DM through the eyes of others

[Bruff]

When I first saw the headline, I thought, "Finally!". Not so.
http://www.gizmag.com/dual-mode-transport/22284/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=2a4f8c5288-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email

[Bruff]

When I first saw the headline, I thought, "Finally!" Alas...
http://www.gizmag.com/dual-mode-transport/22284/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=2a4f8c5288-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email

[Jerry Schneider]

At 02:07 PM 5/1/2012, you wrote:
>When I first saw the headline, I thought, "Finally!" Alas...
>http://www.gizmag.com/dual-mode-transport/22284/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=2a4f8c5288-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email

What's the problem?

[Bruff]

The 'problem', Jerry, is that while the title -- "Dual-mode transport
- the trend accelerates" -- and the first sentence ("One of the many
interesting trends is... the ongoing development of vehicles offering
dual modes of transport - cars containing another transportation
device of some sort") and the caption for the pictures ("As car
ownership grows, congestion grows and parking in city centers becomes
more expensive, and a car will increasingly only get you part of the
way to your destination in most countries in the world") started off
right, it quickly became apparent that it wasn't talking my language
at all, because in in my vocabulary, 'dual mode' has always meant
'dual mode PRT'. Sometimes we read into things what we want. Until it
tells us different.

(Did you really have to ask...?)

On May 1, 3:30 pm, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:
> At 02:07 PM 5/1/2012, you wrote:
>
> >When I first saw the headline, I thought, "Finally!" Alas...

> >http://www.gizmag.com/dual-mode-transport/22284/?utm_source=Gizmag+Su...
>
>

[Dennis Manning]

With all the dozens of designs of the carry along vehicle and with I believe
modest acceptance one would have to conclude there is something
fundamentally weak in the that "DM" concept.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Bruff" <daveb...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 2:05 PM
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [t-i] DM through the eyes of others

> When I first saw the headline, I thought, "Finally!". Not so.
> http://www.gizmag.com/dual-mode-transport/22284/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=2a4f8c5288-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "transport-innovators" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
>

[Jerry Schneider]

At 03:41 PM 5/1/2012, you wrote:
>The 'problem', Jerry, is that while the title -- "Dual-mode transport
>- the trend accelerates" -- and the first sentence ("One of the many
>interesting trends is... the ongoing development of vehicles offering
>dual modes of transport - cars containing another transportation
>device of some sort") and the caption for the pictures ("As car
>ownership grows, congestion grows and parking in city centers becomes
>more expensive, and a car will increasingly only get you part of the
>way to your destination in most countries in the world") started off
>right, it quickly became apparent that it wasn't talking my language
>at all, because in in my vocabulary, 'dual mode' has always meant
>'dual mode PRT'. Sometimes we read into things what we want. Until it
>tells us different.
>
>(Did you really have to ask...?)

How else am I going to find out what meaning you give to certain
words? For me, there is no such thing
as dualmode PRT as, for me, PRT means captive to the guideway whereas
dualmode means not captive
to the guideway.

>On May 1, 3:30 pm, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:
> > At 02:07 PM 5/1/2012, you wrote:
> >
> > >When I first saw the headline, I thought, "Finally!" Alas...
> > >http://www.gizmag.com/dual-mode-transport/22284/?utm_source=Gizmag+Su...
> >
> >
>

[Jerry Schneider]

At 03:50 PM 5/1/2012, you wrote:
>With all the dozens of designs of the carry along vehicle and with I
>believe modest acceptance one would have to conclude there is
>something fundamentally weak in the that "DM" concept.

For me, it's just a different use of the dual-mode term, one that has
been generated as a response to the fact that Chinese cities are not
going to be able to provide enough parking places (in certain high
density locations) and street space for all the autos that they will
have. I presume that they are planning to park somewhere reasonably
close to desired destinations and use a smaller vehicle for the
first/last part of the trip.

As such, there might even be some uses for these compact vehicles for
first/last mile trips to/from PRT stations. Or, some of the central
areas of our cities might become so choked with autos that such
vehicles and remote parking might become welcome here as well. Will
such vehicles be allowed to use the streets in auto-free zones?

And, I did see some vehicles that were not designed to be carried by
another vehicle that apparently could be used for circulation within
high density parts of cities. Also, there is no reason that I know of
that very small vehicles could not be used for the entire trip, via
automated operation on a guideway plus driven or autonomous for the
first/last mile.

[Bruff]

"How else am I going to find out what meaning you give to
certain words?"

Point accepted.

