) Do you think a 5 meter car
would sell in Europe? It maneuvers like a much smaller car because the
tail is narrower than the rest so in a turn the rear wheel never tracks
wider than the front fenders. One other option for the tail that we
have discussed in the vacuum tube concept is to have the very rear tip
inflatable so it can suck in to fit a shorter tube vehicle. In this
case we would shorten the car by a meter or two and not ruin the
aerodynamics at high speed outside the vacuum. It does make the three
wheeler more tippy to have a shorter wheelbase but not by much and
certainly not as tippy as the Messerschmitt.
The cool part about an exoskeletal honeycomb composite body is it can be
very large and still very light weight. Messerschmitt would be using
composites today if they were still building that car. On the
windshield we are working on getting a new plastic material that is
twice as impact resistant as Lexan which is twice as strong and
Plexiglas. In a production process once you have bought the tooling
part cost comes down to material cost and finish cost. Since a
windshield has to be complete as it comes out of the molding or forming
process there is no secondary finish process. This is many times
cheaper than paint because of the labor involved in paint prep. This
plastic is a cheaper polymer than Lexan even though it is stronger so it
is the best of both worlds. We only have the two hatches with no doors
and all the components associated with rolling down the windows and
keeping the doors from flying open in a wreck. All that complexity is
dropped in favor of the hatch like a jet fighter. I contend that the
windshield portion is cheaper to manufacture than the rest of the body
shell. The bigger the hatch the lower cost to manufacture. In many
cars they use all glass with a safety plastic core but glass and rocks
are the same density so large glass windshields get heavy. Many high
end US cars use a plastic inside layer and a glass outer layer as a
compromise between scratch resistance and weight reduction. I doubt we
could afford the dead weight of glass outer shell so we are looking at
all clear plastic which is easier to manufacture than a layered
arrangement of plastic and glass.
As for the front suspension being in a cover versus open. Formula One
cars have quite a bit of structure in the wind flow and they do not put
a fairing over it all because it increases frontal area. Those high ans
low struts are shaped like a Navy #2 strut like my front suspension
strut but rather than run the steering rods out in the open I tuck them
inside the single Navy #2 Strut and I only have one strut. This gives
the tire a funny wear pattern if I were to drive everywhere on the
ground but I have no intention on doing more than a few hundred miles a
year on the street tread. If I wear them like the rear tires of a VW
Beetle then so be it. In Formula One they need the double strut to
maintain wide tread flat on the pavement as they high speed corner.
Since we never need to high speed corner the need for the high and low
strut goes away so we only have the low one. It doubles as the step to
hop in the car. You climb in just like a boat. People have been
hopping into boats or hopping onto horses for thousands of years till
the last few generations. I am betting we can do it again so I left off
the door cut and associated structure. The handicapped version you roll
in from the back.
Guala Luca
funny thing that the Spaniards went crazy for your vehicle! I would have thought more of the environment conscious Northern Europeans. I like the idea of the inflatable tail. After all there isn't much you can fit in there so it can just as well be a soft appendix that you disinflate when you need a shorter vehicle and you don't need all the aerodynamics (e.g. city traffic). Alternatively, there could be a version with a truncated tail, which would produce a bit larger wake but maybe not even so much and much smaller than that of an ordinary car, anyway.
The problem with a longer-than-average vehicle is not so much how it manoeuvres, but how it copes with the other vehicles around. You park it upright, OK, but you can do that only where there is some kind of infrastructure available to lift it and secure it (you don't want a badly parked tri-track falling down over a pedestrian!) and you need 6 m of free wall which you can hardly find in a typical European town. Most of the times you would have to park it like any other vehicle. A typical car parking space in Europe is 5m long x 2.5 m wide.
Cars are pretty much the same all over Europe. A bit bigger on average in the German-speaking Countries, where they really love their Mercedes Audis and BMW's. Italian cars are as large as the French and British ones, but Italy has been the best market for the Mercedes Smart two seater which tells it all.
Another problem you may find in Europe is that you will not be able to register the TriTrack as a motorycle. Motorcycles have tight constraints of size and weight. I can't remember exactly but I think that in Italy it's 3.5 m long x 1.6 m wide and 400 kg max weight. If you register it as a car, you will be required to fit a laminated glass windshield, aribags, anti-intrusion side bars and all sorts of "safety" features that will boost its weight.
Formula one suspensions are not covered because the rules require them to be so. Modern formula ones are not aerodynamical cars since their main concern is producing a huge negative lift. However, the suspensions are inside the car body, something you couldn't do on the small Messershmitt. Endurance cars have covered wheels and look like flying saucers on wheels. Endurance cars have better aerodynamics than formula one cars.
By the way, if you want to sell your vehicle in Italy or Spain, you'd better make it able to do high speed cornering :-)!
cheers
Inviato: lun 21/05/2007 16.56
A: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Cc:
Oggetto: [t-i] Re: RIF: [t-i] Re: non-guideway TriTrack
Luca
Guala Luca
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: transport-...@googlegroups.com per conto di gerard...@yahoo.fr
Inviato: lun 21/05/2007 15.40
A: transport-innovators
Cc:
Oggetto: [t-i] Re: Narrow vehicles [WAS] RIF: [t-i] Re: non-guideway TriTrack
Guala Luca
please excuse for the previous empty mail: wrong key!
