- 35,014
- 21,725
You've never built a large engineering project, have you? Labor is a large, often dominant, part. You also need to figure out what buying all the land costs you.
Using Monopods for city travel utilizing linear induction motors
- Thread starter Prathyush
- Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
95 replies · 9K views
Prathyush
- 211
- 16
Yea I intentionally excluded land costs, because most infrastructure projects have them in one form or the other.(And varies a lot city to city) I should have mentioned it in my post though. The footprint itself should be much smaller than typical rail infrastructure.Vanadium 50 said:
In principle if you the standardize design, parts can be produced in a factory environment. Skytran claims it can be installed in days. It's different from a typical highway construction, which takes several months to a year.Vanadium 50 said:
But yes, this is a very rough estimate, I could be underestimating labour costs significantly.
- 30,558
- 7,533
You should see my new kitchen.Vanadium 50 said:
- 30,558
- 7,533
What proportion of the population would get to use Skytran? Its strikes me that Skytran falls between two stools. It seems to be pretty exclusive yet it gets in the way of the majority of travellers.Prathyush said:
"skyTran is a personal rapid transit system concept"
"skyTran exists to make that dream a reality - with autonomous, zero-emission vehicles arrowing above congested streets."
Are all the travellers in "congested streets" going to pay for the elite travellers zapping around above their heads? Any system that is not useable by the whole population can't be justified. What's needed is a system to reduce the congestion and that's a matter of suitable traffic control and regulation. The Pods, as described, are actually not autonomous in the way that cars are because the pod tracks need railway / tram style points to allow changes of track. Cars can change lane anywhere along the road (driverless cars even moreso) to optimise journey time.
It seems here that the maglev tail is wagging the dog of actual requirements because it's such an attractive technology.
- 35,014
- 21,725
Of course. The elites are important. It is our duty to provide them with their every need.sophiecentaur said:
- 11,326
- 8,757
We could balance the budget by adding a $100K tax per skyTran ride. The elites can afford it.Vanadium 50 said:
256bits
Gold Member
- 4,268
- 2,282
Long term planning and budgeting?Prathyush said:
Never works out the way the initial concept was planned.
As the political will changes, I would expect cancellations of parts of the project, or complete cancellation, and you end up with tracks to nowhere.
- 35,014
- 21,725
Why not a billion? Think about all we could do with that much money!anorlunda said:
Prathyush
- 211
- 16
sophiecentaur said:
Why do you think it will be a transport system for the elite? Everyone would use it. They are spending money in the same order of magnitude. Once infrastructure is paid for you need to just pay for electricity.
"NY Boosts Infrastructure Spend to $275B in New Budget Plan, Says Governor"
New York is a unusual example because it is a very rich place compared to average.
I don't know if the cost can be trimmed from 5 million a Km. That requires detailed design considerations, coupled with factory production.
You will have part of tracks that are functioning, Same way rail infrastructure is built in a modular fashion.256bits said:
Prathyush
- 211
- 16
If 10000 people use each KM of track every day. And if you charge 10 cents per KM for infrastructure+running cost. Your pay back period is 14 years. That's a conservative estimate.Vanadium 50 said:
Last edited:
- 3,380
- 2,933
Just a small little thing.Prathyush said:
You can never get rid of roads, and consequently: cars, since they are just the thing for any type/quality/area/time roads.
Those already existing roads costs around the same (!) for a mile.
So this is actually about to create a second set of roads (equivalents) in some areas, at the same cost and expect all this being economic?
Really?
You know, this has happened once already. The existing railroads with all the already existing infrastructure got beaten up really bad by the dumb, old, dirty roads.
And this happened exactly because roads are dumb, old, dirty: because they can be dumb, old and dirty, and they will still be roads.
Is your railroad-redesign able to be old and dirty?
Then please add some (ridiculous) amount of maintenance fee too.
Prathyush
- 211
- 16
Rive said:
I don't have an estimate for maintenance costs right now, but they should be low.