But maybe you have hit upon something, the "captive / non-captive"
issue. The other issue that needs addressing is that of what the "T"
means. Most people call it Personal Rapid Transit. But for me, the
guideway should be adaptive enough to carry freight, thus ridding --
or at least alleviating -- the roads of much of the diesel spewing
traffic that we love to hate. In other words, it's neither 'personal'
nor is it 'transit'. Hence my calling it Elevated Automated
Transportation - or thereabouts. EAT that, eh?
But since we (well, the 'royal' we) are talking dual...ah, non-
captive, we have to accept the fact that for maybe half the trip, it
won't be elevated at all. Then there's the whole suspended / supported
debate.
SNEAT, isn't it?

Bruff

[Bruff]

About that 'carry along vehicle' that can used for the last mile. I
have a little bike-in-a-bag that I can pull out of my trunk for
exactly that purpose.
One of the nice things about (at least some) PRT designs (MISTER comes
to mind) is that they are bike capable.

Bruff

[Kirston Henderson]

On May 1, 2012, at 7:08 PM, Jerry Schneider wrote:

How else am I going to find out what meaning you give to certain words? For me, there is no such thing
as dualmode PRT as, for me, PRT means captive to the guideway whereas dualmode means not captive
to the guideway.

As far as I am concerned, dual mode allows most vehicles to complete the majority of trip miles on an automated guideway separated from the road system, but allows the car driver to drive to guideway stations to start the trip and then exit the system to complete the trip over ordinary streets.  PRT is not involved at all.

Kirston Henderson

[eph]

I had described DM-PRT as a feature of DM where it is possible to embark and disembark, while still on the guideway and under system control - essentially PRT with an extended range.

The strange thing about their "DM" is that there is a vehicle change, where the point (one of) of DM it seems to me is to remain in the same vehicle straight to destination.

F.

[Jerry Schneider]

At 06:27 AM 5/2/2012, you wrote:
>I had described DM-PRT as a feature of DM where it is possible to
>embark and disembark, while still on the guideway and under system
>control - essentially PRT with an extended range.

Good point, certainly a possibility - so long as there is a way to
get to your destination when you get off the guideway.

>The strange thing about their "DM" is that there is a vehicle
>change, where the point (one of) of DM it seems to me is to remain
>in the same vehicle straight to destination.

It's really quite amusing to see these first/last mile vehicles being
demonstrated by people who look like they are in their 30's when the
text makes the case that a fast growing population segment in many
countries is the elderly. People who have low vision, bad hearing,
balance problems, slow reaction times, arthritic joints and other
problems are certainly not as able as the people doing the demos.
Makes me wonder if the people designing these systems know anything
about the limitations that some of their potential clients have to deal with.

Beyond that, where are you going to park the "mother ship" if your
destination is in an auto-free zone? Would high rise parking garages
in low cost locations near all major activity centers around the
region be needed? It's another example of the lack of system
engineering by these inventors.

I suspect that many of the elderly will not often want to travel to
these high density destinations anyway, unless they are in a bus and
do actually get to the desired door - and get picked up there as
well. Of course there will still be a large market of younger people
so long as they can find a convenient place to park their "mother ship".





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

[Michael Weidler]

Bruff,

Any guideway is capable of carrying freight. One simply uses a freight specific pod. What I don't see is how PRT (or whatever you want to call it) will be useful for freight any time soon. Unless serendipity lends a hand, from where to where is freight going to travel? Freight is more likely to be an end game for PRT - the beginning.

---

From: Bruff <daveb...@gmail.com>
To: transport-innovators <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 9:53 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: DM through the eyes of others

> >transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> >For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[WDDavis]

Bill Davis to Michael Weidler and other innovators, I agree with you that PRT or any automated transit system which can deliver goods and services from one location to another non-stop, safely, fast, in all weather, without a human driver, with attendants at each end to send and receive the cargo or human passengers 24/7 we would have a winner.  Particularly if this system could meet

all the requirements developed for Dual Mode transit, by Jerry Schneider in conjunction with Texas A&M.  We, BiModal Glideway group believe we have achieved this mark.  We realize our BMG system has not been developed beyond the conceptual stage, which to do so properly will take many millions/billions  of dollars.  It needs to go through extensive systems analysis and engineering, requiring support from the railroads, trucking, highway, industrial complex, city/state governments, with major inputs from the public and all potential users of this revolutionary concept.  This or some similar concept is needed to begin NOW to consider a supplement to our current deteriorating transportation systems.  Our attempt has been to present a relatively elementary, economical concept which will work, but has not been optimized until all of the above considerations have been evaluated.  I believe if you spend some serious time analyzing our webpages at BIMODALGLIDEWAY.COM, including the section on “REQUIREMENTS” under “TECHNOLOGY’, you will understand this requires a universally accepted concept.  Sound impossible, but not if you analyze the big picture and the extensive benefits to all our transportation systems and needs.  If I can help clarify or answer questions feel free to e-mail me at wdd...@bimodalglideway.com .     Thanks for your consideration and time, Bill    

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

[Jack Slade]

Bill:  I agree with your ideas,  generally.  Where we diverge is on a few points: 1.    using 2000 lb vehicles to move 200 lb of passenger was never economical,  it was just the way things were done when gas was cheap.  2  Using smaller,lighter vehicles needs smaller, lighter roads(guideways) that can be developed much cheaper on a production line than the cost of building huge guideways on-site. 3  Size matters.  How to make a system fit into existing city areas whithout costing huge amounts of money and disrupting other facilities is areal necessity. 

