Did I pronounce the "ruit" part of "Naboomspruit" the same as you pronounce "fruit"? -Yes. Did I only realise I probably pronounced it wrong too late while editing? -Yes.
Thanks for a bit of history I was not aware of in my own country - Great video! For future reference, you pronounce the "ruit" part as in eight with an r in front. "r-eight"
@@stanislavczebinski994 it would not be correct in Dutch. "Spruit" means sprout and it's pronounced similarly to "sprout" in a Canadian English accent. I think the most similar German sound would be "eu". For example Deutsch is spelt "Duits" in Dutch and is pronounced roughly the same.
Duttons concept posthumously actually works, there is a company in Canada called Brandt which creates a road/rail truck that is capable of pulling up to 15 railcars at a time called the R4 Power Unit, it's proven popular with industries as it's cheaper than a switching locomotive, and many class 1 railroads use them to pull maintenance trains, often tie replacement trains as the truck can carry Brandt's OTM Tracker tie crane on the back
If I was going to start a shortline, I would definitely consider a Brandt truck. May cost a bit more up front, but it would ultimately be much better than trying to keep a crotchety old Geep or SW operating.
ngl any road rail truck can probably be pressed into service to shunt light loads, but brandt trucks just have enough of that heavy metal muscle to do it effectively.
properly speaking, the 'train' is the stuff the locomotive is pulling (as in all other uses of the word), though that quickly runs into the issue of people bundling it in anyway, and also 'how the hell do you classify a railcar or EMU then?'. I mean, I get your point, but... the tractor pulled arrangements were still trains.
@@laurencefraser I was SO CLOSE to changing my comment to say locomotive exactly for this reason, but i thought nah leave it nobody's that pedantic 😆 Yeah the classification really falls apart when you're into *MUs, it's easier just to call everything trains people know what you mean haha
Hmm somethings wrong with this railway Whats wrong with it? Why does it have.... Trains... Dude its a railway You know what it needs? A tractor! Y'know your probably the most... GENIUS PERSON IVE EVER MET
"In theory, the rubber tyres had higher traction on the roads than the steam locomotives wheel on steel rails" That seems an oddly specific choice of words. ... Oh
Trying to take the best of two worlds but ending up with two negatives reminds me of the EMD "BL2" Diesels that tried to take the benefits of the Road Switcher design of diesels and the streamline look of a cab unit but ultimately ended up with a not so pleasant looking engine that had poor visibility front and back. Which a Road Switcher should be able to see forward or backwards quite easily so it ended up being quite the failure of an engine.
Can we put the hilarity of taking these things to the British Empire exhibition in 1924 specifically into perspective, if you know your railways history you’d know what else was at that particular exhibition, a little known locomotive called Flying Scotsman so people got to see both the very best and the very worst in British railway development in the same place
Yes, it was mainly ahead of its time. There are many things that a "Zweiwege Unimog" does better, but in principle it's that idea which is used today for many industrial shunting purposes.
I see there is confustion on what Dutton's idea was and people think it later became successfully in things like rail maintenance vehicles and the R4 Power Unit. This are not Dutton's Idea because they use the rail to push against when in rail mode. Dutton's idea was the if you pushed against the dirt/earth around the rail, you would need much smaller rails meaning you could have tighter turns and you could change direction by going off-rail. (Which is a big advantage over, having a bypass section or slowly pushing which is unstable.) Of course, mud gives very poor traction, so it didn't work out. So please don't confuse this with later True hybrid, Rail and Tire vehicles. That was not his idea.
I just learned that this concept is quite old! Here in the US of A, we have Hi-railers which are basically commercial road tractors modified highway to rail use.
Fascinating technology. I suppose one of the problems is that you need a decent road around the track to get the best from the road wheel adhesion. I doubt you would get satisfactory performance on ballast, dirt or sleepers. So in reality you would have to pay for laying a road and rails to get the best out of this design. Modern road railers tend to drive the rubber tyres directly onto the rails or indirectly onto the steel rail wheels. To get the best use of the rubber tyres friction you would need to drive it directly onto the rails.
