Hey /n/, what if we like put a train ON A ROAD!
Rubber on tarmac is woefully inefficient compared to steel on steel. Also railways don't tend to have other personal use drivers to kill with one tiny error.
>>943961
Depends on how you look at it. You actually want a lot of friction when it comes to wheel based movement. It gives a better transfer of torque and lets you stop more quickly. Steel on steel has lots of slipping, and as we all know, wheel slip is highly inefficient, potentially dangerous, and harmful to wheels/tires and the road/track surface.
The huge advantage of railroads is actually from aerodynamics and a larger more efficient prime mover.
The efficiency comes from the ridiculously low friction. It lets you roll and roll and roll. It's about having just enough friction to get by so you can keep your momentum. >bait
Further reading: the micheline and the flop that was
If you really wanted to piss about, you can consider the acceleration of various rubber tired vs steel rolling stock. The rubber tired stock wins most of the time but in the realm of commuter trains, you can have stupidly high acceleration on steel if you really wanted so, like trams and MTR stock
Also, trains on road yes
>>943804
Dumbest idea ever and only made plausible by treating road maintenence, construction and safety as an externality. Same with environmental impact.
>wat is massive de facto subsidy
>>944015
>dat pic
>>943965
Steel on steel has plenty of friction when you've got that much weight. Rubber tires wouldn't really be any better at turning 200,000 lbf into forward movement. Steel on steel also has much less rolling resistance, because there's no deformation of the wheels eating up energy.
>>944032
>Steel on steel also has much less rolling resistance, because there's no deformation of the wheels eating up energy.
then just do them at 2000psi u fuckin idiot
this is a proper road train
>>944046
>wellfare-queen of the road
ROAAADU TURAAAINU!
>>944032
>Steel on steel also has much less rolling resistance, because there's no deformation of the wheels eating up energy.
Jokes on you, the steel actually does deform slightly.
This is why you need to grind the rail profile.
>>944099
>Tailgate your target
>Aim
>Step on the brakes, hard
>PAYLOAD FIRED!
>Target vehicle is obliterated
I want to see this quite badly.
>>944670
You need to grind the rail profile due to wear. The rails don't do much deformation, neither does the wheel.
Unless you're the idiot who puts wheels designed for trams on high-speed trains.
>>944731
Just a few things I would see as a problem:
a) bad vision for the truck driver (seated lower than car drivers)
b) horrendous aerodynamics and fuel consumption
c) crash behaviour (seems like a death trap) and therefore
d) causes claustrophobia in truck drivers leading to
e) panic attacks, mass crashes, in which the truck slips underneath other vehicles, comes out unscathed, causing a lawsuit and the truckdriver to blame himself for countless losses of life, alcohol, pills, institute and finally an anonymous funeral in a coffin shaped like the truck.
you guys just got no clue what a road train is
>>944015
>furries
>>945843
>horrendous aerodynamics
But this removes a number of restrictions on the frontal shape of the truck-trailer combo. Trailers dedicated to this truck design could have aerodynamic nose-cones.
>>944782
wouldn't you just get crushes as well, lol.
>>944782
>Tailgate your target
>Aim
>Step on the brakes, hard
>PAYLOAD FIRED!
>Target vehicle is obliterated
I don't think that's how conservation of momentum works.
