Schweeb and BWS

[Jack Slade]

Frank, I have often mentioned that BWS is a paper requirement only, but nobody wants to pay any attention to my statement.   How can you say a train obeys the BWS rule, with these figures?   Stopping distance......approximately 1700 Meters (Yds)   Visibility around some curves..........Less than 1000 Meters    Visibility at night................................Less than 300 Meters   Visibility in snowstorms....................Less than 50 Meters   Please explain to me why this stupid rule was ever made,  if not just to persuade stupid people that it was really safe.   Then explain why it must be continued in perpetuity,  instead of being scrapped or totally ignored.  Stupid is as stupid does.....   Jack Slade         >>>>Jack, > Every financed development effort I've read about respects BWS rules. > This is what tends to lead to larger vehicles, leading to larger > guideways, loss of PRT functionality, complicated schemes etc...  Very > Slow PRT is a way to get sub-second headways while respecting BWS > rules (until these rules can be relaxed).  The complete system I'm > thinking about would be for everyone, because the larger, faster (3.5 > m?) supported DM vehicles can accommodate bikes, wheelchairs, > families, freight etc... > > F.<<<<<

[eph]

I can't explain it. I can't explain why I can't drink a beer on the
street, but I know I can be fined for doing it. Lots of rules are
stupid, but they are there and can't be ignored and are VERY difficult
to change. Knowing this, an investor might shy away because they may
never see a return on their investment if the rule (or requirements
effectively amounting to the rule) can't be changed. There may be
forces at play to keep the rule so that established transportation
methods remain the only ones available. I think that if an obviously
safe sub-second system like Shweeb manages to operate in complete
safety for a few years and people start demanding to go faster because
they *know* it's safe, then you might see BWS rules go away.

F.