 

Your thinking is basically right,  but consider:  some people fly airplanes that weigh far less than the average car,  and you are proposing to a Country that is basically out of Money.  The  "Bigger is better"  concept was never right,  and becomes worse with every rise in energy cost.

 

Jack Slade

From: WDDavis <wdd...@bimodalglideway.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Cc: 'Christopher Davis' <cda...@bimodalglideway.com>; Richard Farrell <rfar...@bimodalglideway.com>; y...@yocanny.com; Sunny Kohli <sunny...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 12:20:53 AM
Subject: RE: [t-i] Re: DM through the eyes of others

Bill Davis to Michael Weidler and other innovators, I agree with you that PRT or any automated transit system which can deliver goods and services from one location to another non-stop, safely, fast, in all weather, without a human driver, with attendants at each end to send and receive the cargo or human passengers 24/7 we would have a winner.  Particularly if this system could meet

all the requirements developed for Dual Mode transit, by Jerry Schneider in conjunction with Texas A&M.  We, BiModal Glideway group believe we have achieved this mark.  We realize our BMG system has not been developed beyond the conceptual stage, which to do so properly will take many millions/billions  of dollars.  It needs to go through extensive systems analysis and engineering, requiring support from the railroads, trucking, highway, industrial complex, city/state governments, with major inputs from the public and all potential users of this revolutionary concept.  This or some similar concept is needed to begin NOW to consider a supplement to our current deteriorating transportation systems.  Our attempt has been to present a relatively elementary, economical concept which will work, but has not been optimized until all of the above considerations have been evaluated.  I believe if you spend some serious time analyzing our webpages at BIMODALGLIDEWAY.COM, including the section on “REQUIREMENTS” under “TECHNOLOGY’, you will understand this requires a universally accepted concept.  Sound impossible, but not if you analyze the big picture and the extensive benefits to all our transportation systems and needs.  If I can help clarify or answer questions feel free to e-mail me at wdd...@bimodalglideway.com .     Thanks for your consideration and time, Bill    

 

From: transport-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael Weidler
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 12:34 AM
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: DM through the eyes of others

 

Bruff,

 

Any guideway is capable of carrying freight. One simply uses a freight specific pod. What I don't see is how PRT (or whatever you want to call it) will be useful for freight any time soon. Unless serendipity lends a hand, from where to where is freight going to travel? Freight is more likely to be an end game for PRT - the beginning.

 

[Bill Davis]

Jack Slade, thanks for your consideration of BMG.  I agree with your “bigger/better” not necessarily good.  However I concluded to go bigger and leave it up to a NASA type think tank to do a thorough investigation into trade-offs between larger cargo/personnel carriers which could be the largest users and pay the biggest return on a national transit system.  I believe a major change of this magnitude requires a national investigation of all aspects.  No small study could possibly collect enough information to arrive at a universal solution.  Yes, lighter guide ways would greatly reduce initial costs, but would they truly be cost/effective? Analyze the value of transporting 50 % of all highway cargo/personal traffic, including heavy divided loads carried long distances in light (relatively) stripped down driverless trucks/vans/buses on glideways between driverless terminals at every city of size, designed to send/receive cargo/personnel and retransmit to final destinations.  How do you attach a value to this?  It would greatly reduce: air transit, most trucking, RR traffic, and save our highways, oil, air, and all the other benefits which are dramatic.  This concept also sees an urban/interurban system elevating a large percent of heavy traffic off the congested streets to a level above for most local/pedestrian traffic which integrates with all of BMG.. Working on it   I hope this helps understand how I got to where I am and where I want to go, I need all the help I can get to convince DOT of the urgency of starting NOW to think out of the “box”about the benefits which could occur if they would think about it??????  Thanks again   Bill       

[Jerry Schneider]

If you want to get the US DOT interested, why suggest that NASA be
engaged to do the study your describe? So far as I know, NASA has no
particular expertise or experience in ground transportation
matters. The US DOT tends to rely on the Volpe Transportation
Research Center in Cambridge, MA. They fund may studies at Volpe that
are generally administered by RITA (Research and Innovative
Transportation Administration) which is in the office of the
Secretary of Transportation (who will be different in January 2013).
If Volpe doesn't have the personnel to do the work, they hire
consulting firms that do. A good example of this was the National
Maglev Initiative done several years ago that involved several
contractors and that produced a huge study with the Federal Railroad
Administration as the eventual client.