That was my immediate thought - modern road-rail machines have drive wheels on the rails (either the rubber tires rolling on the rails, or separate drive for train wheels) while this rolled against the ground. Basically requiring that both a track and road surface be built, and having the issues of soft ground and rutting. As he said, the worst of both worlds, and the cost of both.
Would love to see you do a video on the Galloping Geese. As someone from Colorado, the geese are kind of rail legends in the region but you rarely hear about them.
The immediate issue that comes to mind is the surface the tractor wheels roll on. If soft or slick, the wheels would slip or bog down. Wheels rolling over the same exact alignment repeatedly would create deep ruts, this is a common issue for guided buses (those with conventional tires and a single guide rail) even on asphalt roads. So they'd pretty much have to have both rails and paved rollways, meaning the costs of both a railroad and a paved road, and even that probably wouldn't have worked all that well. I suppose rubber-tired metros have that (with highly durable concrete or metal rollways), but they're very high-use high-cost installations, the opposite of the goal here. So as described, the disadvantages of both road and rail and the advantages of neither. As he mentioned, there are modern road-rail vehicles, usually maintenance machines but occasionally serving as small locomotives, but they have a crucial difference: they only have wheels (train wheels or rubber tires) rolling on the rails, none on the ground next to them.
What I find ironic is, now we have many many vehicles that can easily transfer from road to rail. Backhoes Diggers. Lorries Land rovers Gators Dumpers. Scissor lifts So the idea is still around. Just better
Those for the most part aren't meant to serve as locomotives, they are self-propelled maintenance or inspection vehicles. They work relatively well as that. This design on the other hand was intended to function as a locomotive, for pulling cars. Though actually I've seen a few videos of modified trucks being used to pull short trains on branch lines or spurs, I assume retaining the road-rail capability. Probably the biggest difference with this design is that it was intending to have the drive wheels roll on the ground/road next to the rails rather than on the rails themselves, while what you mention rolls on the rails themselves. Like this video mentioned, this resulted in the worst of both rail and road transport.
I would almost say that shunting on smaller industrial lines is almost excitedly made by rail tractors around here nowadays. Even some branch lines use them as there main loco. And its true that they are considerably cheaper than locos. Those modern tractors are on the other hand quite a bit faster and also have a lot of tractive effort (the Unimog that is often use can pull 1000 tons)
As a Canadian, I am always pleased by the random stuff named “Canada _____” (junction, square, etc.) - makes me feel like they were thinking of us after all 🥰
Would be cool if you could find pictures of Trackmobiles in action (they have a couple of them at the Shelburne Falls Trolley Museum, in Shelburne Falls, Massachusetts; unfortunately, these are as far as I can tell not in running order). This had a neat idea -- the road wheels were at right angles to the rail wheels, so you drove perpendicular to the tracks to get on and off them, then put the rail wheels down on the tracks (the road wheels actually lifted up), and then coupled onto a couple of cars to push or pull them. The Trackmobile brand still exists as a part of the Marmon Group, but they don't seem to make units with the right-angle design any more (they seem to be all in-line like other road-rail vehicles).
There was a line on the original Metropolitan[London],called the Verney Junction line,which used a converted steam traction engine for motive power,unique! Also the PRR,and B&O,were using traction cars for switching in the Baltimore dock areas,another unique bit of unusual motive equipment history!
Video idea: GWR 4300 They went to the Western front during World War One and are the second most produced great western steam engines behind the panniers
Should have made it so these could jack up on two sets of rails on both sides, and then attached a chain to the main running gear to the rail wheels, so that it drives just like a small locomotive, but when needed it can detach and go off road on its regular tractor wheels. Or maybe just made a bigger truck.