Gérard,
you may be interested to know that the local tram company FdS bought new Skoda trams to replace the old diesel self-powered trams currently in service, some of which were built in the 50's. The new Skoda 06T are only 2.2 metres wide. This way, FdS was able to double the line from one track to two tracks (narrow gauge of 950 mm) along all the lenght of the urban part of the route, including where the tram runs through the buildings. the new Skoda trams are not in service yet but they are being tested.
some clips on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=skoda+cagliari+tram&search=Search
cheers,
Luca
-----Messaggio originale-----
Inviato: lun 21/05/2007 15.40
A: transport-innovators
Cc:
Oggetto: [t-i] Re: Narrow vehicles [WAS] RIF: [t-i] Re: non-guideway TriTrack
Jerry Roane
I know just enough French to order something disgusting at a
restaurant. (I think it was calf fries in cream sauce)
Since the outrigger wheels of the TriTrack are on extruded struts we can
make the front wheelbase as narrow as the car body by manufacturing them
to a width specification. Right now we have overcompensated for tip
because we are three wheeled and we felt that the public would demand
these cars be less likely to tip than a four wheel car. There are two
things working on keeping the wheels side down. 1. The wheel base was
widened to match a very common Texas vehicle. 2. The lead weight of the
batteries is inches above the ground and the top of the car is very
light weight. The highest center of gravity thing is the passenger's
center of mass. All heavy parts are located as low as we could put them
inside the car so tipping is less likely. As we narrow the front
wheelbase we match the rollover performance of a four wheel standard car
with a higher center of gravity and a narrower tread width. As we
further narrow the wheelbase we become more likely to tip than our four
wheeled friends. At this point unless you are held on a three (or more)
sided guideway you could have trouble with tipping. Since I can't read
this page I am not sure what I am commenting about but I was able to see
non-guideway TriTrack which caught my eye and Narrow vehicles. My car
body is certainly narrow at 1.23 meters (48.474") outside diameter. If
you can you point me to the part about the TriTrack and I will use a
translator program to read what is said.
On an older post. I measured a Texas truck here in the parking lot at
the grocery store. It measured 5.7 meters (19 feet) from brush guard
to receiver hitch ball. That was a Ford super duty diesel engine called
something---stroke. I thought it was an appropriate name since the
particulate matter coming out of that engine will probably cause a
stroke. ;-) The PM2.5 is small enough that it passes through the
lungs into the blood stream where it collects in the blood vessels.
Usually this only collects around the heart but it could collect near
the brain I suppose. They could have called it powerheartattack diesel
but it doesn't sound as tough as powerstoke diesel.
Thank you for the threads.
Jerry Roane
Guala Luca
The threads are provided by Gérard Massip not by me. I was attempting at replying them when I accidentally hit the send key and only managed to send Gérard's original message. My message followed separately. I wouldn't dare write anything in French since my French is probably no much better than yours, but given the similitude between written French and written Italian so I could at least read the thread.
Gérard discusses about public transport vehicles and there's no hint at the Tri Track anywhere in the text. It appears that French authorities wanted narrower vehicles but the users hated them. I think Gérard (which is French for Jerry by the way) got the hint from our discussion of the Messerschmitt three wheeler since he includes a link to the minicar museum.
As for private vehicles, Gérard says that the adoption of narrower vehicles to reduce the impact of traffic in congested city streets has been turned down noting that a narrower vehicle would occupy the entire width of a street lane anyway, thus reducing the efficiency of the road (less passenger or goods volume per unit of road length). I would add that, at least in Italy, if cars were narrower people would soon try to overtake them, or "split the lane" by riding alongside them, anywhere it is not legal nor safe to do so. When I ride my motorcycle I always keep to the middle of the lane and I often swerve on purpose to avoid this annoying behaviour.
RE translator programmes, they are still too elementary. They are perfect for ordering calf fries with your morning coffee.
RE heartstroke Diesels, here's a provocative thought: could it not be that by imposing too strict rules on passenger car pollution, USA DOT has killed the development of better diesel engines? It is clear that trucks do not have to comply the same pollution rules as passenger cars, and that their Diesels are not as evolved as European ones. In Europe, passenger car diesels must comply to slightly less strict emission rules than petrol ones, but although this may have lead to an overall increase of pollution, it also sparked the R&D departments fantasy into producing better, more efficient and cleaner Diesels. The various releases of the Euro emission rules are gradually closing the gap between petrol and diesels and it appears that diesels are doing very well thanks also to their much lower fuel consumption.
salut, Luca
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: transport-...@googlegroups.com per conto di Jerry Roane
Inviato: mer 23/05/2007 17.31
A: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Cc:
Oggetto: [t-i] Re: RIF: [t-i] Re: Narrow vehicles [WAS] RIF: [t-i] Re: non-guideway TriTrack
Walter Brewer
current, and vs gas engines. Also off road. Considerable flap,(English for
frappe), going on about impact on California construction industry if
Governator proposed new rules by2015 are imposed.
Couple items about more narrow cars, lane splitting etc.
LA in particular in recent years has been able to restripe some freeways to
add a lane, say 5 instead of 4, because of general downsizing in most cars.
It is legal in California for motorcycles to ride between cars in normal
lanes. This is done frequently in congestion when speeds get below ~35 mph.
Walt Brewer
Guala Luca
Walt,
> Can someone clue me on a document which contains new diesel standards, vs
current, and vs gas engines. Also off road. Considerable flap,(English for
frappe), going on about impact on California construction industry if
Governator proposed new rules by2015 are imposed.
> Couple items about more narrow cars, lane splitting etc.
> LA in particular in recent years has been able to restripe some freeways to
add a lane, say 5 instead of 4, because of general downsizing in most cars.
> It is legal in California for motorcycles to ride between cars in normal
lanes. This is done frequently in congestion when speeds get below ~35 mph.
cheers, Luca
Jerry Roane
All good points. There is one advocate on this list for narrow cars but
I am not him. I agree with your motorcycle experience that driving two
abreast in a lane is uncomfortable and without some tight communication
link would be dangerous. I was just trying to be accommodating if he
was thinking that narrow on a separated path was what he was going for.
Just to put numbers to my thoughts on narrow vehicles on streets is if a
standard lane is 14 feet wide and you narrow the car from 6 feet wide to
4 feet wide that would reduce the lane size to 12 feet not 7. We have
beat that subject to death at this point.
