What is Digg?Sponsored by wix.com
32 Comments
- inactive, on 05/16/2009, -0/+11The axle load on the rear wheels exceeds 16 tonnes.
Most roads accept no higher than 6 tonnes
Most rail networks accept no higher than 16.
No point sticking this on rails when rail networks are only efficient at 1 train every 3 minutes on a freight line. I wonder if the designer has understood the rail term, block control. - notoriousbob, on 05/16/2009, -0/+8like most things from treehugger.com, this is ***** retarded from an engineering standpoint.
- JSDavis82, on 05/15/2009, -1/+6awesome concept! however, i do think it will be a decepticon, ultimately. Why? because we've already been deceived into thinking some company will have the eco-balls to actually develop it. Great idea though!
- PhillyOC, on 05/16/2009, -0/+4Stop the algae genocide!!!
- TabDelineated, on 05/16/2009, -0/+4It's a very pretty, but the 2nd comment blows then entire thing out of the water somewhat:
"Ok, neat idea. However...
The 20ft container shown does raise a few questions and concerns:
-With only six wheels the vehicle weight will be too high for road use and would increase road deterioration.
-The cargo will be more secure because there is no way to open the cargo doors while it is being transported, but...
-There is also no way to get the cargo to the loading dock either. This would require additional infrastructure and all delivery points just to handle the cargo.
-The cargo box has no protection from side impact (cars) or bottom impact (pot holes and traffic-calming-speedbumps)
As for the truck:
-Needs bumpers
-Needs mudflaps
-Needs a way to protect the cargo area when driving without a container (deadheading)
-Could be dangerouly top heavy with full fuel tanks (there is a reason the are where they are today). Without a cargo load they could be extremely dangerous.
-Needs mirrors, marker lights, snow chains, etc... basic truck stuff.
For railroad operation:
-Needs a trained engineer
-Needs proper communications gear and markings
-Needs sanders (for traction)
-Needs special permits to operate because it is not a rail car and cannot be entrained for operations (and would be crushed like a pop-can)
So there are a few issues that put this fantasy back on the drawing board.
Never mind the fact that you can't just 'jump on the rails and go'. Train dispatching and traffic flow is an extremely complicated system. The benefits are from having long trains with low rolling resistance run by small crews.
A better idea might be to build an algae powered semi-tractor and adopt the RoadRailer/Triplecrown model on a larger scale.
Still is cool looking though.
-Lego" - MMusick, on 05/15/2009, -0/+4Wow. But for a second there, I thought you meant the A train and I was truly flabbergasted.
- Balanced, on 05/16/2009, -0/+3Did you mean deception or decepticon? The article makes the 'decepticon' joke, but you seem to be using it at face value...
- Axeman2063, on 05/16/2009, -0/+3It doesn't transform....you put it from the road to the rails with a bit of work. I was expecting two majorly different vehicles. Although based on some of the comments above this just conjecture...a clever concept, but it definitely needs more time on the drawing board.
- 88chrisb, on 05/16/2009, -0/+3Anyone else think of the train from Half Life 2 when they saw this?
- Ebacherville, on 05/16/2009, -0/+3make biodiesel from algee and put it in regular trains... far more realistic.. algae can make biodiesel now, its already being done now.. in elpaso Tx...
This looks cool on paper but i doubt we will ever see it or anything like it in the next 40 years.. algae making biodiesel is happening now. - Kuci06, on 05/16/2009, -1/+3MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE
- redcolumbine, on 05/15/2009, -1/+3I want one!
- inactive, on 05/16/2009, -0/+2TRANSFORMERS! ROBOTS IN DISGUISE!
Goddamnit, now I have that stuck in my head, and it's not even a robot. It's like Optimus Prime's lawn mower, except a vegetarian. - chrisduser, on 05/16/2009, -0/+2Is it alive?
- Hurricane, on 05/16/2009, -0/+2Biodiesel production from algae is far from efficient enough to power this concept or a real train without HUGE tanks of it being hauled along.
- Jonjonr6, on 05/17/2009, -0/+2only 33 comments and 256 diggs.
