Announcement

Collapse

New Site - PLEASE READ

Hello All,
My name is Ashley and I am the one that moved the forum to its new hosting location. This was done for security reasons and try to keep the forum from going down every other day. I understand that the new forum looks very different from the old one but I promise almost everything you had before you still have it might just be in a different place.

Items that are gone due to a limitation of the new hosting/ forum update:
- Awards
- Flags

As I was going thought your posts I was able to fix a lot fo the issues you were listing. Below is kind of a running list of issues an what is fixed and what I am still working on.

Items that I have fixed from your comments:
- Smilie are now working.
- Color/Theme changes
- Signature are now showing up. (Here is how to edit them https://screencast.com/t/OJHzzhiV1)
- Ranking is now showing up.
- Private messaging is now working.

Some issues I am still working on are:
- Missing items from the Calendar
- Like button the posts is giving an error.

One other note I have seen a lot is theme/color related items. I know this is important to all of you but at the moment the most important thing was getting you back a functioning forum with as many features I can get you back from before.

Theme/color is something we can change but it the moment I do not have the time and resources to fix all of the issue and design the site. I did do some theme updates yesterday but it is very time consuming. Please just be patient with the forum as we get it back to as close as I can to what you had before.

If anyone has any issues that they are running in to please let me know in the post below. Please give me as much detail as possible .
https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/forum/world-history-group-welcomes-you/armchair-general-magazine/5034776-new-site-please-read
See more
See less

Rails and zombies

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    It doesn't depend. The draw capacity of a locomotive is based on tonnage. Whether that tonnage is toilet pager, sand-bagged flatbeds, or flat screen TVs does not matter. The train I am suggesting (you're the one calling it armored) has sandbagged flatcars and boxcars with firing ports. Fully crewed they amount to less than 20% capacity.

    Its simple physics: rail is the most energy-efficient means of land movement. Buses, trucks, cars,, whatever, does not compare.

    And the bulk of land transport, by ton, is done by rail.

    Like I said: fuel and maintenance. Look at the weight of spare parts and maintenance goods consumed by a light motorized battalion for 1000 miles of motor march. Look at the same for a single locomotive prime mover. The latter can draw more weight for less fuel, and requires less repair parts.

    Logistics: its what is important.
    Various people have made various suggestions. If you're talking about simple flat cars with sandbags then its obviously far more efficient. But it's also far from invincible. Fine it's total weight that counts, but the point was that the more defenses you load on the less carrying capacity you have. Unless you're suggesting that these trains would simply ride around shooting zombies and serve no other purpose. What percentage of ground transport, by ton, is rail vs. truck? Again, if you're purely considering economics / logistics, then water wins by a considerable margin over any ground transport, including rail. That could certainly be utilized in coastal areas, many rivers (they don't all run north / south) and the Great Lakes in North America for example. Just as in reality currently, a combination of methods makes the most sense, depending on the particular circumstances and priorities.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
      .... And the bulk of land transport, by ton, is done by rail......
      A quick and easy fact check,

      http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/ri...Goods/table3_1

      40% by truck, 26% by rail.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
        AFVs also require high amounts of maintenance and repair parts. One freight locomotive can pull seventy rail cars and requires less maintenance per mile and use/day than a single Bradley.

        An entire mechanized infantry battalion cannot move as much personnel or cargo as a single train, will burn 6000x as much fuel, and require more maintenance in a month than the train will require in just over seven years.

        So you could field sixty armored trains for less fuel and maintenance than one battalion.

        Amateurs discuss tactics; professionals discuss logistics.
        Usually if armor is transported by road it is by HET, which is much more efficient than driving tracks around.



        But then you have to realize that the HET itself is a beast of truck. Instead of the trailer setup, make it like a tank truck with a big huge fuel tank on the rear axles. Beef up the windows so that zombies cant break through. Put a type of locomotive plow on the front to plow through crowds. Cage the lights and add lights. These trucks could be the road component supporting the train. They would be strategically placed in fortified hills/mountainsides where they would be on call to provide water/food/fuel/maintenance to trains that may find themselves stopped. The HETS roll out with only the mission to bring the train back up and get back to their bunker as soon as possible. There could be protected turrets on top with M2's firing high explosive incendiary rounds that would shred bodies into pieces. I don't see a need for higher rate of fire guns or autocannons as they would burn too much ammunition and would be overkill. Mk19's and M2's should do the job of clearing away zombies just fine, although I would love to see the damage a canister round fired from a 75 mm howitzer HET gun-truck could do to a group of zombies.
        Last edited by Frtigern; 05 Dec 14, 10:00.
        The Europa Barbarorum II team [M2TW] needs YOUR HELP NOW HERE!

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Gooner View Post
          Better off with one of these



          At least you know you can't run out of fuel.
          Water is going to be the problem here... Its always water with steam engines. But for clearing the tracks something like this should work. It does not require extra energy.