As for clean diesels. It is not a matter of technology being missing.
It is a matter of not wanting to include that technology in the
vehicles. Just this week VW has finally gotten their bug and Jetta
clean enough to be the very dirtiest cars that can be sold in America in
the diesel version. It gets 10 mpg worse mileage than my car and they
are smaller. The technology to clean up the diesels is to add a urea
tank to the car and as the car drives it injects urea into the flow so
the NOx pollution is reduced to gasoline car pollution levels. They can
always lower the compression ratio if they felt like it. There is a
cross over SUV at UT that uses gasoline for starts and transitions and
diesel for the middle. All these things are available but they cost
money. It is the money that they don't want to spend unless they are
made too. They are made to because they have no internal compass that
tells them to do the right thing. In addition to cleaning up the NOx
they need a filter on the output. That is not that big of a deal and
CARB has a list of the ones you can purchase off the shelf today. Again
it is not technology but money spent that direction. There is a blue
something that supposedly generates urea somehow that may remove the
urea tank but from the numbers I have seen they are still not super
clean like efficient cars running on electric power.
Our air is still dangerous to children and old people so we need to keep
the diesel engines off the street till they can be better than gasoline
cars.
Jerry Roane
Guala Luca
> Our air is still dangerous to children and old people so we need to keep
the diesel engines off the street till they can be better than gasoline
cars.
cheers, Luca
Jerry Roane
The more polluting diesel cars the government lets out on the road the
less diesel trucks they can allow and still maintain clean air.
Encouraging the use of diesel to use in cars and motorcycles would end
up requiring the diesel truck operators to spend way more money on
filters and urea tanks and repair time washing out those $6,000
filters. If we let the trucks stay dirty and cheap (since there are
less total tailpipes) then they won't have to go broke bringing you all
that stuff they bring. Ford has a hybrid gasoline /electric that may
totally replace the need for diesel trucks. They have a bus done this
way and they are able to use a regular car gasoline engine and get the
same performance as a diesel but without the death toll from pollution.
Jerry Roane
Guala Luca
> Can someone clue me on a document which contains new diesel standards, vs
current, and vs gas engines. Also off road. Considerable flap,(English for
frappe), going on about impact on California construction industry if
Governator proposed new rules by2015 are imposed.
with some neatly tabulated data.
cheers, Luca
Walter Brewer
Thanks for both.
Most LA freeways are at least 4 lanes each direction, some 6 or more. So
restriping works pretty well, although the shoulder pavement sometimes is
used for short stretches.
San Diego has an experiment going for buses to use the right hand shoulder
during congestion, < 35 mph. Question; "why not all vehicles" never gets
answered by generally transit biased planners.
Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guala Luca" <gu...@systematica.net>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:42 AM
Subject: [t-i] RIF: [t-i] Re: Narrow vehicles [WAS] RIF: [t-i] Re:
non-guideway TriTrack
Kirston Henderson
In the U.S., there is a strong trucking lobby that doesn't care how many
people they kill with Black Lung and Lung Cancer as long as they maximize
their profits.
I have been told by my contacts out in the LA area where we have been
closely involved with this problem that the 2007 and on diesel trucks are
required to produce much cleaner exhaust gases than previous trucks.
However, the added restrictions will not keep those very fine particles in
Diesel smoke from collecting in the lungs and eventually causing Black Lung
or Lung Cancer. If you look at the statistics collected for the LA area,
you quickly learn that the death rate from these types of illnesses plus
other less fatal breathing disorders rise sharply along those freeways that
are heavily populated with large Diesel trucks such as the some 12,000 such
trucks operating on a 24-hour, seven-day basis moving cargo container in and
out of the ports of LA and LB.
There are a lot people out there in the Air Quality Management District
that appear to be deluding themselves that cleaner trucks will solve the
problem, but such is not likely true. The ports of LB and LA are currently
in the process of letting an engineering study contract to evaluate
alternate methods for moving the containers without trucks. The outcome of
this study, perhaps sometime in the next year, is supposed to be a
recommendation of a most attractive alternative. That is then supposed to
be followed by a demonstration contract (or contracts) for real hardware for
evaluation. The road as currently mapped out is not likely to result in
anything of value appearing in use for many years after a lot more of the
residents in the area have gone to their deaths at early dates.
In the meantime, they are taking some steps to limit the types of trucks
used and limit freeway congestion by imposing some pretty stiff taxes on the
shippers at peak times of the day.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail® Transportation Systems, Inc.
Guala Luca
> In the meantime, they are taking some steps to limit the types of trucks
used and limit freeway congestion by imposing some pretty stiff taxes on the
shippers at peak times of the day.
My provocative question was (more or less):
wouldn't allowing the improvement of diesel passenger cars generate a favourable fallout of technology into trucks as well?
Couldn't it be that this practical ban on diesel passenger cars (because they pollute more, which is true), combined with lax regulations on diesel trucks (without trucks USA would stop, the lobby claims, which is probably true today) does more harm than good?
Don't many people choose to drive a diesel pick up truck, instead of a car anyway?
Isn't the target of "banning all diesels from the roads of USA" a bit too demanding and far away in time?
Wouldn't an ad-interim compromise solution be better than imposing a total ban on diesel passenger cars on one side and bending the back to the truck lobby on the other side?
cheers, Luca
cheers
Luca
Kirston Henderson
> We seem to have a great solution to all problems of congestion and pollution
> here. Why not imposing the same stiff taxes to passenger cars as well? And
> what about diesel trains too? But, wait a minute: how long do you think this
> "meantime" will last, until all diesel trucks are banned?
>
> My provocative question was (more or less):
> wouldn't allowing the improvement of diesel passenger cars generate a
> favourable fallout of technology into trucks as well?
> Couldn't it be that this practical ban on diesel passenger cars (because they
> pollute more, which is true), combined with lax regulations on diesel trucks
> (without trucks USA would stop, the lobby claims, which is probably true
> today) does more harm than good?
