Survivalist Forum banner
81 - 100 of 125 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
212 Posts
With 20-20 Hindsight (from pulling out one's head), we may have made different choices, instead of short term, immediate profit, ignore the future decisions.
Frankly, I prefer prosperity based on prodigious production of surplus goods and services, equitably traded and enjoyed. I think doing more with less so more can enjoy is superior to doing less with more so few can enjoy.
I don't believe in money madness so I don't subscribe to the notion that we should be occupied with "making money." Especially since all money tokens are ultimately controlled by parasites like governments and bankers (usurers).

In other words, instead of trying to get "rich" (win the Lotto, marry a billionaire, go into politics), we might consider being "more productive" using tools, machines, automation and other mass production methods.
Perhaps we might also change our personal goals from dying with the most toys, to preparing a place for our children's grandchildren's grandchildren.

"In every deliberation, we must consider the impact on the seventh generation... even if it requires having skin as thick as the bark of a pine."
—Great Law of the Iroquois


that quote is pretty ironic considering what happened to the Iroquois…..

anyways when the rubber hits the road you can only worry about you and I can only worry about me. The futures problems are their own.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,906 Posts
Discussion Starter · #82 ·
To be fair, we can show the "worst" subway stop in NYC.

 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,906 Posts
Discussion Starter · #83 · (Edited)
that quote is pretty ironic considering what happened to the Iroquois…..
By the late 16th and throughout the 17th centuries there was a dramatic decrease in the Iroquois population caused by warfare, territorial displacement and diseases brought by the Europeans.
90% of deaths were attributed to Eurasian diseases that decimated native populations.

...
But the noble savage wasn't always so noble....
“... the Iroquois may have committed genocide against the Huron, who ceased to exist as a confederacy in 1649.”
Iroquois attacks
“But suddenly a greater threat was upon them all. The Iroquois were making ever deeper raids into Huron territory, their eyes on control of the fur trade. Since they could not make a deal with the Hurons, they decided to exterminate them. It was a deadly struggle. Many people were killed, captured and tortured."

: : : : : :
Iroquois also integrated into the population.

Ely Samuel Parker (1828 – August 31, 1895), born Hasanoanda (Tonawanda Seneca), later known as Donehogawa, was a U.S. Army officer, engineer, and tribal diplomat. He was bilingual and became friends with Lewis Henry Morgan, who became a student of the Iroquois in upstate New York. Parker earned an engineering degree in college and worked on the Erie Canal, among other projects.

He was commissioned a lieutenant colonel during the American Civil War, when he served as adjutant and secretary to General Ulysses S. Grant. He wrote the final draft of the Confederate surrender terms at Appomattox. Later in his career, Parker rose to the rank of brevet brigadier general.

When General Grant was elected as US president, he appointed Parker as Commissioner of Indian Affairs, the first Native American to hold that post.

*(Donehogawa was an honorary name meaning "Keeper of the Western Door of the Long House of the Iroquois".)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,906 Posts
Discussion Starter · #84 ·
anyways when the rubber hits the road you can only worry about you and I can only worry about me. The futures problems are their own.
I disagree. But then, as long as we respect each other's endowed rights, no harm - no foul.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,906 Posts
Discussion Starter · #85 ·
Want a high speed, low energy, frugal mass transit system?
One idea, using the dual ring village in a city format, would incorporate a variation on a popular amusement park ride.
Imagine Gravity powered shuttle cars that zip around, underground and up into the sky, consuming very little fuel or resources.
A five story high station to a five story deep subway (100 ft / 30 m) would accelerate to 55 mph / 88 kph.
At that velocity (80 fps / 24 mps) it would take 16.5 seconds to travel a quarter of a mile (402 meters).
(Not unlike rollercoasters, the shuttles would decelerate up a ramp, and engage a chain drive to pull them to the top where the station was. Minimal energy consumed, maximum energy recovered.)
At the top of the ring building, the circular track would allow for cars to change direction / destination down ramps.
That should put "The Fun" into Mass Transit.
 

·
Bear Magnet
Joined
·
3,887 Posts
Hi Jet.
Take a close look at this place. This is the most advanced oil and gas research lab in the world.
These scientists are from all over the world and they're figuring out all sorts of new ways to get more oil and gas out of the rock formations that were previously believed to be non recoverable.