          Attached Files
          One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by deadkenny View Post
            I'm not talking about weight increasing (it obviously doesn't), but the density (as I said) does as it is compressed. I doubt you've encountered a situation where thousands of cows were deliberately trying to jam themselves in. And it's not about individual cows (or 'zombies') 'winning', it's about whether the train derails, which it might. Again, it comes back to the wall scaling scene in WW Z, where they operate en masse. Presumably the ones on the bottom were crushed, but the ones on the top got over the wall. Once your train derails, you're dead.
            Density won't increase past a terminal point because the mob does not have a fixed point. As the trains weight and moment pushes in, the mob will expand outwards. the only way your method would work is if the mob was compressed by outside forces.

            The wall scaling scene in WWZ was childishly stupid. There was no explanation how such a wall was built so quickly, why it was built without any means of defense besides height, and it ignored the simple fact that long before the half-way point was reached the calcium-based support structure (the zombies at the bottom) would have collapsed, bringing down those above them.

            The scene was based on ants, which have an exoskeleton, and the fact that many people don't demand much depth to their fiction.


            Originally posted by deadkenny View Post
            Depends on the particulars. More true in areas with a more dense rail coverage.
            Looking at the map, its very true. Certain as true as with roads.

            Originally posted by deadkenny View Post
            You should offer your services to the real world shipping industry and save them a ton of money then, because they apparently don't appreciate your 'realities'. That plus I think you're ignoring the need to maintain the rail lines themselves. A pothole can be avoided, but a similar problem with the rail line can cause a derailment.
            Rail maintenance and repair, like road repair, is an ongoing process. Just as dredging and cutting operations on rivers. No one suggested otherwise.

            Originally posted by deadkenny View Post
            In the real world, road wins out over rail due to flexibility (as I've noted in my previous posts). Ships crush any ground based method based on economy. Rail is a compromise that certainly has its advantages (otherwise it would have disappeared entirely in advanced nations) but isn't a 'magic bullet' solution by any means.
            Absolutely not.

            Like I've said: professional discuss logistics. The fuel and repair parts per tonnage moved far exceeds anything that road mobility can compare to.

            Besides, if you had bothered the read the entire thread, you would see the proposition includes vehicles deployed from the train.

            Originally posted by deadkenny View Post
            A quick and easy fact check,
            You should make more of an effort. That chart includes short-haul operations which rail services do not engage in, and agribusiness lift to and from railheads.

            If you read the entire thread, I haven't suggested that rail be the sole method, just the most logistically efficient method of large scale operations.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Hanov View Post
              Water is going to be the problem here... Its always water with steam engines. But for clearing the tracks something like this should work. It does not require extra energy.

              Yep. Snow-clearing fixtures will do the job nicely.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                .... The wall scaling scene in WWZ was childishly stupid. There was no explanation how such a wall was built so quickly, why it was built without any means of defense besides height, and it ignored the simple fact that long before the half-way point was reached the calcium-based support structure (the zombies at the bottom) would have collapsed, bringing down those above them.

                The scene was based on ants, which have an exoskeleton, and the fact that many people don't demand much depth to their fiction.
                By that same standard, your entire 'zombie' scenario is just as "childishly stupid". Trying to claim that 'zombies' should 'work' one way vs. another is ridiculous. 'Zombies' make no sense whatsoever in actual reality. The hypothetical context to those comments was 'what if' zombie work the way that they did in WW Z. If that were the case, then that's how they would work. Trying to argue that one zombie assumption makes more sense than another is pointless. It's all purely fictional. It works whatever way the script writer says it does. None of it has a basis in reality.


                Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                ... You should make more of an effort. That chart includes short-haul operations which rail services do not engage in, and agribusiness lift to and from railheads....
                The claim you made previously was "And the bulk of land transport, by ton, is done by rail." which is simply factually incorrect. Rather than simply admitting that you were wrong you've tried to move the goal posts. Do you really have so much vested in this rather silly zombie scenario?

                Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                ....If you read the entire thread, I haven't suggested that rail be the sole method, just the most logistically efficient method of large scale operations.
                No, rail is far less efficient than shipping. However, rail is more flexible than shipping. Rail is more efficient than trucks, but it turn it is less flexible. There is a good reason why more land transport is done by truck than by rail, in the real world. The existing economics don't ignore the 'logistics' that you've repeatedly put forward as a sort of 'trump card'. They are very much factored in. Now if you want to ignore those realities in your zombie scenario, that's fine. Afterall, it's all pure fiction anyway. But it's inconsistent to then try to claim those same realities support your argument, when in fact they do not. Enjoy.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by deadkenny View Post
                  By that same standard, your entire 'zombie' scenario is just as "childishly stupid". Trying to claim that 'zombies' should 'work' one way vs. another is ridiculous. 'Zombies' make no sense whatsoever in actual reality. The hypothetical context to those comments was 'what if' zombie work the way that they did in WW Z. If that were the case, then that's how they would work. Trying to argue that one zombie assumption makes more sense than another is pointless. It's all purely fictional. It works whatever way the script writer says it does. None of it has a basis in reality.
                  You are apparently unaware that the CDC has conducted viral outbreak response training for scenarios which are essentially 'zombie' in all but the title.

