personal rapid transit (PRT) synchrotrain (en)

[@FadkinsDiet]

As I understand it, this system uses the *same tracks* as heavy rail; a movable block signalling system puts the PRT pods in the spaces between the heavy rail trains. If the heavy rail tracks are at capacity you won't have much leftover capacity for the pods.

[@PlaneFenatic1]

I think that computers ARE reliable enough to run this system. If computers didn't run it, then the vehicles wouldn't be able to move as fast or as closely. Basically, there is nothing to worry about.

[@SamsonZoomBespoke]

Huge infrastructure all for the convenience of old tracks. The same old tracks have been tried to be improved for over 100 years. Still a huge weight to passenger ratio.

[@IntarwebUser]

That changing wheels to switch tracks thing was pretty neat.

[@eggaweb9127]

I wonder if it's possible to run a cut down version of this on a conventional rail network? For example, you could virtually link 16 of them with 16 different destinations, with the first one going the furthest. Putting in some offline train storage would not be too expensive compared to building a new system.

[@PlaneFenatic1]

There will be some way of getting it transferred like that, although it is probably too complicated to show in this video. I can think of many ways of transferring it, but they're too complex to explain in this commenting section.

[@Arbarano]

What is the energy-saving advantage?

[@Tilumbus]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia

[@Arbarano]

@@Tilumbus How so? It starts from a stop and stops at the end. And, compared with real trains, it has to fight against a lot of air resistance.

[@Tilumbus]

@@Arbarano So Trains. ... Trains have to fight timetables, no matter if they are full or empty. = 2 times a day overcrowed, rest of the day all most empty. Trains have to fight gravity, it is a 180 year old system developed for very heavy and expensive machines and that system has barely change but technology alot. Noone today would agree with that unflexible and uneffective system if it wouldnt exist.

[@vijfsnippervijf]

None! They don’t have ECONOMY OF SCALE!

[@iankravitz5723]

My question is accomodating vehicles that are equipped for people using mobility devices, like wheelchairs. How do the passengers reach the passenger area? Also vehicles for people in wheelchairs, many times, are large vehicles, like minivans; how does it deal with these heavier vehicles?

[@Iruleall1]

@KileSimons I believe that was not the point.. or if it was the point is failing

[@PointyTailofSatan]

What if a shuttle breaks down on the track? The mother of all traffic jams?

[@fourbypete]

They would all talk to each other and possibly push the broken down carriage to a break down siding for repair.

[@JanineArchiMarie]

This system is insane.

[@1RadicalOne]

Does this system compete with standard heavy rail for the tracks?

[@robertweinberg1993]

@kcida1 This is possible with today's technology and the technology of the future.

[@robertweinberg1993]

@cprich22 What kind?

[@lohphat]

What's the energy cost/benefit of transporting a large mass (personal car) vs. just renting a car at your destination? The concept that your personal car is "special" (unless you're a disabled driver) is about as logical of carrying all your drinking water (AND sewage back home) because acceptable resources are not available at your destination. This is silly.

[@CaptainKrimson]

I see a slight problem when this system uses conventional and existing railwaytracks. Railwaycrossings will be closed at all times because there are so many pods crossing it...

[@thu7345]

That won't work because cars are different shapes and sizes and aren't designed to be lifted by their undercarriage. Doing this would probably damage some cars (e.g., crush the exhaust/muffler), and would be far more complicated/expensive than necessary. Why not simply design the bottom floor as a 'garage' which the car drives into through the rear instead of the side...? Occam's razor.

[@fourbypete]

The trains could be similar to eurorail, you just drive on via a ramp.

[@Sapwo0d]

I would think yes, because they are not going to mess it up, someone with a name is.

[@drurydjFpoatpriyutl]

I love this idea

[@LCM1956]

This is fucking ballin'

[@robertweinberg1993]

@cprich22 I'd say around 2030+.

[@1RadicalOne]

That does not answer my question...

[@IvanSantanaEu]

A futuristic idea from ​​the past. Just make all the cars driverless and the traffic problem will be solved.

[@fourbypete]

The experts trying to develop driverless cars already know that the traffic congestion problem will not be solved with driverless cars. Only with bulk passenger transport systems. Eg trains or co-op mobility systems that are automated.

[@ivanescobar9742]

Read "Aramis or the love of technology"

[@dog-ez2nu]

ADORABLE

[@danesovic7585]

Or we can just have self-driving cars.

[@robertweinberg1993]

@nicelogin2 And increasing job opportunities and increasing amount of taxpayers. So this will be practical in 2030+.

[@josfilmstudios6434]

Cool concept but this is never going to happen is it

[@trackmaster1999]

woah! this look more like eurotunnel

[@robertjarman3703]

Have you boarded a plane? you where trusting similar flight control systems to go somewhere. do you trust banks with your financed up to $250 000?

[@jantrukszyn3410]

Bardzo niepraktyczne. Wymaga zbudowania od nowa potężnej infrastruktury, poza tym jeden wagon zabiera jeden samochód i komplet podróżnych, a więc dublujemy tylko rozwiązanie, które już mamy. Do tego skomplikowany system kontrolujacy. Im większa komplikacja, tym większe prawdopodobieństwo awarii. Ani to proste, ani tanie, ani efektywne.

[@bellekiller]

hyperloop is better...

[@synchrotrain]

but hyperloop doesn't work...

[@mumblic]

Actually my first thought was the opposite. They should invest in this technology. It's not about speed but about efficiency, with can be reach at much lower speeds. What's the point of having a pod going > 1000 km/h but nothing in between because of security reasons. Hyperloop like it exits today is indeed an illusion. I wouldn't be surprise that in the end they come with a technology very similar to what is presented here.

[@fourbypete]

Hyperloop needs to transport millions of people simultaneously to be financially viable. The tubes are so expensive, it's impossible at the moment.