Of course, another approach is to find a major corporation to do it -
one that has a direct stake in a positive outcome - like POSCO, the
large Korean steel company that has been funding (and still is?) the
Vectus PRT system. Auto companies (Chinese, Korean, Indian, European,
Turkish and maybe even American) are other possibilities (for those
who don't want or can't tolerate any governmental involvement).

[Jack Slade]

We have also had endless discussions about freight here on this list.  It all boils down to why freight is currently handled the way it is,  versus how it may be handled in the future.

 

Freight does not come off the production line packaged neatly in 4 ft-sq pallets.  Somebody packages it that way because of the requirement to move it in trucks that are as big as possible,  to allow one driver to move as much as possible with each trip.  Just-in-time delivery currently is done to Depots that break the load into smaller packages for delivery to retailers,   using smaller trucks.

 

Automated freight elominates the need for drivers,  and with it gone so goes the need to use large vehicles.  Just-in-time delivery in the future may be direct from  factory floor to retailers,  also eliminating the need for the huge trans-shipment depots.

This has already begun,  in a small way:  It is called E-Bay,  using mail and existing small-package delivery service.

 

There are exceptions to almost everything.  There is one here also:  There will always be large items....production machinery,  etc, that is heavy and difficult to move.  However,  these things are also made up of hundreds of smaller parts,  often made in dozens of different factories.  Who is to say that this production can not someday continue as it is now,  but all of the pieces get shipped to the final destination and assembly gets done right where the machine is going to be used for all of it's lifespan?

 

These are the evolutionary changes that I expect will take place in the future,  just as trucks and pallets totally changed freight handling about 60 years ago.

 

Jack Slade

[WDDavis]

To Jerry Schneider, Thanks for interest in BMG, I chose NASA as a type of
organization dedicated to a single purpose, with the top scientists
available, this is not Volpe as best as I can tell. I have repeatedly
tried to get Volpe and co. with no response, sent info yesterday will see.
I don't think they are any more interested in the future than my cat. I get
the opinion that all DOT or maybe all civil service does not want to shake
the tree for fear of losing their jobs. .I get that feeling of frustration
from you and the rest of innovative and most of transport interests. There
is a lack of motivation and urgency in Govt. to really search for a new
better solution to our problems until they are desperate, which is coming
sooner than they suspect. I am trying to wake them up, If they don't start
planning now we are going to be in the middle of total chaos ie: major
depression. A new highway system "Glideway" or better, being constructed
all over the country and industries, factories, department stores,
developing ways of capitalizing on this hi-speed, economical, safe, system
for "on time" deliveries of all kinds, anywhere in the US saving everyone
dollars and time, saving our future, keeping us a leader again. Sorry if
I sound depressed but I would like to see as good a world as I found it even
after several wars I was involved in. Bill Davis

-----Original Message-----
From: transport-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jerry Schneider
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 3:07 PM
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [t-i] Re: DM through the eyes of others

[Jerry Schneider]

At 08:27 PM 5/11/2012, you wrote:
>To Jerry Schneider, Thanks for interest in BMG, I chose NASA as a type of
>organization dedicated to a single purpose, with the top scientists
>available, this is not Volpe as best as I can tell. I have repeatedly
>tried to get Volpe and co. with no response, sent info yesterday will see.
>I don't think they are any more interested in the future than my cat. I get
>the opinion that all DOT or maybe all civil service does not want to shake
>the tree for fear of losing their jobs. .I get that feeling of frustration
>from you and the rest of innovative and most of transport interests. There
>is a lack of motivation and urgency in Govt. to really search for a new
>better solution to our problems until they are desperate, which is coming
>sooner than they suspect. I am trying to wake them up, If they don't start
>planning now we are going to be in the middle of total chaos ie: major
>depression. A new highway system "Glideway" or better, being constructed
>all over the country and industries, factories, department stores,
>developing ways of capitalizing on this hi-speed, economical, safe, system
>for "on time" deliveries of all kinds, anywhere in the US saving everyone
>dollars and time, saving our future, keeping us a leader again. Sorry if
>I sound depressed but I would like to see as good a world as I found it even
>after several wars I was involved in. Bill Davis

I understand and share your frustration. However, it is important to
understand how
the government works. A good example of the kind of study that you would like
to see done is the National Maglev Initiative. It was "managed" by
the Volpe Center and the work was done by a large number of mostly
private contractors. The Volpe Center doesn't
do studies unless they are provided the funding necessary to do them.
Mostly, it comes
from the US DOT. Where does the US DOT get the money to do the
studies? The Congress
passes appropriations and defines to some extent the scope and
objectives of the study
that they want done. Who writes the bills that get passed and which
provide the funds -
the Congress. All spending bills originate in the House in the
appropriate committees.
The chair and members of this committee are seldom self-directed but
respond to the
desires of the people who have influence with them. Many of those
people are interested
in getting government contracts to work on problems that match up
well with their capabilities.