That is the advantage of using a friction less design. This should be a long lasting infrastructure. Copper Coils, magnets and a metal framework last for a very long time. If any parts need to be replaced then old parts are recyclable.
You should compare with the maintenance cost of cars and roads which are not cheap. That along with cost of gasoline makes a compelling case.
The following article True cost of owning a car estimates car maintenance at 99 USD per month. (though electric cars are cheaper to maintain.)
- 30,558
- 7,533
I imagine there was a similar attitude to horses, when horseless carriages were introduced. We have had a love affair with the car and, more importantly my personal car. When you realize just what proportion of private vehicles are stationary / parked at anyone time, there is a strong message about over consumption (net carbon consumption). There are just too many (particularly new) cars about.Rive said:
You are right about the need for some sort of general purpose road system. It's necessary for the movement of goods but the personal car is a wasteful luxury.
- 3,380
- 2,933
I think we can extend it according to that without loosing anything from the meaning.sophiecentaur said:
I don't have anything to add about the (over) consumption, you are just right.
On the other hand, the locality of (ground based) community transport (limitations of long distance ground based community transport) gives a message about the flexibility expected. Personal cars may be a luxury here and there, but some other places it's still necessary parts of everyday life.
- 30,558
- 7,533
You are correct about that. It's a matter of how necessary. People will use their cars for the most trivial journey and regard that as necessary. Living at the end of a farm track could really mean necessary. But a big chunk of a journey would not need to be by conventional car. But we're all carrying different models of this in our heads.Rive said:
I already made the point about it being total journey time that counts but 'changes' on the way should be minimal. Carrying heavy shopping from bus to train (seldom no changing) and to bus again is one reason why the car is used.
I have in mind something akin to what goes on in Amazon depots and Post Office sorting systems; you sit down at the nearest input to your home (50m from front door) and get off at the other end, having been shuffled between the appropriate lines. A taxi driver does this, of course but in a far from green way.
Prathyush
- 211
- 16
Rive said:
Road infrastructure is constantly being expanded at a heavy cost to keep up with capacity. No amount of road capacity appears to solve the traffic congestion problem. I am looking mainly at cities with a density more than 10000 people per sq KM.
The system proposed is not designed to transport heavy goods. Roads will still have place for that reason. But their purpose will shift towards bulk/heavy transportation. So road capacity will be whatever is necessary and not general purpose travel.
If you want to look at a different type of argument. New York uses ~13 million gallons of gasoline per day. So annually its roughly 16 billion USD. If the proposed transport can capture 75 pc of use cases over a car. Then it becomes very compelling, just because of the cost of gasoline alone. Add to that time savings.
The real question you should ask how often would you use this kind of transport over a car and a road. I personally would use it more than 90 pc of the time.(possibly close to 100) If there are exceptions only then roads could be used, and probably will hire a taxi for the purpose and not own a car.
Last edited:
Prathyush
- 211
- 16
I reworked the switching mechanism by using the horizontal guidance magnets which are there on every pod and necessary for a horizontal stability of a maglev system. This is the simplest switch mechanism between 2 lanes at high speed. It can only bifurcate, but much simpler than the originally proposed 2d array of electromagnets, which can switch into multiple lanes.
I believe the system can be made economical and compelling for any throughput above 10000 pods per hour, which should be comfortably achievable.
How far it can it can pushed in terms of throughput and speed needs very careful design considerations. Maglev designs have reached roughly .5 mach. But designing for that kind of speed needs very detailed engineering.
If standard pod specifications can be arrived at though careful research, mainly pod shape, maximum weight, number, location of poles and minimum pole strength. We can get a standardization similar to rail infrastructure.
It may even be possible to do fast installation, because once guideway shape is designed. In can be built in a factory , and transported in 10-20 m segments. Only poles need to be built and guideway can attach to the network.
Edit: Corrected mistake t = 2 seconds ->1.44 seconds
I believe the system can be made economical and compelling for any throughput above 10000 pods per hour, which should be comfortably achievable.