I too am always amazed at your intellect and thought provoking posts. You would be more than welcome here in Wyoming.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,576 Posts
Railroad rails are about 5'9" or 6' outside to outside of the rails. I've always thought, why not add a 3rd rail and make it about 12' apart. You could still drive a standard train on the system, but have a 16-18' wide train using the outer two rails. This would essentially double the capacity of a train. A standard locomotive could still pull this, but new 16' wide trains could have a flat car to hold 4 containers side by side as well as vertical. Also with wider trains, overhead bridges would have to be wide enough to allow them to pass under. A wide passenger train would also carry more people like a wide body airplane. Larger things could also be carried. Existing wider rail lines could be used without getting easements or using imminent domain to take property. Essentially reworking bridges would be what would have to be done, also new tunnels.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,906 Posts
Discussion Starter · #88 · (Edited)
Railroad rails are about 5'9" or 6' outside to outside of the rails. I've always thought, why not add a 3rd rail and make it about 12' apart. You could still drive a standard train on the system, but have a 16-18' wide train using the outer two rails. This would essentially double the capacity of a train. A standard locomotive could still pull this, but new 16' wide trains could have a flat car to hold 4 containers side by side as well as vertical. Also with wider trains, overhead bridges would have to be wide enough to allow them to pass under. A wide passenger train would also carry more people like a wide body airplane. Larger things could also be carried. Existing wider rail lines could be used without getting easements or using imminent domain to take property. Essentially reworking bridges would be what would have to be done, also new tunnels.
There are places where multi-gauge rails allow two different gauge trains to use the same space.
However, a super wide gauge is impractical because of the radius of curvature limitations as well as the loading gauge.
Narrower gauge railways usually cost less to build because they are usually lighter in construction, using smaller cars and locomotives (smaller loading gauge), as well as smaller bridges, smaller tunnels (smaller structure gauge). Narrow gauge is thus often used in mountainous terrain, where the savings in civil engineering work can be substantial. It is also used in sparsely populated areas, with low potential demand.

The broadest gauge is 1,676 mm (5 ft 6 in), used in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Argentina, Chile, BART in the United States San Francisco Bay Area.
The solid axle wheelset on a super wide gauge would have to slip to navigate a curve, as the inner wheel moved slower than the outer wheel. Too big a differential (or too tight a radius) is a problem, creating wear and tear (flat spots), and gawful screeching. A set of independent wheels may overcome that, but the resulting suspension might be problematic. I suspect that a super wide spacing would allow too much "wobble" and cause derailments.


A parallel set of tracks might be able to achieve such a width. Two standard gauge tracks, with adequate spacing perhaps.
(The movie, "The Sum of All Fears", depicted a situation where two trains "synced" together, side by side, to allow transfer of cargo between them.)

As to practical doubling of capacity, most rolling stock and loading gauge can support double deckers.
The Bombardier Double-deck Coach is a bilevel passenger car built by Bombardier Transportation (formerly by Adtranz) used by various European railways and Israel Railways. The current generation of double-deck coaches can be run at speeds up to 200 km/h (125 mph). Depending on their configuration, each coach can seat 100 to 150 passengers.
.. .. .. .. ..
Impractical, but possible, is a very long passenger train made up of 40+ bilevel coaches, hauling 4,000 to 6,000 passengers at once. (a small village?)
(The Ghan in Australia has 44 coaches)

Double stacked containers in a well car - - -
Train Sky Tree Rolling stock Vehicle
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,906 Posts
Discussion Starter · #89 ·
Many newer train car designs use the Jacobs bogie.
Instead of being underneath a piece of rolling stock, Jacobs bogies are placed between two carriages. The weight of each carriage is spread across the Jacobs bogie. This arrangement provides the smooth ride of bogie carriages without the additional weight and drag.
. .. .. .
Train Wheel Rolling stock Railway Rolling


The downside is that the length of the train is fixed - you cannot uncouple / couple together more cars.

(The well car in the previous post appears to have Jacobs bogies.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,015 Posts
Many newer train car designs use the Jacobs bogie.
Instead of being underneath a piece of rolling stock, Jacobs bogies are placed between two carriages. The weight of each carriage is spread across the Jacobs bogie. This arrangement provides the smooth ride of bogie carriages without the additional weight and drag.
. .. .. .
View attachment 399668

The downside is that the length of the train is fixed - you cannot uncouple / couple together more cars.

(The well car in the previous post appears to have Jacobs bogies.)
Jet, Can you say something about costs ? How do these bogies compare overall costwise with the traditional box on RR car ?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,906 Posts
Discussion Starter · #91 · (Edited)
Jet, Can you say something about costs ? How do these bogies compare overall costwise with the traditional box on RR car ?
As far as I can tell, modern train designs that use Jacobs bogies (or similar) save on hardware, and can support low floor carriages. A traditional car has two bogies with 4 wheels each (8 total). So a train of 5 cars, would have 10 bogies x 4 wheels or 40 wheels. A modern train with 5 cars would have 4 bogies between and 2 at each end, for 6 bogies x 4 wheels, or 24 wheels. That's a savings of 16 wheels, etc, etc.
The drawback is the train length is inflexible. You can't simply uncouple cars.
The big advantage is that with distributed power trains, each bogie includes a motor, and less bogies mean less cost.

This Bombardier Flexity Tram seems to have even fewer bogies, with suspended carriages "floating" on pivots.