If this kind of "push" isn't present, bills don't get written and
passed unless there are prominent
members of Congress that provide the "push" for their own reasons. In
the maglev case, there
was a prominent senator that provided the push and got the bill
written and passed and the study took place. It was not well-received
for a variety of reasons, the senator died and the
conventional industry had a large role in getting it put on the shelf.

So far as I can tell, there isn't any member of Congress that I know
of that cares about the need for transport innovations. NASA doesn't
care either. Volpe would be happy to manage another large study but
won't initiate it. The White House doesn't care. The Secretary of DOT
doesn't care. The large corporations don't care. The civil engineers
just want to fix bridges and maintain our highway system. The
airlines don't care. The oil companies don't care. The military does
care but only about their own problems. City governments don't care
so long as they continue to get grants for maintenance, salaries and
some new construction. Same with state governments. It will take
something like a "sputnik" moment to highlight the need to consider
something besides what the conventional industry is accustomed to
providing. They do care deeply about surviving and continuing to do
what they have been doing for decades.

Please review the Table of Contents (at least) for the report from
the National Maglev Initiative and also look particularly at Appendix
B which provides a list of the participants. http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/TNM.html

There are other similar examples, one in particular is the large
scale automated highway study, again managed by Volpe but which
involved a large number of companies that did
the work. It can be argued that today's Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS) effort is largely
the results of the material in that study. It is a massive effort to
automate various parts of the auto system and probably will produce a
considerable number of autonomous and semi-autonomous autos into the
marketplace fairly soon. Take a few minutes to review this history,
see: http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/ahssummary.htm (scroll
down to the "Precursor" section).

This is not a game that an individual inventor with a great concept
can play in easily. One has to find powerful allies (see Appendix B
for a list) and stimulate them into action. Or, find a very rich
billionaire who is capable of taking the lead and investing tons of
money in a competition with the conventional industry. Find one,
(e.g. Ted Turner type) and you might have a slim chance of making
some progress with you concept.

[Kirston Henderson]

On May 11, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Jack Slade wrote:

We have also had endless discussions about freight here on this list.  It all boils down to why freight is currently handled the way it is,  versus how it may be handled in the future.

 

Freight does not come off the production line packaged neatly in 4 ft-sq pallets.  Somebody packages it that way because of the requirement to move it in trucks that are as big as possible,  to allow one driver to move as much as possible with each trip.  Just-in-time delivery currently is done to Depots that break the load into smaller packages for delivery to retailers,   using smaller trucks.

 

Automated freight elominates the need for drivers,  and with it gone so goes the need to use large vehicles.  Just-in-time delivery in the future may be direct from  factory floor to retailers,  also eliminating the need for the huge trans-shipment depots.

This has already begun,  in a small way:  It is called E-Bay,  using mail and existing small-package delivery service.

 

There are exceptions to almost everything.  There is one here also:  There will always be large items....production machinery,  etc, that is heavy and difficult to move.  However,  these things are also made up of hundreds of smaller parts,  often made in dozens of different factories.  Who is to say that this production can not someday continue as it is now,  but all of the pieces get shipped to the final destination and assembly gets done right where the machine is going to be used for all of it's lifespan?

 

These are the evolutionary changes that I expect will take place in the future,  just as trucks and pallets totally changed freight handling about 60 years ago.

 

Jack Slade

What you say about cargo handling is only partially true and furthermore, it would be a sound approach if we could just wave a wand and have a complete, nation-wide network of guideways suitable for passengers and cargo.  Unfortunately, we don't have such a wand and the reality is that we must provide means to easily interface with existent trucking and pallets.

In our own cargo handling system for both MegaWay™ and MicroWay™, we designed a standard cargo container that is 8'-4" long, and about 4-ft deep and about  9-ft tall.  This container can be loaded either by hand or have cargo pallets loaded inside by standard forklifts.  In turn, the entire container can then be moved and loaded sideways onto essentially standard flat-bed trucks.  The containers can be trucked to a cargo station on our guideway where they may be loaded onto our guideway-based cargo carriers for high-speed, automated transport.

This arrangement provides us with a cargo container compatible with our guideway systems and standard trucks at either end.

This may not be the ultimate answer, but it does enable us to start with a system compatible with current practice and if you do not do that, I fear that you are doomed.

Kirston Henderson

MegaRail® Transportation Systems, Inc.

