Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gizmodo)   Strap a pair of Air Force surplus jet engines to the roof of a prototype high-speed locomotive and voila: you have the world's fastest self-propelled train   (gizmodo.com) divider line 35
    More: Cool, jet engines, air forces, Air Force surplus, prototype high-speed, trains, economic surplus, roofs  
•       •       •

5259 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 Feb 2014 at 4:14 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



35 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-02-21 04:24:01 PM  
Actually, the US's fastest self-propelled train on light-gauge rail.
 
2014-02-21 04:25:11 PM  
All well and good but without Rearden Metal you're not getting across that canyon
 
2014-02-21 04:25:25 PM  
The GTELs were a better idea.  Strapping jets on a train made no sense from a load bearing point of view.
 
2014-02-21 04:25:38 PM  

cgraves67: Actually, the US's fastest self-propelled train on light-gauge rail.


Yep, other countries are kicking our ass in this, but we hate trains(for some reason), so our American pride isn't forcing us to ludicrous extremes to "win" like normal.
 
2014-02-21 04:27:44 PM  
Will there be 1000 yards of twin, dark rubber streaks and a darkened splotch on the opposite canyon wall at the first curve?

If not, count me out.
 
2014-02-21 04:30:33 PM  
Help me out by providing examples of trains that aren't self-propelled.
 
2014-02-21 04:30:57 PM  

ikanreed: cgraves67: Actually, the US's fastest self-propelled train on light-gauge rail.

Yep, other countries are kicking our ass in this, but we hate trains(for some reason), so our American pride isn't forcing us to ludicrous extremes to "win" like normal.


Gosh, how many times do we have to go over this? TRAINS ARE SOCIALIST.
 
2014-02-21 04:33:03 PM  
Did people read a lot slower back then?
 
2014-02-21 04:33:10 PM  

red5ish: Help me out by providing examples of trains that aren't self-propelled.


You mean like the high-speed trains that get their electricity from overhead or 3rd rail systems?
 
2014-02-21 04:36:25 PM  

red5ish: Help me out by providing examples of trains that aren't self-propelled.


Mag-Lev. I believe that in some systems propulsion comes from changing polarity of the magnets on the track not the train.
 
2014-02-21 04:40:34 PM  

Stone Meadow: You mean like the high-speed trains that get their electricity from overhead or 3rd rail systems?


To The Escape Zeppelin!: Mag-Lev. I believe that in some systems propulsion comes from changing polarity of the magnets on the track not the train.


Thank you.
 
2014-02-21 04:42:01 PM  

ikanreed: cgraves67: Actually, the US's fastest self-propelled train on light-gauge rail.

Yep, other countries are kicking our ass in this, but we hate trains(for some reason), so our American pride isn't forcing us to ludicrous extremes to "win" like normal.


It's because they don't have dedicated tracks for passenger service and freight has higher priority, so riding the rails can mean stopping on sidings for hours. It takes days to cross the country by rail because of this, and if Americans are anything, it's impatient.

Outside of densely populated regions, rail can't service small towns like a paved road network. Slightly less than half the US population don't live in cities. While Europe and Japan are much more highly urbanized. Even if we had high-speed trains on dedicated tracks connecting major metropolitan areas. Since long-distance intercity travel is incidental for most people it would not be useful to the majority of the population on a regular basis and air travel would still be faster. Given the larger average distances between cities, the dedicated infrastructure would be more expensive per ticket. And it would cost more than air travel too.

Rail just isn't the long distance mass transit solution in the US that it is elsewhere.
 
2014-02-21 04:54:52 PM  

cgraves67: ikanreed: cgraves67: Actually, the US's fastest self-propelled train on light-gauge rail.

Yep, other countries are kicking our ass in this, but we hate trains(for some reason), so our American pride isn't forcing us to ludicrous extremes to "win" like normal.

It's because they don't have dedicated tracks for passenger service and freight has higher priority, so riding the rails can mean stopping on sidings for hours. It takes days to cross the country by rail because of this, and if Americans are anything, it's impatient.

Outside of densely populated regions, rail can't service small towns like a paved road network. Slightly less than half the US population don't live in cities. While Europe and Japan are much more highly urbanized. Even if we had high-speed trains on dedicated tracks connecting major metropolitan areas. Since long-distance intercity travel is incidental for most people it would not be useful to the majority of the population on a regular basis and air travel would still be faster. Given the larger average distances between cities, the dedicated infrastructure would be more expensive per ticket. And it would cost more than air travel too.

Rail just isn't the long distance mass transit solution in the US that it is elsewhere.