> Don't many people choose to drive a diesel pick up truck, instead of a car
> anyway?
> Isn't the target of "banning all diesels from the roads of USA" a bit too
> demanding and far away in time?
> Wouldn't an ad-interim compromise solution be better than imposing a total ban
> on diesel passenger cars on one side and bending the back to the truck lobby
> on the other side?
Please realize that the pollution and gas mileage regulations on cars
and trucks in the U.S. are totally senseless, primarily because of
well-funded lobbies. We actually had a situation wherein Federal tax laws
strongly favored businesses purchasing large gas (or diesel) guzzling
vehicles. In general, there has been no pollution or mileage regulations on
trucks, including pickup trucks. Please do not ask me to make any sense out
of a senseless situation, because I can't.
By the way, there are really not large numbers of diesel cars in the
U.S. As far as research, what is done in Europe tends to be done here with
all of the international ties between the automobile companies.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Walter Brewer
I'd thought maybe the higher power output for Diesels would compensate for
the higher NOX generation, but at a 3 to 1 ratio not likely.
I suppose the argument is both are low enough to be tolerated.
Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guala Luca" <gu...@systematica.net>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:42 AM
Subject: [t-i] RIF: [t-i] Re: Narrow vehicles [WAS] RIF: [t-i] Re:
non-guideway TriTrack
Tad Winiecki
Higherway vehicles will talk to the passengers. The vehicle will call
the passenger by name (whatever the passenger whose ridecard is charged
for the trip wants to be called) when it is ready to take them to their
destination. Example: "Sue, I'm ready to take you now." At the
destination stop when the passenger leaves the vehicle will check to
see if anything or anyone was left behind. Heavy objects or people can
be felt by pressure sensors in the pneumatic suspension system.
Example: "Dan, did you forget something? I feel heavier than before you
got on." Light objects can be seen by cameras and comparing before and
after pictures of seats, floors and any storage spots. This would be
automatic with image processing. Example: "Jill, did you forget
something? I see something you may have left behind."
As before, the Higherway design is open - competitors are welcome to
copy my ideas.
God bless you.
Tad Winiecki
Higherway Transport Research
"Suburb to suburb quicker"
http://higherway.us
Evacuated Tube Transport licensee
http://www.et3.com
Walter Brewer
Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tad Winiecki" <wini...@pacifier.com>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Tad Winiecki
avoid a cleaning charge added to your account."
On May 24, 2007, at 3:59 PM, Walter Brewer wrote:
>
> How about Jose and Ingrid; Have you been to the bathroom?
>
> Walt Brewer
>
Guala Luca
However, I am in favour of imposing different standards for different types of motors so that they can gradually evolve and eventually lead to a cleaner motor, no matter if it's diesel, spark ignition or whatever. Imposing zero risk is a sensless thing that not even politicians brag about any more (well some still do).
cheers, Luca
Thanks,
I'd thought maybe the higher power output for Diesels would compensate for
the higher NOX generation, but at a 3 to 1 ratio not likely.
I suppose the argument is both are low enough to be tolerated.
Walt Brewer
Jack Slade
Guala Luca
http://www.euractiv.com/en/transport/carmakers-ask-co2-cap-delay/article-163821
cheers, Luca
Jerry Roane
""It takes years to change production lines and research the technology. "
This phrase is a catch all for goobers who wish to obstruct progress.
By repeating this unsubstantiated myth they do the greatest damage to us
all. This phrase is the excuse not to make a change TODAY. Unless you
start you cannot finish. Getting to that measly goal is nothing. If
one car model can do it they all can.
I do find it interesting that Europe centers on CO2 and the US centers
on NOx. Damage to crops comes from NOx not CO2 so I am not sure why the
CO2 focus. IF cars are fundamentally more efficient rolling and pushing
through the air then both are reduced regardless of the ENGINE technology.
Sounds like they are wimps who like to cry in their tea more than
punching their calculators. boo hoo
Jerry Roane
Guala Luca
""It takes years to change production lines and research the technology. "
> This phrase is a catch all for goobers who wish to obstruct progress.
By repeating this unsubstantiated myth they do the greatest damage to us
all. This phrase is the excuse not to make a change TODAY. Unless you
start you cannot finish. Getting to that measly goal is nothing. If
one car model can do it they all can.
I do find it interesting that Europe centers on CO2 and the US centers
on NOx. Damage to crops comes from NOx not CO2 so I am not sure why the
CO2 focus. IF cars are fundamentally more efficient rolling and pushing
through the air then both are reduced regardless of the ENGINE technology.
cheers, Luca
Daryl Oster
crops -- not harmful. Most atmospheric NOx comes from lightning -- it is
one of the main sources of fixing nitrogen to a form usable by plants. CO2
is also required by plants. The real pollutants are hydrocarbons, PCBs,
heavy metals, etc. that comprise most known carcinogens.
Daryl Oster
(c) 2007 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"
e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks
of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River
FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, e...@et3.com , www.et3.com
Jerry Roane
"NOx is GOOD for crops"
If lightning generates all the NOx then why does the asthma map have concentrations near excessive collections of exhaust pipes? If you are going to make this claim you need to back it up with more than wishful talk and high school chemistry class explaining ions and how the rain falling down brings nitrogen to fertilizes crops.