Terribly sorry about that. If you'd like to discuss the matter of usage, compensation, credit etc, please contact me at my business email: twicetrainfacts@gmail.com so we can resolve the issue
I think it was mostly just bad implementation. If they'd designed it around the width of the rear motive wheels so they sat on the rails, it would have likely worked okay. That would make it more akin to the road-rail vehicles we have today. It just wasn't a well-designed adaptation.
For 1923, this seems to be was a ridiculous idea. Petrol engines were all over the place by the 1920s and this little loco's power requirements were well within the capabilities of available engines in the 1920s.
They hadn't made the massive leap forward that they did in the thirties (one of the reasons tanks had such thin armour around then). In 1924 petrol engines were finicky, needed constant tuning, were comparatively fuel hogs and were often fragile. In the 1922 Railway Journal* there's cautious enthusiasm for those new-fangled diesel trains in Sweden. (*this is available on the Internet Archive and I really recommend it as a source)
@@jameslawrie3807 - Thanks for your reply. For larger engines, a gasoline-powered locomotive was impractical in 1920. But the Ford Model T (20 HP, 4 cylinders) was well on the way to its 15 million total production between 1907 and 1927 (or so). The McKeen Motor Co. built 152 gasoline (petrol-) powered railcars between 1905 and 1917 in the U.S. I know that the McKeen cars had many problems due to issues like clutch failure. But I think their engines, which ranged from 100 to 300 HP, were more powerful than what would be needed to pull a handful of freight cars with a tractor. At any event, the cost and complication of maintaining an almost miniature boiler and steam engine makes me shudder. Live steam engines are a great hobby, but these things don't scale down well, when you are running steam for some profit-making purpose, you know?
Yes, me. ruclips.net/video/6Eu6-HJfvu4/видео.html This is one of the tractors that ran at wembley. It's still work in progress but there are 2 other videos of it on my channel too. It's in OO9 scale which is the British equivalent of HOn30
I DEFINITELY THINK HIS IDEA HAS MERIT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN HINDERED BY PROBABLY HIS OWN MONEY AND THE TECHNOLOGY OF THE TIME WHEN LOCOMOTIVES HAD MULTIPLE DRIVING WHEELS AND HIS THING ONLY HAD ONE SET
they could have just got a car and put train wheels on it and when the driver feels like driving off the rails, he/she can just steer off of the tracks
Not sure if cars of the day were up to pulling as much as they'd need to... but that is very much a thing that exists now, and it does work quite well for the things its used for (note: Generally actually pulling trains any distance is not one of those things, though they do sometimes get used for shunting.)
Plenty. It's not actually that rare when they're not mismanaged into the ground (though, much like airlines, there are a lot of routes that are quite necessary and useful that only turn a profit due to subsidies... ... ... frequently those subsides come from other, much more profitable, lines that they feed into, and which would be Less profitable without them, though.) Note that if you used the standards railroads are usually held to to determine if 'highways' or 'airlines' were profitable, the vast majority of Them would fail too. All such transport infrastructure produces most of it's 'proifts' not in terms of ticket sales, but in terms of increased tax take due to the increased economic activity it facilitates. (actually, turns out a lot of big cities with massive suburban sprawl, mostly in the USA but also in other places, are actually bankrupting themselves with maintenance costs for roads on routes that railways would serve just as well if not better for a fraction of the cost to both the city's budget and the actual user (ticket prices can drop below car fuel prices, let alone fuel plus upkeep prices, on well used and managed railways, even with the railway still turning a profit. And that's before taking into account the percentage of the road user (and even non-road user)'s tax bill that is eaten by road upkeep.)
![Lil Uzi Vert - We Good [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DrSfBULAsek/mqdefault.jpg)
Did I pronounce the "ruit" part of "Naboomspruit" the same as you pronounce "fruit"? -Yes.
Did I only realise I probably pronounced it wrong too late while editing?
-Yes.
Thanks for a bit of history I was not aware of in my own country - Great video!
For future reference, you pronounce the "ruit" part as in eight with an r in front. "r-eight"
70th like :)
That would AFAIK be correct in Dutch - Afrikaans is, most probably, different.