How far it can it can pushed in terms of throughput and speed needs very careful design considerations. Maglev designs have reached roughly .5 mach. But designing for that kind of speed needs very detailed engineering.
If standard pod specifications can be arrived at though careful research, mainly pod shape, maximum weight, number, location of poles and minimum pole strength. We can get a standardization similar to rail infrastructure.
It may even be possible to do fast installation, because once guideway shape is designed. In can be built in a factory , and transported in 10-20 m segments. Only poles need to be built and guideway can attach to the network.
Edit: Corrected mistake t = 2 seconds ->1.44 seconds
Prathyush
- 211
- 16
Designing for safety is very challenging.
This kind of system should theoretically achieve a throughput of 100000 passengers per hour (1 m headway and 1 m pod traveling at 60 m/s) under normal operation with currently available technology and modern electronic systems. You should be able to design around some kinds of failures like electronic failures, by adding redundancy of different types.
But designing around earthquakes, breakages of a track, or 10 ton concrete slab falling on guideway and minimizing danger at this kind of throughput is probably impossible(or atleast very very hard)
A pod traveling at 60m/s hitting into a hard wall experiences a ~360 g forces over ~1/60th of a second.
At 60 m/s and deceleration of 3g, coupled with airbags(weighs about 5 kgs or so) you have a headway of about 60 m. That's a theoretical throughput of about 3600 pods/ second.
You can attach say 10 pods to each other dynamically to increase throughput at this speed.
An interesting fact is faster you go lower the throughput for safe breaking distance, because breaking distance increases with square of velocity.
You can also think about attaching crumple pods specially designed to increase breaking time in events of a collision at the start of these "trains". These are all hard problems.
Just point to point transport at speed is still a very compelling consideration to carefully evaluate these problems.
This kind of system should theoretically achieve a throughput of 100000 passengers per hour (1 m headway and 1 m pod traveling at 60 m/s) under normal operation with currently available technology and modern electronic systems. You should be able to design around some kinds of failures like electronic failures, by adding redundancy of different types.
But designing around earthquakes, breakages of a track, or 10 ton concrete slab falling on guideway and minimizing danger at this kind of throughput is probably impossible(or atleast very very hard)
A pod traveling at 60m/s hitting into a hard wall experiences a ~360 g forces over ~1/60th of a second.
At 60 m/s and deceleration of 3g, coupled with airbags(weighs about 5 kgs or so) you have a headway of about 60 m. That's a theoretical throughput of about 3600 pods/ second.
You can attach say 10 pods to each other dynamically to increase throughput at this speed.
An interesting fact is faster you go lower the throughput for safe breaking distance, because breaking distance increases with square of velocity.
You can also think about attaching crumple pods specially designed to increase breaking time in events of a collision at the start of these "trains". These are all hard problems.
Just point to point transport at speed is still a very compelling consideration to carefully evaluate these problems.
- 11,326
- 8,757
Don't forget simple malfunctions and deliberate sabotage.Prathyush said:
Also remember that very large cities like Tokyo (37 million people) would find 100K passengers per hour a pitifully small fraction of their real needs.
256bits
Gold Member
- 4,268
- 2,282
Here, you look at this
https://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf
for some transportation pointers and analysis.
Where I live they have one of the crapiest transit systems around by the way.
A lot of regions have no solution but to take the car, since transit can take 3 or 4 times as long, with multiple transfers and waits ( oh gee my bus is just pulling out of the station, now I have to wait 35 more minutes )
https://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf
for some transportation pointers and analysis.
Short term solution on an existing network. An additional lane on a highway does reduce congestion initially, but after time the equilibrium returns and downloads onto downstream venues, an effect rarely taken into account, or downstream changes are impossible to implement due to land confinement, so the pain is spread over a wider region. A slightly democratic approach if you like.Prathyush said:
Where I live they have one of the crapiest transit systems around by the way.