I'd say this is less exciting than "drunk girl at frat party turns into a train!" - patent98310, on 05/16/2009, -0/+2the sad thing about it is, every time we're told about these concepts and developments, they put the 'not until 2020 or later' label on it.
- Hurricane, on 05/16/2009, -0/+2This is a thought provoking concept but would need to be almost totally redesigned to be of any use.
Also, using the rail infrastructure without any way to tandem the trucks together in a train would be useless and actually waste rail time that is more efficiently used by real trains.
I can imagine rail cars that detach from the train and deliver the cargo box via public roads as being more useful.
The current piggy-back cargo box system already fills this void fine. - crashlock, on 05/16/2009, -0/+2Reminded me a bit of a Graboid!! The head bit anyway :)
- sassafras1232, on 05/16/2009, -0/+1Yeah the first poster in the article's comments pretty much nailed it. Also, I don't see any way for this to hinge in the middle. There is no way it could navigate most roads (even freeways have ramps) as one rigid unit.
- inactive, on 05/16/2009, -1/+2Dugg for "eco-balls."
- inactive, on 05/16/2009, -0/+1It's like the idea from a few months ago where someone proposed turning off shore oil rigs into luxury hotels. It sounds cool but when you start to examine the specifics it's an astoundingly bad idea.
- inactive, on 05/16/2009, -1/+2The idea of having a container truck as a straight truck instead of articulated could have some merit.....but the concept looks like it needs some tweaking to be feasible
- Philbert, on 05/16/2009, -0/+1Yeah there are already plenty of vehicles that can drive on roads or railroad tracks. I assumed this was a big deal because it did something different.
- Hurricane, on 05/16/2009, -0/+1...in fact, after doing a few calculations, it appears that modern solar cells are about as efficient as these algae tanks at making electrical energy, this is not counting on the newer much more efficient solar cells currently in the works.
- Hurricane, on 05/16/2009, -1/+2Don't worry, it would fold under it's own weight before any other problems surfaced, look closely, it would have to have a spine made out of a material that does not exist in order to even stand up.
This looks like something I drew when I was 8 and apparently the designers are about as smart as 8 year olds. - burketo, on 05/16/2009, -3/+3"This article does not provide stats"
And neither do you. It is a bit rich for you to complain about their design principles when you are making gut calls based on a concept sketch.
This thing looks no bigger to me than a double decker bus. Of course I wouldn't claim to know anything about its weight, dimensions, performance or safety seeing as I don't have any information to go on. - norman619, on 05/16/2009, -3/+3So the enormous weight of this thing destroying the roads doesn't bother you? This thing, in the end, will weigh much more than the biggest semi on the road. It's also a bit tall which calls into question its stability under high wind condistions as well as it's ability to navigate under overpasses. The concept looks cool but it will need major mods to make it viable for track and road. Looking at the cabin alone shows the driver is not very well protected in the event of a crash. an all glass/plastic cockpit looks cool and works in anime and scifi but in the real world you will need a reinforced metal cage to protect the driver. I'm all for making commercial shipping more eficent and "eco-friendly" but let focus on doing it in a more realistic way. This article does not provide stats because they don't have any. This is basically a sales pitch. They are trying to sell us on an idea not an actual working machine they have buit and tested.
- joshthegreat200, on 05/16/2009, -2/+2Hmm.. You'd have figured american vehicle manufacturers would build a car that wont break down after 30,000 miles before they came up with this thing.
- inactive, on 05/16/2009, -3/+2i like smart people. they come up with cool *****.
- bjornredtail, on 05/16/2009, -1/+0Well, in the US, the maximum axle wight for unrestricted interchange (ie, the highest axle wighting for cars that move between different railroads) is 65,750 lbs, or around 29 tonnes. The real problem with this machine over here is that you really wouldn't be allowed drive it on freight railroads, as I doubt it meets FRA crashworthyness standards. Nor do I think you could make it meet these standards without making the whole vehicle much, much heavier. Which would make it even harder to use on the public roads. Alternatively, you could just have it set up as a railcar, but, by that point, I really don't know why you'd bother. Just move the container from the truck to the train... That's the whole point of a container.
- arnoldlayne123, on 05/16/2009, -2/+1hopefully, we can see this on road sometime!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is