According to Dr. Allen at UT Austin, an expert in the field, NOx combines with VOx to form Ozone at the ground level. On page 46 of the paper (How Trees and Other Vegetation Reduce Urban Air Pollution derived from 151 agreeing sources) it says
"Nationwide, ozone (derived from NOx of cars and VOx) pollution is estimated to cause $2,000,000,000 to $3,000,000,000 worth of crop loss annually, (reference #58 and #121) and cost $1,500,000,000 to $3,900,000,000 in damage to paint, rubber, and other surfaces. (Reference #61 and #78) The national crop loss Assessment Program has determined that current levels of ozone pollution cause reductions in crop yields of 10% for soybeans, 14% to 17% for peanuts, 7% for turnips, 53% to 56% for head lettuce, and 2% for red kidney beans. (reference 58) Alfalfa, beans, oats and onions are also particularly sensitive to ozone (reference #129)
Economic analysis have indicated that the benefits to society of moderate ozone reduction of 25% in terms of reduced vegetation damage, would be approximately $1,700,000,000 each year (reference #123)
This work was paid for by your federal tax dollars via the Federal Forest Service Grant #97-07-10
Either you are wrong in this characterization of fuzzy and cuddly Mr. NOx or these 151 sources and the forest service experts are dead wrong.
What you did was took a chemical term and used poetic license (AKA BS) and said what you wanted to say ignoring the facts as they are. If you are correct that NOx is all warm and sweet then why does the attached map of cancer risk look like the map of tail pipe density?
If crop damage of this magnitude is real then it would make sense that farmers could join a class action law suit and win this loss back via the courts. It would seem that asthma sufferers could recoup their medical costs this same way. Since most of the jurors will know a teen with asthma it won't bode well for intentional polluters no matter what continent you live on.
We need to establish truth first then we can properly decide hardware issues. If you have proof that "NOx is GOOD for crops" then we need to know this so we don't waste our time cleaning up the air.
One other detail upper atmosphere ozone is good ground level ozone----- bad. Lightning produces both, trucks do not produce ozone in the upper atmosphere.
Jerry Roane
Daryl Oster
>> Daryl "NOx is GOOD for crops"
>
> Do you have a study to back up this claim? What exhaust pipe are you
> extracting this ionic nitrogen from? I have a study in my hand that says
> the opposite. It says that extra man made NOx damages the crops to the
> tune of $3,000,000,000.00 every year in the US alone.
IMO, the study you reference is likely bunk -- but I could be wrong I have
not read it-- perhaps you could e me a copy.
>
> If lightning generates all the NOx then why does the asthma map have
> concentrations near excessive collections of exhaust pipes?
From a quick search on the web:
"N20 is generally well-tolerated by individuals with known asthma and is
often recommended as an inhalational anesthetic for such individuals".
Could be due to the bad stuff known to exacerbate asthma like hydrocarbons,
particulates, carbon monoxide, etc. (as well as a little N20 -- one of the
forms of NOx that is reported to be OK for asthmatics).
> If you are going to make this claim you need to back it up with more than
> wishful talk and high school chemistry class explaining ions and how the
> rain falling down brings nitrogen to fertilizes crops.
Well, if it is wishful thinking it is taught in just about every school in
the nation, where were you during all the science classes it takes to get an
engineering degree?
>
> According to Dr. Allen at UT Austin, an expert in the field, NOx combines
> with VOx to form Ozone at the ground level. On page 46 of the paper (How
> Trees and Other Vegetation Reduce Urban Air Pollution derived from 151
> agreeing sources) it says
>
> "Nationwide, ozone (derived from NOx of cars and VOx) pollution is
> estimated to cause $2,000,000,000 to $3,000,000,000 worth of crop loss
> annually, (reference #58 and #121) and cost $1,500,000,000 to
> $3,900,000,000 in damage to paint, rubber, and other surfaces. (Reference
> #61 and #78) The national crop loss Assessment Program has determined
> that current levels of ozone pollution cause reductions in crop yields of
> 10% for soybeans, 14% to 17% for peanuts, 7% for turnips, 53% to 56% for
> head lettuce, and 2% for red kidney beans. (reference 58) Alfalfa, beans,
> oats and onions are also particularly sensitive to ozone (reference #129)
>
> Economic analysis have indicated that the benefits to society of moderate
> ozone reduction of 25% in terms of reduced vegetation damage, would be
> approximately $1,700,000,000 each year (reference #123)
>
> This work was paid for by your federal tax dollars via the Federal Forest
> Service Grant #97-07-10
>
> Either you are wrong in this characterization of fuzzy and cuddly Mr. NOx
> or these 151 sources and the forest service experts are dead wrong.
Whatever Jerry,
I have not read the report you are in reverence of, perhaps there is
something magic about the NO, NO2, and NO3 produced by lightning and the
stuff having the same chemical formula produced by high pressure/temperature
combustion -- but I doubt it. The lightning production of NOx, AND it's
value to plant life is well documented in hundreds of thousands of sources
-- perhaps they are all wrong.
I didn't know what VOx was -- it appears to be a typo that has been repeated
by many so called "scientists". The term probably refers to VOC (volatile
organic compound) -- a common pollutant mostly related to incomplete
combustiuon of gasoline, and industrial solvent evaporation.
One reference
[
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/atmosphericpollutants
.html ]
Has a graph (attached) with the following caption:
"Atmospheric concentration of ozone depends on the concentration of both
volatile organic carbon VOC and nitrous oxides NOx. Notice that ozone
concentration (the contours) decrease as VOC increases if NOX concentrations
are high, but that it increases if VOX concentrations are low. Thus for some
cities, decreasing NOx emissions leads to higher ozone concentrations.
From National Academies Press (1991) Rethinking the Ozone Problem in Urban
and Regional Air Pollution."
Notice the person writing the caption used a misnomer for VOC, incorrectly
calling it "volatile organic carbon" -- (obviously a scientist of immense
qualifications). Also, it may be of interest to you that the primary
reaction blamed on reducing the ozone layer is N2O (nitrous oxide) combining
with O3 (ozone) to make NO2. (that would also explain the increase in Ozone
with decline in NOx would it not?). (see refrence:
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/old/ap42/ch09/s021/reference/bref28_c09s0201_ch4_1999d
raft.pdf
As it shows the reactions and the various nitrogen cycles, and the various
magnitudes of NOx fixing and de-nitrification processes; showing the
formation of soluble nitrogen forms (that plants love); along with fixing in
the soil by microbes that then release N2O; and weakly correlates the
resulting N2O to loss of ozone. Combustion and lightning produces mostly
NO, and some NO2, and a very little N2O, and NO3. These react with water
and O2 and O3 to form nitric acid, and other soluble forms of nitrogen that
end up in rain water that plants can take up and use to GROW. Combustion
produces about twice as much NOx as lightning, but far more comes from
biological processes in the soil.