A lot of regions have no solution but to take the car, since transit can take 3 or 4 times as long, with multiple transfers and waits ( oh gee my bus is just pulling out of the station, now I have to wait 35 more minutes )
- 30,558
- 7,533
That would depend on more than the total number of passengers (although I feel includes to believe you). It would involve the number of terminals and the area covered by the system and the everyday timetable of the travellers.anorlunda said:
But I can't see any particular advantage with such high speeds, except in advertising blurb. Most of the comments in this thread will apply to almost any form of traction. What's really needed is journey times that are not too long and also reliability. Safety goes without saying and that will always be an influence for keeping speeds down. Traffic control will have to be excellent for a good passenger throughput. The system will need to be flexible enough to deal with last minute holdups and breakdowns. Any tracked arrangement will be less flexible than free moving vehicles. AI will do more for improving the transport for any highly populated area than going fast and with low apparent energy cost.
- 35,014
- 21,725
sophiecentaur said:
Yes, but that is entirely on the OP.
All we really know is the answer is PodZ. The question is whatever it needs to be to have PodZ as the answer.
Also, $4M/km? That's insane. You know there was a time when if you wanted to look something like this up, you would have to physically go to the public library, and spend a few hours looking at microfiche. Today, it's five seconds with Google. And people still won't do it.
Anyway, a US average is $35M/mile, with rolling stock 10% of the cost. This was pointed out by @russ_watters in Message #2 and it didn't go anywhere. This is way low, as this is mostly at grade: you have pedestrians sharing space with DeathPodz.
Perhaps a more realistic example is the O'Hare ATS, where it cost $800M to add 600m of track.
As far as stops every km, we already have that. There are very few places in DC where you need to travel more than a km to get to a Metro station: Rock Creek Park (who needs a metro station in the middle of a park?) an area to the immediate southeast, and the north part of Georgetown. They use trains, not PodZ. As Russ pointed out.
- 30,558
- 7,533
10/10Vanadium 50 said:
Prathyush
- 211
- 16
If you reach 100 K/hr passengers you can easily stack lines and reduce it the load. At 10 cents a KM. Your pay back period is in months. They can also be vertically stacked have as they have a small footprint.anorlunda said:
anorlunda said:
Ideally you would want to have some very high throughput central lines spaced out which are fortified and placed in earthquake resistant structures. And local lines connecting to them by dynamically attaching pods into trains. Fortified lines that might be too expensive,but seem necessary for safety especially if it is such a vital channel.
Say you have a build 100 pod train. You can separate them by 100 m, then you have a safe breaking acceleration of 2g at 60m/s Your throughput is 100K. At max 100 people in danger for a single fault.
I think you can make just the guideway for around 5 million USD per KM possibly lesser too.Vanadium 50 said:
- 30,558
- 7,533
Come on! Is this stuff all going to be suspended above existing roads? Did you consider that the public would need to be consulted and that every metre of the system would need planning permission?Prathyush said:
I costed out having our back service road rebuilt (a very minor road with just tarmac) and the ball park price would have been about £2k / metre. Re-do your sums with that figure and add track costs, services, interchanges, terminals.
The proposed system could be part of a funfair and possibly pay for itself over a few years.
Prathyush
- 211
- 16
Yes, that tricky always for anything.sophiecentaur said:
Yea perhaps. It was a crude estimate indeed.sophiecentaur said:
Prathyush
- 211
- 16
This is what 100k passengers per hour looks like in Mumbai local.Vanadium 50 said:
Prathyush
- 211
- 16
Another company that was incubated by NASA, Sky tran is quoting prices in the ball park of 15 million per KM(I believe all inclusive). One of the largest Indian company Reliance has taken interest in it. They claim it is equivalent to a 6 lane highway in terms of throughput.sophiecentaur said:
The first company TransitX that quoted 4 million per km was not a maglev system it was a wheeled system.
I think the idea is worth exploring.
Last edited:
- 30,558
- 7,533
I don't know the expression. What does it mean?Prathyush said:
Is that on a green field site or inserted in an existing city transport system?Prathyush said:
I think you have taken this as far as it can go without a lot more in-depth study, involving a more than enthusiastic advertising figures. You obviously like the idea but that's as far as we can take it here, I think.