Greetings from Germany!!
@@stanislavczebinski994 it would not be correct in Dutch. "Spruit" means sprout and it's pronounced similarly to "sprout" in a Canadian English accent.
I think the most similar German sound would be "eu". For example Deutsch is spelt "Duits" in Dutch and is pronounced roughly the same.
@@OntarioTrafficMan Yes. I was wrong.
omg yea trevor’s theme is ver appropriate here
Ha lol maybe with a bit of Edward or Henry’s forest maybe?
I didn’t notice at first lol
@@OneArmLivingLife no edward and/or henry’s forest’s themes weren’t there
@@Leonardo-cw1dd no I’m trying to say it might’ve been appropriate
@@OneArmLivingLife ah ok my bad
Duttons concept posthumously actually works, there is a company in Canada called Brandt which creates a road/rail truck that is capable of pulling up to 15 railcars at a time called the R4 Power Unit, it's proven popular with industries as it's cheaper than a switching locomotive, and many class 1 railroads use them to pull maintenance trains, often tie replacement trains as the truck can carry Brandt's OTM Tracker tie crane on the back
If I was going to start a shortline, I would definitely consider a Brandt truck. May cost a bit more up front, but it would ultimately be much better than trying to keep a crotchety old Geep or SW operating.
ah the high railer
ngl any road rail truck can probably be pressed into service to shunt light loads, but brandt trucks just have enough of that heavy metal muscle to do it effectively.
Ironic considering some places actually found decent success turning their tractors into rail vehicles.
Aveling & Porter, anybody?
ToT's livestream: EVERYONE PLEASE DON'T MENTION THOMAS THE TANK ENGINE
ToT's videos: Thomas themes
Yup
I love that the guy looks at a railway and thinks to himself "you know what the problem is here? the TRAINS!"
properly speaking, the 'train' is the stuff the locomotive is pulling (as in all other uses of the word), though that quickly runs into the issue of people bundling it in anyway, and also 'how the hell do you classify a railcar or EMU then?'.
I mean, I get your point, but... the tractor pulled arrangements were still trains.
@@laurencefraser I was SO CLOSE to changing my comment to say locomotive exactly for this reason, but i thought nah leave it nobody's that pedantic 😆
Yeah the classification really falls apart when you're into *MUs, it's easier just to call everything trains people know what you mean haha
@@roseroserose588 Leave it. After all, what's the point of just the locomotive going off the rails without pulling anything?
Hmm somethings wrong with this railway
Whats wrong with it?
Why does it have....
Trains...
Dude its a railway
You know what it needs?
A tractor!
Y'know your probably the most...
GENIUS PERSON IVE EVER MET
"In theory, the rubber tyres had higher traction on the roads than the steam locomotives wheel on steel rails"
That seems an oddly specific choice of words.
...
Oh
Well if its a gravel road, the actual traction can be pretty much anything
Trying to take the best of two worlds but ending up with two negatives reminds me of the EMD "BL2" Diesels that tried to take the benefits of the Road Switcher design of diesels and the streamline look of a cab unit but ultimately ended up with a not so pleasant looking engine that had poor visibility front and back. Which a Road Switcher should be able to see forward or backwards quite easily so it ended up being quite the failure of an engine.
Can we put the hilarity of taking these things to the British Empire exhibition in 1924 specifically into perspective, if you know your railways history you’d know what else was at that particular exhibition, a little known locomotive called Flying Scotsman so people got to see both the very best and the very worst in British railway development in the same place
Absolutely loved hearing Trevor’s theme in the background
I mean, it's not the weirdest or stupidest thing to run on rails.
Yes, it was mainly ahead of its time. There are many things that a "Zweiwege Unimog" does better, but in principle it's that idea which is used today for many industrial shunting purposes.
@@doctorhabilthcjesus4610 Here in Sweden we mostly use Hudding tractor, that actually looks like a tractor.
Yeah that was the leader class
the steam equivalent to a high railed vehicle.