[Kirston Henderson]

Sorry, but if we wait for the Feds to do anything, it will either
never get done or done so poorly that we will hate it. That is the
reason that we have chosen the path of doing it ourselves with our own
private capital.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail® Transportation Systems, Inc./

[Jack Slade]

I agree with that.  Changes are bound to happen slowly.  I am just suggesting that shipping,  and packaging, always changes to suit whatever mode of transport is available to carry them cheaper.  This is economics,  where the lowest price will eventually win .

Your methods will certainly be a beginning,  considering how things are handled right now,  but other systems will also carry a lot of freight in the future.  The reason I say this is that freight,  pound for pound,  pays more than carrying passengers.  Long term,  cheaper wins.  Anybody shipping a package will pick the cheapest method,  unless there are huge differences in the service.

 

Jack Slade

From: Kirston Henderson <kirston....@megarail.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 1:48:05 AM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: DM through the eyes of others

[Jack Slade]

NASA was given the responsibility of building the Morgantown system.  They failed miserably,  and probably only partly because ground transport was not part of their expertise.  Their lack of oversight and co-ordination between the Companies that were given separate contracts was terrible.  It was worse than that,  it was non-existent.

Even if they learned from that,  the people who learned are long gone.  Are the new employees any smarter? That would surprise me.

 

If you can get them off their ass to do something useful here on Earth,  it will only work if they put you in charge of the project.  I say that because nobody can complete a project other than the only person who knows everything about it. Are you ready for that?

 

Jack Slade

From: WDDavis <wdd...@bimodalglideway.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Cc: 'Christopher Davis' <cda...@bimodalglideway.com>; Richard Farrell <rfar...@bimodalglideway.com>; y...@yocanny.com; Sunny Kohli <sunny...@gmail.com>

transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[badger]

I agree with Kirsten here.To err is human.but to really screw thing up,you need Congress! someone mentioned the need for a bilionare of the Ted Turner type.who dso you think runs for Democratic office? what we need is someone more like Donald Trump,or the Koch brothers.

[Dennis Manning]

You gov't bashers are a hoot. Trump and Koch as an alternative to the Feds and Turner to get PRT moving. Ho ho ho!

 

 

From: badger

Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 7:30 PM

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/sg7xT5saBkUJ.

[Jack Slade]

The sad fact is that if anybody puts up all the money for development he is going to want a controlling interest in the project.  He and his friends will promptly think they can do everything cheaper and better,  and will go about screwing up the whole plan....let's see,  if we built these cars to carry more people,  then we would not need so many, right?

 

Unfortunately,  Govts take a very similiar approach,  and without even recognizing that they are just screwing up.  Proof?  Morgantown, and the PRT proposal for Cincinatti,  as well as Raytheon's method of screwing up the same system that was proposed for Cincinatti.  Doesn't everybody understand that if it doesn't look like a car and run on four wheels,  then somebody else (with more brains,  of course) will take over and make it look like a car and run on four wheels.  Then they will make it bigger,  like a bus.  

 

Any project is doomed,  unless you insist on being the boss.  Who else would you expect to build it exactly the same as you would?

 

Jack Slade

[Michael Weidler]

Jack , I've been doing a lot of background reading on freight for a project. You might be able to do totally automated freight with products which are produced and used internally to the US. However, if it goes anywhere on a ship, it will be put in a container at some point.

One of the primary effects of containerization is that theft at the docks dropped drastically. It is very unlikely that shippers will agree to go back to the bad old days, so at some point your automated system is going to need to handle containers. Guess what goes in those containers? 4 foot square pallets (actually they are 4x6).

---

From: Jack Slade <skytr...@rogers.com>
To: "transport-...@googlegroups.com" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 3:16 PM

[Jack Slade]

Existing pallet sizes were designed to be most suitable for trucks,  to speed handling.  I don't think they have been designated by law,  so I will be permitted to design another size suitable for PRT.  Or will that piss off the people who want exerything standardized?

 

Jack Slade

From: Michael Weidler <pstr...@yahoo.com>
To: "transport-...@googlegroups.com" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 4, 2012 3:51:27 AM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: DM through the eyes of others

Jack , I've been doing a lot of background reading on freight for a project. You might be able to do totally automated freight with products which are produced and used internally to the US. However, if it goes anywhere on a ship, it will be put in a container at some point.

One of the primary effects of containerization is that theft at the docks dropped drastically. It is very unlikely that shippers will agree to go back to the bad old days, so at some point your automated system is going to need to handle containers. Guess what goes in those containers? 4 foot square pallets (actually they are 4x6).

[kirston henderson]

   The comments regarding the world-wide use of the standard sized shipping pallet is entirely on track and any cargo handling system attempting to use some new approach is going to be resisted at many levels.

