RCT Discussion / Roller Coaster Highway

okay, so i have this quarter project for biology where we have to think of a alternate source of energy, a.k.a. fossil fuels, and i was thinking...wouldnt it be kinda cool if the government decided on making a roller coaster highway. the only factor i could find is money but otherwise... !

Hmm.. Well, technically roller coasters aren't a form of energy, but gravity is. I see quite a few issues associated with it. Cost, upkeep, capcity, safety and comfort. Roller coasters require a lot of maintiance (typically inspected every day) and are very low capacity. They may run through 1000pph, maybe 2000pph in good conditions but that doesn't really compare at all to highway traffic. Plus roller coasters can't really carry cargo (trucks, cranes, other extraneous loads). Then when the 'ride' ends, what do people do, where to they go and how do they get there. On a highway you just take an exit and keep driving. You can't really keep driving off a roller coaster. And finally, not everyone likes roller coasters and the associated experiance. Oh, and they are typically closed during inclimant weather. Anyways, I like the idea of using an everpresent source of energy for transportation, but roller coasters may not be the best method of utilizing it.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Gravity_train

...[Roller coasters] may run through 1000pph, maybe 2000pph in good conditions...

what coaster runs 2000pph?

Gemini, Magnum...just to name a few in a specific park.

I can't believe he's serious...

Eh, sounds like the sort of wacky stuff we did in high school science. They get you thinking that science is all fun and creative stuff, then you go to college, and BAM! Designing bolts.

Anyways, I think it could work within a city, as a sort of amusing, low capacity, alternative public transportation system, but otherwise it'd be too inefficient.

well besides your blatant allusion negating the point of one, i thought common sensically that only single tracked rides were in question due to the topic of this thread as well as over-approximations meant for gp coaster-knowledge, which constitues the 2nd slightly oxymoronish term in this post with the former being the thrid and fourth words. Magnum cannot exceed more than 1900 guest an hour because the time it leaves its station to the time the back car completes the lift hill is 70+a tidbit seconds and each train has 36 passengers. I obviously thought cp when I heard that stat, I'm insulted that you didn't think I would. the only coasters even capable of such a stat are at disney parks, but even though rcdb lists disneyland's space mtn at 2000 it also says that many clones have different stats from one another.

Oh dear.

Edited by Phil, 17 October 2006 - 04:15 AM.

ugh... dude, i know this just came to your mind as a joke. so why did you post it.
-JDP

I always dreamt of riding a rollercoaster to school

Fatal flaw: you can only drop a car so far. Once you've done that, you need to expend energy to lift it back up again. Momentum alone will not lift it up again. (Even if it's conducted in a frictionless enviroment, having to stop to load/unload passengers negates momentum.)

So, while it's possible, it's not really saving any energy.

-ACE

How about using air, like what an air hockey table does, and having like a large monorail or something? That might work.

I'm insulted that you didn't think I would. the only coasters even capable of such a stat are at disney parks, but even though rcdb lists disneyland's space mtn at 2000 it also says that many clones have different stats from one another.

Many rollercoasters at the German fairgrounds are meant to hit well over 2,000 per hour I belive some of them hit over 3,000.

^Meant to, definently. Though I'm unsure of how well they succeed; knowing the Germans obsession with effeciency it's pretty safe to say it's probably like clockwork.

Anyway all I have to say is NO. As a transportation system a roller coaster would be horrible. What we do need is something with tracks though, namely TRAINS. Small-capacity trolly set ups running from suburban neighborhoods to towns and then larger capacity trains connecting the towns with the major cities, and of course high-capacity set ups conncecting cities. The system would cost billions if not trillians of dollars to build (something like a war effort, ) and maintain, however it wouldn't reduce our dependence on forein oil, (with the proper power plants) it could entirely eliminate it (there still is a rather large "domestic"(ish) supply of oil in the United States and our northern pals Canada).

Anyway, it's a cute thought but it'll never happen. Not to say the world couldn't use more amusement parks, or roller coasters, just not as transportation.

Ride6

has anyone thought of using LIMs? Think about it. you can use this for both the brakes and launch, and the launch doesnt have to be a REAL launch. it might even cost less then the MAGLEV as well.

on the launch, you can start out with a slow cable until it gets you lets say to about 50 mph. then the LIMs get you to the needed speed.

also, this could even offer jobs, inspecting this over shifts and station work. its only an innovative project for high school biology? i didnt really mean to make that big of a deal out of it.

has anyone thought of using LIMs? Think about it. you can use this for both the brakes and launch, and the launch doesnt have to be a REAL launch. it might even cost less then the MAGLEV as well.

Erm... LIMs use a rather larger dose of electricity than Maglev...

@trav - that sort of thing is very, very inefficient. You just don't notice it on the scale of a table.

-ACE

how bout this. was researching and somehow found this

Hydrogen Super Highway :}

whoaaaaa
-JDP