> What you did was took a chemical term and used poetic license (AKA BS) and
> said what you wanted to say ignoring the facts as they are. If you are
> correct that NOx is all warm and sweet then why does the attached map of
> cancer risk look like the map of tail pipe density?
Perhaps because of all the nasty stuff like benzene compounds, PCBs, VOCs,
heavy metals compounds, etc. in tail pipe fumes that are known bad
carcinogens.
> If crop damage of this magnitude is real then it would make sense that
> farmers could join a class action law suit and win this loss back via the
> courts. It would seem that asthma sufferers could recoup their medical
> costs this same way. Since most of the jurors will know a teen with
> asthma it won't bode well for intentional polluters no matter what
> continent you live on.
Perhaps it is true that some of the NOx is responsible for some crop damage
due to it's ability to form some ozone, an oxidizer (but I doubt it). (I am
only guessing to try to give the study you are hyping the benefit of the
doubt), and perhaps another way is if in high enough concentration nitric
acid might also cause some cosmetic crop damage to food crops that would
diminish the market value leaving the food value mostly intact. I doubt the
supposed 3B worth of damage claimed would offset the value of the nitrogen
fixed into the soil, and the fertilizing effect on almost all plants.
> We need to establish truth first then we can properly decide hardware
> issues. If you have proof that "NOx is GOOD for crops" then we need to
> know this so we don't waste our time cleaning up the air.
Before you fly off on me about your NOx fixation again, I hope you take some
time to study nitrogen fixing and that it is a basic building block of all
life-- there are about 2.5m web references on nitrogen fixing accessible
through Google. Perhaps you can fix your fixation. Or fix my (and all the
science teachers I have ever known) lack of understanding on how NOx and VOx
(sic) conspire to produce Ozone.
>
> One other detail upper atmosphere ozone is good ground level ozone-----
> bad. Lightning produces both, trucks do not produce ozone in the upper
> atmosphere.
>
> Jerry Roane
NOx produced by combustion can combine with ozone in the upper atmosphere,
but only an estimated 1% to 2% actually does. It is far more likely to bump
into an ozone molecule near the ground where it is produced, thereby
destroying the ozone, producing some oxygen, and making a soluable form of
nitrogen that then is likely to bump into some water and end up in rain that
is taken up in a plant to produce good food (that may look a little
discolored due to some acid action on the surface of the skin??).
Fixing of nitrogen is a well known process, and taught in elementary and
advanced science classes. My dad (a retired chemistry and physics teacher)
explained it to me when I was about 5 years old.
The nitrogen fixing effect of lightning is well documented. Typing in:
Fixing of nitrogen by lightning
In google yielded 348,000 hits; some are shown below.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/N/NitrogenCycle.html
***********start quote*************
Nitrogen Fixation
The nitrogen molecule (N2) is quite inert. To break it apart so that its
atoms can combine with other atoms requires the input of substantial amounts
of energy.
Three processes are responsible for most of the nitrogen fixation in the
biosphere:
* atmospheric fixation by lightning
* biological fixation by certain microbes -- alone or in a symbiotic
relationship with plants
* industrial fixation
Atmospheric Fixation:
The enormous energy of lightning breaks nitrogen molecules and enables their
atoms to combine with oxygen in the air forming nitrogen oxides. These
dissolve in rain, forming nitrates, that are carried to the earth.
Atmospheric nitrogen fixation probably contributes some 5- 8% of the total
nitrogen fixed.
***********end quote*************
http://library.kcc.hawaii.edu/external/chemistry/everyday_nitrogen.html
***********start quote*************
The tremendous energy released by the electrical discharges in our
atmosphere breaks the rather strong bonds between nitrogen atoms, causing
them to react with oxygen. Note in this process, nitrogen is oxidized and
oxygen is reduced.
lightning
N2 + O2 --------------> 2 NO (nitric oxide)
The nitrous oxide formed combines with oxygen to form nitrogen dioxide.
2 NO + O2 ---------------> 2NO2
Nitrogen dioxide readily dissolves in water to product nitric and nitrous
acids;
2 NO2 + H2O -------> HNO3 + HNO2
These acids readily release the hydrogen forming nitrate and nitrite ions
which can be readily utilized by plants and micro-organisms.
HNO3 --------> H+ + NO3- (nitrate ions)
HNO2 --------> H+ + NO2- (nitrite ions)
***********end quote*************
http://www.answers.com/topic/nitrogen-fixation?cat=technology
***********start quote*************
Nitrogen fixation
The chemical or biological conversion of atmospheric nitrogen (N2) into
compounds which can be used by plants, and thus become available to animals
and humans. In the 1990s, chemical and biological processes together
contributed about 260 million tons (230 million metric tons) of fixed
nitrogen per year globally. Industrial production of nitrogen fertilizer
accounted for about 85 million tons (80 million metric tons) of nitrogen per
year, while spontaneous chemical processes, such as lightning, ultraviolet
irradiation, AND COMBUSTION, leading to the synthesis of nitrogen oxides
from O2 and N2, may have accounted for 44 million tons (40 million metric
tons) per year. The remainder, roughly half of the global input of newly
fixed nitrogen, arose from biological processes. World agriculture, which is
very dependent on nitrogen fixation, is increasingly reliant on chemical
nitrogen sources. [uppercase emphasis added by Daryl Oster]
***********end quote*************
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/482775_2
***********start quote*************
A Natural History of Nitrogen
Everything that lives needs nitrogen. But most atoms of nitrogen--which
represents 78% of the atmosphere--are bound tightly in pairs as N2. Most
organisms can't break the powerful triple bond of the N2 molecule's two
atoms. For plants to grow and animals to thrive, they need the element in a
reactive fixed form that is bonded to carbon, hydrogen, or oxygen, most
often as organic nitrogen compounds (such as amino acids), ammonium (NH4),
or nitrate (NO3). Animals get their reactive nitrogen from eating plants and
other animals somewhere along the food chain. And plants get reactive
nitrogen from the soil or water.