   As a general rule, any new system must fit in well with existing systems at every level.  In our own development work at MegaRail®, we have gone to great lengths to make sure that our cargo shipment approaches (and other transport approaches as well) fit easily into existing methods and equipment as well as possible.  Brief descriptions of some examples follow:

1.  Our shipping containers are designed to contain those standard shipping pallets.

2.  We have designed a single, small, standard shipping container that may be carried by both our smaller urban area MicroWay system and our larger, high-speed, intercity MegaWay system.

3.  Our standard shipping container may be handled by standard forklifts.

4.  Our standard shipping container is fully compatible with both local pick up and delivery trucks and large (18-wheel) long-range trucks to enable easy transitions from and to our MegaWay line ends and the need to move the same cargo with standard trucks.

5.  Our standard container is easily moved from truck to truck at truck terminals with standard forklifts and without transfer of most individual pallets by forklifts at truck terminals.

6.  We also believe that it is possible to group our standard containers on bases so that the combination is almost the same as the current international shipping containers and can be loaded on ships in the same manner as current containers.

   We have expended a great deal of effort in development of the above-described advanced cargo shipment system in the hope that it will allow us to enter the mainstream of advanced transportation.  I realize that the above approach will be heavily challenged by many in this discussion group in the same manner as our choice to couple our PRT cars into group transit trains to allow us to enter the market in direct competition to current LRT, streetcar, and bus systems.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail® Transportation Systems






on 6/4/12 12:25 PM, Eric Johnson at itse...@gmail.com wrote:

Everyone in the world uses the same sized wooden pallet and it would be easier to sell a new system that uses them.

Eric

[eph]

I agree with pallet/skid handling compatibility.  Very important.

Have you considered aircraft pallet compatibility?  The sizes and shapes don't seem to lead to any sort of compatibility past aircraft.

F.

[Jack Slade]

I would certainly agree with you if I were proposing a system to handle everything.  However,  I want to stick basically to handling people,  with no real objections to anybody carrying some freight providing they do not want to overload the design weight of my guideway.  Your Item#2,  applicable to your smaller PRT vehicles,  would therefore probably fit on my system also.

 

1000 lbs load per car is what I have planned for.  This is not yet written in stone,  but it is certainly what I am planning.  From what little research I have done regarding freight,  most single 4X4 or 4X6 foot pallets are within this weight limit.

 

Jack Slade

 

From: kirston henderson <kirston....@megarail.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 1:57:39 PM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: DM through the eyes of others

--

[Jerry Roane]

F.

Neither UPS nor Fedex use pallets.  They use conveyor belts to sort and human hands to carry.  They get the most money per pound of delivery.  Pallets waste space in trucks and they do not stack very well without tremendous damage.  There are so many better ways to put objects into a bigger box.  If you are all about just in time logistics then saving up a big pile of goods to go in a single shipment is going the opposite direction.  I personally like the bin concept where the bins are stackable and standard and are presented based on the computer bring the object bin to the user.  Minimal automation and less wear and tear on the user either customer or employee.  Cardboard that is disposed of or partially recycled is not resource efficient for the future.  When mankind runs out of rain forest to plunder we will need to do far better than paper pulp shipping containers on pallets.  With ZoomHydro visiting your home four times on an average heat load day (or cooling load) you can bring along a UPS or Fedex sized shipment with each delivery.  The tail section of the mini-tanker would be able to deliver items with no human driver or delivery person.  At that level there is no need for a wooden pallet.  My day job we get wooden pallets all the time and we have a huge stack of these things piled up outside in the rain.  They use up space and with poorly driven forklifts they don't last very long.  In the future autonomous forklifts will take all that slop out of freight.  A well driven forklift that Google can control would be able to use slip sheets and not damage the goods.  Slip sheets are reusable and they take up minimal volume in the truck or shipping container.  They are also very light.  

To get rid of the problems of shipping containers automated bins inside the container that divide up the loads automatically might be the answer.  I do not think a new transportation paradigm has to use wooden pallets and I don't think they need to be the same size either.  If the final destination is the shelf of a big box store then the isle filling narrow forklift is the format that all upstream packaging needs to be compatible with.  I suggest more study of the total trip of most goods not just a few heavy objects that lend themselves to American wooden pallets.  

Once guideway leaves the driver out and is energy sustainable then the number of trips is not critical and the wooden pallet can be finally retired.  

Jerry Roane 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/k6U7ve4IasUJ.

[eph]

Number of pallets world wide: about 4 billion
Number of pallets in North America: about 2 billion

http://www.hirsch-gruppe.com/homepage/com/geschaeftsfelder/Paletten/Produkte.php?navid=84


I think the reason Fedex isn't pallet based is the use of planes with irregularly shaped containers.


F.