There are routes in the US where high speed rail would be an improvement. There's no reason to abandon high speed rail just because it doesn't have a universal application.
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-21 04:55:30 PM  

red5ish: Help me out by providing examples of trains that aren't self-propelled.


I was thinking the same. Couldn't it be that maglev trains, and electric trains are not considered self-propelled as the power source is external to the train?
 
2014-02-21 04:56:15 PM  

red5ish: Help me out by providing examples of trains that aren't self-propelled.


Roller coasters.
 
2014-02-21 04:58:38 PM  

red5ish: Stone Meadow: You mean like the high-speed trains that get their electricity from overhead or 3rd rail systems?

To The Escape Zeppelin!: Mag-Lev. I believe that in some systems propulsion comes from changing polarity of the magnets on the track not the train.

Thank you.


I don't believe that is what is being referred to however.

A typical freight train will have a dedicated locomotive which provides the propulsion for the entire train. Each cargo car is unpowered and pulled by the locomotive.

Now look at something like a subway train. There is no dedicated locomotive. Each car provides its own propulsion. Thus each car is self-propelled.

Look at what is pictured in the article. It is clearly not a dedicated locomotive and can carry passengers.
 
2014-02-21 05:06:13 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: All well and good but without Rearden Metal you're not getting across that canyon


Who is John Galt?

/we like your metal so we took it all
 
2014-02-21 05:06:49 PM  
Strapping JATO onto your Chevy Impala still not a good idea.
 
2014-02-21 05:13:51 PM  

cgraves67: ikanreed: cgraves67: Actually, the US's fastest self-propelled train on light-gauge rail.

Yep, other countries are kicking our ass in this, but we hate trains(for some reason), so our American pride isn't forcing us to ludicrous extremes to "win" like normal.

It's because they don't have dedicated tracks for passenger service and freight has higher priority, so riding the rails can mean stopping on sidings for hours. It takes days to cross the country by rail because of this, and if Americans are anything, it's impatient.

Outside of densely populated regions, rail can't service small towns like a paved road network. Slightly less than half the US population don't live in cities. While Europe and Japan are much more highly urbanized. Even if we had high-speed trains on dedicated tracks connecting major metropolitan areas. Since long-distance intercity travel is incidental for most people it would not be useful to the majority of the population on a regular basis and air travel would still be faster. Given the larger average distances between cities, the dedicated infrastructure would be more expensive per ticket. And it would cost more than air travel too.

Rail just isn't the long distance mass transit solution in the US that it is elsewhere.



"It's real to me, damn it!"

gaslamppost.files.wordpress.com

 
2014-02-21 05:18:35 PM  

Stone Meadow: red5ish: Help me out by providing examples of trains that aren't self-propelled.

You mean like the high-speed trains that get their electricity from overhead or 3rd rail systems?


They are still self-propelled, the power source is just the electrical supply, but the motor itself is still on the actual train...
 
2014-02-21 05:20:51 PM  
God, wouldn't that be a bumpy farking ride at 183 mph and 1960s suspension technology? I rode trains in the 90s that were bumpy at 80 mph or so...
 
2014-02-21 05:41:47 PM  

ikanreed: cgraves67: Actually, the US's fastest self-propelled train on light-gauge rail.

Yep, other countries are kicking our ass in this, but we hate trains(for some reason), so our American pride isn't forcing us to ludicrous extremes to "win" like normal.


We have far more room, as a country, than the ones 'kicking our ass' generally speaking. At least as far as population density vs population centers. It's practical and reasonable to maintain a single person vehicle. And it's often cheaper and faster to fly cross country, or drive partials.
 
2014-02-21 05:54:39 PM  

ikanreed: cgraves67: Actually, the US's fastest self-propelled train on light-gauge rail.

Yep, other countries are kicking our ass in this, but we hate trains(for some reason), so our American pride isn't forcing us to ludicrous extremes to "win" like normal.


The problem with passenger trains is that airplanes or road vehicles (cars and buses) are superior for most applications, especially considering the United States specifics (large, spread out country, high standard of living).

Planes are superior for medium to long distance travel in almost all situations, in terms of costs, time to get from point A to B, and route flexibility (IE, you have to build very expensive train tracks specifically between the two points for a train when you just need an airport at point A and point B (which can also then be used by planes flying from points C through Z without having to build more tracks from them)).  The only semi-exception is if there are a series of cities in a more or less direct row where lots of people travel back and forth between them (IE, the Northeast Corridor of Amtrak).