Lightning accounts for some naturally occurring reactive nitrogen--worldwide
each year, lightning fixes an estimated 3-10 teragrams (Tg), the usual
measurement unit for discussing the global nitrogen cycle. The energy that
lightning generates converts oxygen and nitrogen to nitric oxide (NO), which
oxidizes to nitrogen dioxide (NO2), then to nitric acid (HNO3). Within days
the HNO3 is carried to the ground in rain, snow, hail, or other atmospheric
deposition. This source of reactive nitrogen is important to areas in which
nitrogen-fixing plants are scarce.
***********end quote*************
Jerry Roane
SPEAKERS
David T. Allen is Reese Professor of Chemical Engineering and Director of the Center for Energy &
Environmental Resources at the University of Texas at Austin. His research interests lie in environmental
reaction engineering, particularly issues related to air quality and pollution prevention. He is the author of
four books and over 100 papers in these areas. He received his B.S. in Chemical Engineering from
Cornell University and his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Chemical Engineering from the California Institute
of Technology.
This is the professor who models NOx combining with Volatile Organic Compounds in the presence of summer heat and sunlight to form ground level ozone on ozone "action" days. On most of Texas land mass it is the NOx that is the ingredient that most triggers ozone production. If we can come to an understanding of this then either I will be a convert to your diesel way of thinking or you will become a convert to Dr. David T. Allen's research and atmospheric modeling. I have met and talked with him face to face so I know he exists. He seems like a smart guy.
The study from the forest service enumerating the cost of over production of NOx was documented and referenced in my last post. Here is a link to it. http://www.ghasp.org/ghasp-reports/trees-and-our-air
You are correct that NOx by itself is not the direct problem but rather the end effect is harm to the health of children in populated urban utopias is the problem as a down stream outcome of NOx pollution.
I do agree the other junk in air pollution is bad and should be avoided. We are both working toward the same goal of converting to flexible power sources and very efficient use of available power. I was just giving you some grief over the statement that directly contradicts my document I base much of my efforts on. My daddy was a professor too and my daddy could probably beat your daddy in arm wrestling. ;-)
Houston is awash in VOC because of the oil business there. This VOC wafts across the state supplying plenty of VOC to combine with the NOx. VOx was a typo. My bad. If you read Dr. Allen's work some cities have the opposite problem and NOx is not the main problem but VOCs are but for thousands of miles around my house NOx is the bad boy. Does that help rectify our difference in understanding?
Dennis Manning
Sorry to keep pelting you with questions, but you are a great source of
knowledge.
When one is down in the area of one ton cargo what if any are the standard
shipping container sizes.
Dennis
Daryl Oster
sizes commonly used in the US. The euro pallet (0.8m X 1.2M) is the size in
greatest use in the world. One ton is a common maximum pallet load
specification for many forklifts and pallet racking systems. Many euro
pallet racking systems specify a maximum pallet height of 1m. This will fit
into an ETT capsule.
Daryl Oster
(c) 2007 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"
e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks
of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River
FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, e...@et3.com , www.et3.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: transport-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:transport-
> innov...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dennis Manning
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 2:30 PM
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Jerry Roane
The easy way to see what size boxes things come in just ask a box manufacturer how many they sell of each size. Not everything comes on a pallet of course and actually the pallet is unnecessary baggage in the cargo hold when you think about it. I am sure if there was a low-cost alternative that things could quickly change to a more space efficient format. Usually trucks are limited by the volume of the load more so than the max weight. In college on the grave yard shift I used to load UPS trucks in the Dallas HUB. UPS had a limit on box size and weight that fit their business model. They required that parcels be small enough to be picked up by their people. The heaviest box that I still remember was boxes of Levi jeans coming down the conveyor belt. They were just the right size to grab off the conveyor belt and stack neatly in the truck before the next one got there. The organized stacking of the odd shaped parcels was a point of pride for the loaders. The people who did the unloading took great pride in making sure the loaders were jammed up into the trucks buried in parcels. It was a nightly contest to see who would win. I won some and I lost some in that race. I remember being shoved into the front of a truck by a mountain of packages when a log jam cleared on the belt. I was glad none of those packages had pallets strapped to them or it would have hurt. As it was it was almost like being moved by a wave in the ocean. A very strange feeling. The packages that were trouble for that system was not the boxes but rather the flat folder shaped cardboard objects. I also vividly remember a wall of Proctor and Gamble posters coming through for a national promotion they were doing and I guess they were sending every store in the nation a poster in a cardboard flat container. Those things jammed under the pickoff arms of the conveyor and created havoc for the sorters (human) and the loaders. The unloaders had a great time that night making sure we were in total chaos. I would suggest that observing stockers late on a Sunday night at a grocery store as being a good place to observe the majority of shipments and what configuration things come in. Most are not that big so that a stocker in the store can easily place the items on the shelf. Instead of a forklift I would suspect that 95% of objects could be picked up from the sides with light pressure. I have seen fork lifts fitted with these grippers in stores. They pick up the box just like a person would so there is no need for the wasted volume and wasted weight of the pallet. Right now I have a pallet in my front lawn because a piece of equipment was shipped here and they did not take the pallet. In fact they refused to take it back so here it sits. It is going to be part of a bonfire at some point which is not very useful for anything. For roofing products pallets are great but if you consider the total product flow most of it is in much smaller increments and in cardboard boxes.