[Kirston Henderson]

On Jun 5, 2012, at 1:18 PM, eph wrote:

> I agree with pallet/skid handling compatibility. Very important.
>
> Have you considered aircraft pallet compatibility? The sizes and
> shapes don't seem to lead to any sort of compatibility past aircraft.
>

Yes, but there doesn't appear to be much in terms of compatibility.
Our primary interest is in the transport of land cargo that
disparately needs to be removed from dangerous, road-killing land
cargo. The economics of providing a better means for shipment of the
far larger amounts of currently trucked cargo.

Kirston Henderson

[Kirston Henderson]

On Jun 5, 2012, at 3:15 PM, Jack Slade wrote:

I would certainly agree with you if I were proposing a system to handle everything.  However,  I want to stick basically to handling people,  with no real objections to anybody carrying some freight providing they do not want to overload the design weight of my guideway.  Your Item#2,  applicable to your smaller PRT vehicles,  would therefore probably fit on my system also.

 

1000 lbs load per car is what I have planned for.  This is not yet written in stone,  but it is certainly what I am planning.  From what little research I have done regarding freight,  most single 4X4 or 4X6 foot pallets are within this weight limit.

 

Jack Slade

 

Our approach is based upon the assumption that if you are to go to the expense of providing a guideway, the economics say that it should be useful for as many types of load as possible in order to capture the highest return.  Cargo is likely to be a very high source of revenue.

Kirston Henderson

[Jack Slade]

Plus the use of small delivery trucks with no room for pallets,  as well as the fact that pallets are OK till the load reaches the distributing warehouse,  where they are usually unloaded into delivery trucks as individual items.   Not many households have a pallet-load of beans delivered to them.

 

Jack Slade

From: eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2012 12:28:47 AM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: DM through the eyes of others

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/Y4hEeziT5sEJ.

[kirston henderson]

   Most of those beans are delivered by truck to the supermarkets on pallets.  As for UPS and Fed-X, I suspect that all of those small to medium sized packages going by ground transport are likely stacked on pallets at the UPS and Fed-X terminals for shipment via trucks.  If so, those packages are likely removed from the pallets at the destination terminal and transferred to the local delivery trucks.

Kirston Henderson

[Jerry Roane]

Kirston

One of my jobs as a student at UT Arlington was night shift at the Dallas hub of UPS.  There were no pallets in that plant.  There is a roller skate board (hundreds of wheels on axles)  in each truck down the middle and there are conveyor belts running across acres of warehouse space.  The human unloader was then pitted against me the loader in a race each night.  If the unloaders could overrun us loaders they won that night.  There were some loads of common small boxes that would give the unloaders the advantage and most nights the loaders won the friendly conflict. The way UPS got away with this is they have an enforced weight limit on what they will accept.  This simple move lost them some tiny amount of business but for the most part UPS is profitable even rejecting boxes that exceed their weight limit.  Pallets are for heavier things so size appropriate is the key for any freight.  Pallets are very flexible in what you can load onto them but they stink once you get above 4 feet elevation.  This accounts for almost all the damaged freight in America.  I always buy my washers and dryers with fork lift damage because they are cheaper and they slide back into a hole where you cannot see the forklift holes in the sheet metal.  It is great for me to get a bargain but the store owner who paid the bad fork lift driver is not making a buck and he lost a sale of full retail by offering smashed appliances in the same sales outlet.  The store owner wants a way to get the goods to the customer and to make as much profit as he can.  Forklift damage is pure loss.  

I am sure bean cans are loaded at the grocery store warehouse but they are lower tech than either UPS or Fedex.  They get by with experienced forklift drivers that do it every day.  The cans of beans the spear are just part of your grocery bill.  

Jerry Roane   

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

[eph]

The idea, as Eric mentioned, is that pallet-capable systems can ALSO carry pallets, not just small packages or people, so " it would be easier to sell a new system that uses them". 

Personally, I would like to see a lot of truck traffic removed from highways and see much of the cargo moved by electric transport.


F.

[kirston henderson]

Jerry,

   Thanks for providing the following information regarding UPS operations.

Kirston

[Michael Weidler]

No problem. When can Kirsten expect your check?

---

From: eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2012 12:26 PM

Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: DM through the eyes of others

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/KNL9IE1whrwJ.

[Jerry Schneider]

At 12:35 PM 6/7/2012, you wrote:
>No problem. When can Kirsten expect your check?

I think his name is Kirston.

[Michael Weidler]

I know. Unfortunately, it keeps popping up in my head with the "en". No disrespect intended to Kirston.

---

From: Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2012 3:26 PM

Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: DM through the eyes of others

At 12:35 PM 6/7/2012, you wrote:
>No problem. When can Kirsten expect your check?

I think his name is Kirston.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.