I see there is confustion on what Dutton's idea was and people think it later became successfully in things like rail maintenance vehicles and the R4 Power Unit. This are not Dutton's Idea because they use the rail to push against when in rail mode. Dutton's idea was the if you pushed against the dirt/earth around the rail, you would need much smaller rails meaning you could have tighter turns and you could change direction by going off-rail. (Which is a big advantage over, having a bypass section or slowly pushing which is unstable.) Of course, mud gives very poor traction, so it didn't work out. So please don't confuse this with later True hybrid, Rail and Tire vehicles. That was not his idea.
I just learned that this concept is quite old!
Here in the US of A, we have Hi-railers which are basically commercial road tractors modified highway to rail use.
i can hear Thomas music in the background (Trevor The Traction Engine's Theme )
Fascinating technology. I suppose one of the problems is that you need a decent road around the track to get the best from the road wheel adhesion. I doubt you would get satisfactory performance on ballast, dirt or sleepers. So in reality you would have to pay for laying a road and rails to get the best out of this design. Modern road railers tend to drive the rubber tyres directly onto the rails or indirectly onto the steel rail wheels. To get the best use of the rubber tyres friction you would need to drive it directly onto the rails.
That was my immediate thought - modern road-rail machines have drive wheels on the rails (either the rubber tires rolling on the rails, or separate drive for train wheels) while this rolled against the ground. Basically requiring that both a track and road surface be built, and having the issues of soft ground and rutting. As he said, the worst of both worlds, and the cost of both.
Would love to see you do a video on the Galloping Geese. As someone from Colorado, the geese are kind of rail legends in the region but you rarely hear about them.
The immediate issue that comes to mind is the surface the tractor wheels roll on. If soft or slick, the wheels would slip or bog down. Wheels rolling over the same exact alignment repeatedly would create deep ruts, this is a common issue for guided buses (those with conventional tires and a single guide rail) even on asphalt roads. So they'd pretty much have to have both rails and paved rollways, meaning the costs of both a railroad and a paved road, and even that probably wouldn't have worked all that well. I suppose rubber-tired metros have that (with highly durable concrete or metal rollways), but they're very high-use high-cost installations, the opposite of the goal here. So as described, the disadvantages of both road and rail and the advantages of neither. As he mentioned, there are modern road-rail vehicles, usually maintenance machines but occasionally serving as small locomotives, but they have a crucial difference: they only have wheels (train wheels or rubber tires) rolling on the rails, none on the ground next to them.
The modern Trackmobile is basically this but modernized and reliable.
What I find ironic is, now we have many many vehicles that can easily transfer from road to rail.
Backhoes
Diggers.
Lorries
Land rovers
Gators
Dumpers.
Scissor lifts
So the idea is still around. Just better
Those for the most part aren't meant to serve as locomotives, they are self-propelled maintenance or inspection vehicles. They work relatively well as that. This design on the other hand was intended to function as a locomotive, for pulling cars. Though actually I've seen a few videos of modified trucks being used to pull short trains on branch lines or spurs, I assume retaining the road-rail capability. Probably the biggest difference with this design is that it was intending to have the drive wheels roll on the ground/road next to the rails rather than on the rails themselves, while what you mention rolls on the rails themselves. Like this video mentioned, this resulted in the worst of both rail and road transport.
sometimes an entire BUS
I would almost say that shunting on smaller industrial lines is almost excitedly made by rail tractors around here nowadays. Even some branch lines use them as there main loco. And its true that they are considerably cheaper than locos.
Those modern tractors are on the other hand quite a bit faster and also have a lot of tractive effort (the Unimog that is often use can pull 1000 tons)
Sad to see how South Africas railways have fallen in modern times.
As a Canadian, I am always pleased by the random stuff named
“Canada _____” (junction, square, etc.) - makes me feel like they were thinking of us after all 🥰
They had already had traction engines for decades. Clearly they approached this topic the wrong way.