Jerry Roane
Daryl Oster wrote:
Guala Luca
not really innovative but intereseting new job for an old dog
cheers, Luca
Gérard Massip
Robbert Lohmann [2getthere]
I spoke with these guys recently. It's an interesting concept copied
from the cargo-trams in Dresden, Germany (transporting VW-parts through
the city).
I do see some drawbacks to their plan. I don't understand the need to
use trams first of all. They'll argue they want to use the free,
dedicated lanes; but why wouldn't you allow the E-trucks (electric
trucks) they want to use for the fine distribution and give them access
rights to the tram infrastructure? Now they are going to make a tram
with an expensive handling mechanism, which could be avoided. On the
other hand, it's too easy to be negative about new developments and
that's a pitfall we certainly shouldn't fall for. I'll take a
wait-and-see-approach and will look for them to proof it first.
Robbert
Guala Luca schreef:
Guala Luca
> I do see some drawbacks to their plan. I don't understand the need to
use trams first of all. They'll argue they want to use the free,
dedicated lanes; but why wouldn't you allow the E-trucks (electric
trucks) they want to use for the fine distribution and give them access
rights to the tram infrastructure?
> Now they are going to make a tram
with an expensive handling mechanism, which could be avoided.
cheers, LUca
Robbert Lohmann [2getthere]
- Aren't E-trucks vehicles on tyres? If so, it makes sense to have a
vehicle on rail (where the infrastructure already exists) to do the big
capacity job, and several small vehicles on tyres do the distribution.
Correct, but all tracks in Amsterdam are such that they can be used by
emergency services and taxi's also (the rails being embedded in
concrete). Hence the extra handling in the city itself somehow doesn't
seem to make sense. However, I think the idea of using the
infrastructure of trams to avoid trucks going into the city is very
good! I am just not sure whether the tram (vehicle itself) is an
'essential' link in this plan
> Actually, I was quite disappointed in seeing that the cargo tram is just a normal tram with the window blinded out! I was expecting some special boxy car body!
>
The actual tram to be used is still to be developed! This blinded out
tram was used to demonstrate to the city that the cargo-trams would not
disturb normal passenger operations (and as a marketing stunt). Based on
these trials the city granted the concessions for cargo transit per tram
to Citycargo. The final design vehicle is likely to look differently, as
the handling mechanism will have to accomodate the complete side of the
tram to be opened in order to reach the cargo-load :-)
Robbert
>
> cheers, LUca
>
>
> >
>
Guala Luca
http://www.euractiv.com/en/transport/cars-co2/article-162412
cheers, Luca
Guala Luca
> all tracks in Amsterdam are such that they can be used by
emergency services and taxi's also (the rails being embedded in
concrete). Hence the extra handling in the city itself somehow doesn't
seem to make sense. However, I think the idea of using the
infrastructure of trams to avoid trucks going into the city is very
good! I am just not sure whether the tram (vehicle itself) is an
'essential' link in this plan
> The actual tram to be used is still to be developed! This blinded out
tram was used to demonstrate to the city that the cargo-trams would not
disturb normal passenger operations (and as a marketing stunt). Based on
these trials the city granted the concessions for cargo transit per tram
to Citycargo. The final design vehicle is likely to look differently, as
the handling mechanism will have to accomodate the complete side of the
tram to be opened in order to reach the cargo-load :-)
ciao
Luca
googlemail
entry pallet (probably 1200-1400 mm high), weighing 500 kilos.
You are going to have to find a very smart way of transferring from tram to
end user.
John Evans
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
- Mahatma Gandhi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guala Luca" <gu...@systematica.net>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Kirston Henderson
> now it makes more sense. I hadn't understood that the tracks were actually
> "dual mode" guideways throughout their extension!
Guala Luca,
With regard to urban trams making use of the same guideway as passenger
transit systems, I suggest that you take a look at pages 11 & 12 of the
following downloadable MicroRail pdf file:
http://www.megarail.com/pdf/MCPC-ALT1.pdf
In this case, the trams are dualmode and accomplish cargo loading and
unloading at freight docks on the ground and away from passenger operations.
This approach enables cargo operations to be accomplished at all times of
the day without any possibility of interference with passenger service. It
does accomplish the objective of eliminating large amounts of trucks from
city streets.
By the way, we are probably going to initially configure our second
prototype car to demonstrate transport of these small containers and when we
do, we will get lots of photos and video.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail® Transportation Systems, Inc.
Kirston Henderson
> Remember the standard transport unit will be a metric 1200 x 1000 mm 4 way
> entry pallet (probably 1200-1400 mm high), weighing 500 kilos.
>
> You are going to have to find a very smart way of transferring from tram to
> end user.
Our MicroRail cargo container will handle that size of pallet. The
containers are loaded into the containers with ordinary forklifts and the
containers are also loaded onto and removed from the cargotram vehicles
using the same method. No specialized equipment is required other than that
currently in use in most cargo handling locations.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Eric Baumgartner
eri...@shaw.ca
----- Original Message -----From: Kirston Henderson
MegaRail(r)
Kirston Henderson
May I suggest that any cargo container should be able to be loaded or unloaded with a standard pallet jack. Pallet jacks cost about $350+ whereas a forklift costs $20,000+ and requires a trained and certified operator.
Thanks for making the good point about pallet jacks. I am very familiar with then and they Should be perfectly capable of loading and unloading most MicroRail containers as long as you have an operator strong enough to roll the load across the floor. Of course, you can always have a couple of guys pushing the container while it is being supported on the pallet jack.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Robbert Lohmann [2getthere]
We've supplied a fork-lift like this in the past and I know of competitors also supplying such solutions :-)
Robbert
Kirston Henderson schreef:
MegaRail(r)