Here's a few different trams around the world...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,906 Posts
Discussion Starter · #92 ·
Children's railroads - a remnant of the USSR -

A children's railway or pioneer railway is an extracurricular educational institution, where teenagers interested in rail transport can learn railway professions. This phenomenon originated in the USSR and was greatly developed in Soviet times. The world's first children's railway was opened in Gorky Park, Moscow, in 1932. At the breakup of the USSR, 52 children's railways existed in the country.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,906 Posts
Discussion Starter · #93 ·
USA wasn't the only one to regret losing streetcars / trams.
Why did Britain get rid of trams?

Image result for maximum passenger trams
Trams were removed from the 30s onwards partly because they impeded car owners wanting to drive freely in cities. ... This has lead to the present mess in UK cities, but not in cities that retained them, as in Germany, or France that has reinstalled over 27, on realising their grave error.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,576 Posts
Trams in cities were replaced with busses. Busses could go where trams or cable cars couldn't go. Putting them back into cities is not going to solve any problems. Busses can be made electric, and have overhead connections to charge while at bus stops.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,015 Posts
As far as I can tell, modern train designs that use Jacobs bogies (or similar) save on hardware, and can support low floor carriages. A traditional car has two bogies with 4 wheels each (8 total). So a train of 5 cars, would have 10 bogies x 4 wheels or 40 wheels. A modern train with 5 cars would have 4 bogies between and 2 at each end, for 6 bogies x 4 wheels, or 24 wheels. That's a savings of 16 wheels, etc, etc.
The drawback is the train length is inflexible. You can't simply uncouple cars.
The big advantage is that with distributed power trains, each bogie includes a motor, and less bogies mean less cost.

This Bombardier Flexity Tram seems to have even fewer bogies, with suspended carriages "floating" on pivots.


Here's a few different trams around the world...
Appreciate info, Jet.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
251 Posts
I'm sure this has been covered in this thread (and/or elsewhere on the forums), but Americans complain about the price of gas, yet they won't slow down to save a little.

Funny how that works.

Product Font Parallel Rectangle Circle

(From 2005, think how much you'd save with gas costing almost 2x as much)

Cue this.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,906 Posts
Discussion Starter · #98 ·
Trams in cities were replaced with busses. Busses could go where trams or cable cars couldn't go. Putting them back into cities is not going to solve any problems. Busses can be made electric, and have overhead connections to charge while at bus stops.
If you delete paved roads, not even buses will go go go.
Whereas, those old fashioned rails were cheaper and more durable, and often were laid where no one else would go.
It was well known that buses were far more unpopular than streetcars. Whenever streetcars were pulled out, and buses were substituted, ridership went DOWN. Coincidentally, that instigated more auto sales - the desired result of the hegemony.
Today, most bus based mass transit passengers are the lowest rung on the economic ladder, and that's sad.
It was certainly not the case that trams in cities fell out of use because they were unpopular with users. This is demonstrated by the fact that when trams were replaced by buses, patronage immediately declined by 30% –
...tram users did not like the buses, and started buying cars.​
- - - -
This was exactly the goal of GM, in regard to America's mass transit, in 1920s.
- - - -
There are electric trolley buses but they're no more popular than their diesel cousins.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,906 Posts
Discussion Starter · #99 ·
I'm sure this has been covered in this thread (and/or elsewhere on the forums), but Americans complain about the price of gas, yet they won't slow down to save a little.

Funny how that works.
The politicians obviously know human nature [/sarcasm]. You can't really persuade people to "do the right thing" - especially when the authority figures are blithering idiots who don't follow their own advice - as in driving around in limousines and other luxury gas guzzlers. (Or jet-setting to "environmental conclaves")
Consider the mandated fuel economy targets imposed on the auto industry - they're based on miles per gallon - not passenger - miles per gallon.
A nine passenger, fully loaded van or station wagon, getting 13 mpg is far more fuel efficient than a 50 mpg microbox with only a driver.
( 117 passenger-miles / gallon versus 50 passenger - miles / gallon)
The CAFE rules killed off the station wagon. But to skirt the rules, the "Sports Utility Vehicle" was substituted - a truck chassis with less than "station wagon" capacity. No real improvement.
Pure gubmint heifer dung.
. . .
A PCC streetcar was far more fuel efficient, even at a moderate passenger load (50). At crush load (90), it was the champion. The new multicar, multi-flex trams / streetcars, with greater capacity, are far better, especially if they incorporate regenerative braking. (Newer model trams may be up to 72 meters (236 ft) long and carry 510 passengers at a comfortable 4 passengers/m2. )
Based on fuel efficiency alone, a bus can't compete with rail, when a multicar tram can haul 10 times as many passengers for half the fuel. (20 times improvement overall)
On segregated rights of way, they can out accelerate buses, and have higher average velocity.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,906 Posts
Discussion Starter · #100 ·
FWIW - I remember the 1970s Energy Crisis that almost killed off American Auto manufacturers. The only thing that was selling were frugal gas sipping economy cars - mostly imports (even those with American labels). If the North Sea oil fields didn't come on line, and ease the crisis, the Auto industry might have fallen into the lake.
Hmmm... that might not have been a bad thing, based on their past behavior.
 
81 - 100 of 125 Posts
Top