Would be cool if you could find pictures of Trackmobiles in action (they have a couple of them at the Shelburne Falls Trolley Museum, in Shelburne Falls, Massachusetts; unfortunately, these are as far as I can tell not in running order). This had a neat idea -- the road wheels were at right angles to the rail wheels, so you drove perpendicular to the tracks to get on and off them, then put the rail wheels down on the tracks (the road wheels actually lifted up), and then coupled onto a couple of cars to push or pull them. The Trackmobile brand still exists as a part of the Marmon Group, but they don't seem to make units with the right-angle design any more (they seem to be all in-line like other road-rail vehicles).
I myself am a south african so its nice to see Train of Thought make a video about a south african rail motive vehicle
There was a line on the original Metropolitan[London],called the Verney Junction line,which used a converted steam traction engine for motive power,unique! Also the PRR,and B&O,were using traction cars for switching in the Baltimore dock areas,another unique bit of unusual motive equipment history!
I subscribed today because you have some very unique subjects that are not often covered. Thanks for sharing this.
Couldn't help tapping my feet together cos of Trevor's theme.
I like how you used the theme of a certain tractor
I like how the sound in the background is just the theme of terrence the tractor.
Having Trevor's theme as the background music for this is perfect lol.
I think hes playing Trevor's theme song From Thomas & Friends
“The Dutton Road & Rail System” - I love it!
Don't think you can get Trevor's theme past me, nice one 👍
correction.
they were technically "steam tractors".
not "cars"
steam powered machines with diferent forms of design and type on ground
Kinda reminds me of the name "Motor Road and Rail"
It looks like George the Steam Roller.
"RAILWAYS ARE NO GOOD! TURN EM INTO ROADS!
Trevor’s theme 🤣🤣💀 love it
Great video...👍
Finally south africa is in here!
Video idea: GWR 4300
They went to the Western front during World War One and are the second most produced great western steam engines behind the panniers
Imagine failing at BOTH things you were designed for. Couldn’t be me🥲
Dutton: I suffer dreadfully and no one cares
Should have made it so these could jack up on two sets of rails on both sides, and then attached a chain to the main running gear to the rail wheels, so that it drives just like a small locomotive, but when needed it can detach and go off road on its regular tractor wheels.
Or maybe just made a bigger truck.
In the opening of this video you have used a photograph of a SAR class 1A taken by myself Leith Paxton without acknowledgment or my permission.
Terribly sorry about that. If you'd like to discuss the matter of usage, compensation, credit etc, please contact me at my business email: twicetrainfacts@gmail.com so we can resolve the issue
Talk about the EMD BL2, it's a good idea, as it had tried to do the same idea, grab the benefits of two things into one
I think it was mostly just bad implementation. If they'd designed it around the width of the rear motive wheels so they sat on the rails, it would have likely worked okay. That would make it more akin to the road-rail vehicles we have today. It just wasn't a well-designed adaptation.
Dang 30 mins late from the vid
a precursor to the modern hi railer (which are pickup trucks used for maintenance of way)
Trevor's illegitimate cousin.
right idea, wrong time
I can hear the trevor the traction engine theme
For 1923, this seems to be was a ridiculous idea. Petrol engines were all over the place by the 1920s and this little loco's power requirements were well within the capabilities of available engines in the 1920s.
They hadn't made the massive leap forward that they did in the thirties (one of the reasons tanks had such thin armour around then). In 1924 petrol engines were finicky, needed constant tuning, were comparatively fuel hogs and were often fragile. In the 1922 Railway Journal* there's cautious enthusiasm for those new-fangled diesel trains in Sweden.
(*this is available on the Internet Archive and I really recommend it as a source)
@@jameslawrie3807 - Thanks for your reply. For larger engines, a gasoline-powered locomotive was impractical in 1920. But the Ford Model T (20 HP, 4 cylinders) was well on the way to its 15 million total production between 1907 and 1927 (or so). The McKeen Motor Co. built 152 gasoline (petrol-) powered railcars between 1905 and 1917 in the U.S. I know that the McKeen cars had many problems due to issues like clutch failure. But I think their engines, which ranged from 100 to 300 HP, were more powerful than what would be needed to pull a handful of freight cars with a tractor. At any event, the cost and complication of maintaining an almost miniature boiler and steam engine makes me shudder. Live steam engines are a great hobby, but these things don't scale down well, when you are running steam for some profit-making purpose, you know?