Cars and buses are superior for short to medium distance travel with some rare exceptions, in terms of costs, time traveled, and flexibility.  Only real exceptions are extremely heavily urbanized areas (where subways or seperated, elevated rails can be superior in terms of time of travel to buses in particular and potentially also to cars (especially if you factor in finding parking)) and commuter trains into a central downtown (but only really when many people both live in the suburbs and work downtown and only when combined with a subway or elevated rail system, and even then a short car ride to the suburban train station is typical).  Cars in particular are the most flexible travel system ever created; the car in your garage is ready to go the exact minute you are ready to leave, and it will go exactly where you need to go (with the minor exception of needing to find a parking space in some circumstances).  Rail also is very expensive compared to buses, especially if ridership is low or spread out.

Rail is more often used overseas due to the following reasons:

1. A poorer population (making private ownership of cars rarer).
2. Higher taxes on the ownership of cars and/or higher gas taxes (also making private ownership of cars rarer).
3. Higher density cities, older cities (with poorer internal road networks), and having more cities be in closer proximity to each other.
4. A true central capital, allowing the commuter rail exception to kind of apply to the whole country.
5. More central planning, which encourages large, very visibile construction projects (like huge rail projects) to be built without a true cost/benefit analysis.
 
2014-02-21 06:01:28 PM  

cgraves67: It's because they don't have dedicated tracks for passenger service and freight has higher priority,


This is actually false.  Passenger trains legally have priority over freight trains in the United States, even on tracks that are owned by freight train companies.  Of course, there may be real world violations of such from time to time, but that's how it's supposed to work and the freight train companies are violating the law if they do so.
 
2014-02-21 06:16:30 PM  
OK. Let's start with "light-gauge rail." "Gauge," in reference to rail, is the distance between the running rails. Where does "light" fit in that? "Light-gauge" might refer to the thickness of sheet metal, and rail is not made of sheet metal.

The vehicle in question is a modified Budd RDC (Rail Diesel Car) and not, in the common use of the term, a "locomotive" or "engine" whose primary purpose is to pull trains of unpowered freight or passenger cars.

It was a one-off experiment (or publicity stunt) with no practical application. After the performance it was returned to stock configuration and went back to routine service.
 
2014-02-21 06:17:58 PM  

Mikey1969: God, wouldn't that be a bumpy farking ride at 183 mph and 1960s suspension technology? I rode trains in the 90s that were bumpy at 80 mph or so...


Usually you have to pay the whore extra for that
 
2014-02-21 06:21:56 PM  
img.fark.net

OK. Let's start with "light-gauge rail." "Gauge," in reference to rail, is the distance between the running rails. Where does "light" fit in that? "Light-gauge" might refer to the thickness of sheet metal, and rail is not made of sheet metal.

The vehicle in question is a modified Budd RDC (Rail Diesel Car) and not, in the common use of the term, a "locomotive" or "engine" whose primary purpose is to pull trains of unpowered freight or passenger cars.


The tinier the train, the more concentrated the fun.
 
2014-02-21 06:28:29 PM  
I think I heard about this train. When they were testing it they parked it under a bridge and the engine destroyed parts of it.
 
2014-02-21 06:54:53 PM  

red5ish: Help me out by providing examples of trains that aren't self-propelled.


Any train that's stopped.
 
2014-02-21 06:56:42 PM  

Mikey1969: God, wouldn't that be a bumpy farking ride at 183 mph and 1960s suspension technology? I rode trains in the 90s that were bumpy at 80 mph or so...


We knew how to make trains ride smooth a century ago.

You experienced a train that was built to be as low-cost as possible.
 
2014-02-21 07:11:16 PM  
Strap a pair of Air Force surplus jet engines to the roof of a prototype high-speed locomotive and voila: you have an article for Gawker to link to.
 
2014-02-21 07:11:41 PM  

red5ish: [img.fark.net image 500x250]

OK. Let's start with "light-gauge rail." "Gauge," in reference to rail, is the distance between the running rails. Where does "light" fit in that? "Light-gauge" might refer to the thickness of sheet metal, and rail is not made of sheet metal.

The vehicle in question is a modified Budd RDC (Rail Diesel Car) and not, in the common use of the term, a "locomotive" or "engine" whose primary purpose is to pull trains of unpowered freight or passenger cars.

The tinier the train, the more concentrated the fun.


fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net
 
2014-02-21 08:00:15 PM  
Eh, still faster than I've gone on rails, although if it wasn't for that damn 260km/hour line speed limit in Kyushu...

mdak.on.com
 
2014-02-21 09:29:52 PM  
Oh Lord, protect this rocket train and all who dwell within the rocket train
 
2014-02-22 05:19:21 PM  

groppet: I think I heard about this train. When they were testing it they parked it under a bridge and the engine destroyed parts of it.


That was a gas turbine locomotive.
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report