It didn't need the front rail wheels. Just pull the rail wagons while straddling the rails.
Fascinating, I wonder if anyone’s tried to make a model of this in On30 or On3
Yes, me.
ruclips.net/video/6Eu6-HJfvu4/видео.html
This is one of the tractors that ran at wembley. It's still work in progress but there are 2 other videos of it on my channel too. It's in OO9 scale which is the British equivalent of HOn30
now to just make a video on the Avontuur Railway. pretty pretty please with a GP-38-3 on top
Meanwhile trackless trams still exist...
Building Climax or light Garrett locomotives would also have fixed the problem.
Most interesting
Day 1 asking Train of Thought to make a video talking about fireless locomotives
Wasn’t this on the ToT cursed Live stream?
Good informative video but please don’t use this background music again, it’s infuriating.
How about covering the streamlined gwr kings
Uhhh.. roads are no good turn them into railroads?
Pull em up, turn em into railroads!
… wait.
Boats are even more efficient, should've made a land-going boat instead.
I Like The Steam Engine
It seems to me that electrification would have met the problem better. The concept wasn't wrong, though.
If we had a hybrid system like this in the us Rail might not have a bad representation, if done properly
Havr you seen The Transporters?
I DEFINITELY THINK HIS IDEA HAS MERIT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN HINDERED BY PROBABLY HIS OWN MONEY AND THE TECHNOLOGY OF THE TIME WHEN LOCOMOTIVES HAD MULTIPLE DRIVING WHEELS AND HIS THING ONLY HAD ONE SET
I love sond seam wissel❤
has south africa ever built a _normal_ locomotive?
Gives “Sigi Strasser” vibes
Perhaps and idea before it's time?
The most goofy ahh traction engine
These multi-purpose invetions are always poor across industries.
It didn't work. But ill be damned it was pretty clever.
All they needed was a railbus with petrol engine >.>
I get the sense this was more for freight rather than passengers.
🚂🚜💪
they could have just got a car and put train wheels on it and when the driver feels like driving off the rails, he/she can just steer off of the tracks
So you mean a Hyrail?
Not sure if cars of the day were up to pulling as much as they'd need to... but that is very much a thing that exists now, and it does work quite well for the things its used for (note: Generally actually pulling trains any distance is not one of those things, though they do sometimes get used for shunting.)
Are there any railroads, past or present, that are profitable?
Plenty. It's not actually that rare when they're not mismanaged into the ground (though, much like airlines, there are a lot of routes that are quite necessary and useful that only turn a profit due to subsidies... ... ... frequently those subsides come from other, much more profitable, lines that they feed into, and which would be Less profitable without them, though.)
Note that if you used the standards railroads are usually held to to determine if 'highways' or 'airlines' were profitable, the vast majority of Them would fail too.
All such transport infrastructure produces most of it's 'proifts' not in terms of ticket sales, but in terms of increased tax take due to the increased economic activity it facilitates.
(actually, turns out a lot of big cities with massive suburban sprawl, mostly in the USA but also in other places, are actually bankrupting themselves with maintenance costs for roads on routes that railways would serve just as well if not better for a fraction of the cost to both the city's budget and the actual user (ticket prices can drop below car fuel prices, let alone fuel plus upkeep prices, on well used and managed railways, even with the railway still turning a profit. And that's before taking into account the percentage of the road user (and even non-road user)'s tax bill that is eaten by road upkeep.)
And then the French made their subways the same
Tf?
108th
uh
Qp
13th
Reminds me of the Patiala state railway in India. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patiala_State_Monorail_Trainways