                  Originally posted by deadkenny View Post
                  The claim you made previously was "And the bulk of land transport, by ton, is done by rail." which is simply factually incorrect. Rather than simply admitting that you were wrong you've tried to move the goal posts. Do you really have so much vested in this rather silly zombie scenario?
                  I am merely pointing out facts. You googled on chart and made a claim. I pointed out that you weren't telling the truth. I was generous by taking the assumption that it was simple ignorance on your part. Now I'm thinking I was far too kind...


                  Originally posted by deadkenny View Post
                  No, rail is far less efficient than shipping. However, rail is more flexible than shipping. Rail is more efficient than trucks, but it turn it is less flexible. There is a good reason why more land transport is done by truck than by rail, in the real world. The existing economics don't ignore the 'logistics' that you've repeatedly put forward as a sort of 'trump card'. They are very much factored in. Now if you want to ignore those realities in your zombie scenario, that fine. Afterall, it's all pure fiction anyway. But it's inconsistent to then try to claim those same realities support your argument, when in fact they do not. Enjoy.
                  And we're back to: professionals discuss logistics. So far, you have not grasped, or admitted, the simple facts of fuel, lift, and maintenance.

                  Zombies at the moment are fiction. The physics of train movement, fuel consumption, maintenance requirements, and load capacity are all simple, undeniable facts.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                    I am merely pointing out facts. You googled on chart and made a claim. I pointed out that you weren't telling the truth. I was generous by taking the assumption that it was simple ignorance on your part. Now I'm thinking I was far too kind...
                    You made a claim initially. That the "bulk" of ground transport was by train. That is false by any reasonable measure. If you have data to back it up, please provide it. I actually chose the most favourable measure for trains, by considering ton-miles, when I quoted the figures of 40% trucks vs. 26% trains. That accounts for the fact that trains are used on longer trips. If considering straight tonnage, trucks are far further ahead. Now you say that I'm the one who's not "telling the truth". You are simply wrong in the claim that you initially made. You've made no effort to back it up. Those figures are entirely consist with others I've seen, which all point to the falseness of your claim that trains carrying the "bulk" by ton. Put up or shut up.

                    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                    .... And we're back to: professionals discuss logistics. So far, you have not grasped, or admitted, the simple facts of fuel, lift, and maintenance.

                    Zombies at the moment are fiction. The physics of train movement, fuel consumption, maintenance requirements, and load capacity are all simple, undeniable facts.
                    Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're some random person posting on the internet who hasn't provided a single verifiable piece of evidence to back up his claims. On the other side there are people who work in the industry who favour the use of trucks over rail by a considerable margin. If you want to spin a fictional tale of zombie killing trains zipping around the country, go ahead. Please just don't try to claim that any of it has a basis in reality, or make false claims that you can't back up with real world evidence.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Hmmm ...

                      ... do you think you could make your locomotive run on Zombie scat? They do shite, right? Do Zombie's freeze up in the winter? Or do they hibernate, ready to reanimate in the Spring? So many questions ...


                      Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                      You are apparently unaware that the CDC has conducted viral outbreak response training for scenarios which are essentially 'zombie' in all but the title.



                      I am merely pointing out facts. You googled on chart and made a claim. I pointed out that you weren't telling the truth. I was generous by taking the assumption that it was simple ignorance on your part. Now I'm thinking I was far too kind...




                      And we're back to: professionals discuss logistics. So far, you have not grasped, or admitted, the simple facts of fuel, lift, and maintenance.

                      Zombies at the moment are fiction. The physics of train movement, fuel consumption, maintenance requirements, and load capacity are all simple, undeniable facts.
                      "I am Groot"
                      - Groot

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by deadkenny View Post
                        You made a claim initially. That the "bulk" of ground transport was by train. That is false by any reasonable measure. If you have data to back it up, please provide it. I actually chose the most favourable measure for trains, by considering ton-miles, when I quoted the figures of 40% trucks vs. 26% trains. That accounts for the fact that trains are used on longer trips. If considering straight tonnage, trucks are far further ahead. Now you say that I'm the one who's not "telling the truth". You are simply wrong in the claim that you initially made. You've made no effort to back it up. Those figures are entirely consist with others I've seen, which all point to the falseness of your claim that trains carrying the "bulk" by ton. Put up or shut up.
                        I already have.

                        Originally posted by deadkenny View Post
                        Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're some random person posting on the internet who hasn't provided a single verifiable piece of evidence to back up his claims. On the other side there are people who work in the industry who favour the use of trucks over rail by a considerable margin. If you want to spin a fictional tale of zombie killing trains zipping around the country, go ahead. Please just don't try to claim that any of it has a basis in reality, or make false claims that you can't back up with real world evidence.
                        You need to read the entire thread. You're the one harping on train versus zombie.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Marmat View Post
                          ... do you think you could make your locomotive run on Zombie scat? They do shite, right? Do Zombie's freeze up in the winter? Or do they hibernate, ready to reanimate in the Spring? So many questions ...
                          Viral zombies are humans affected by a virus, excited delirium in a more stable form.

                          So there really aren't many questions.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                            I already have.
                            None whatsoever. If you really have, please link the previous post in your reply.


                            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                            You have a lot to learn about this forum. Go easy.

                            And you need to read the entire thread. You're the one harping on train versus zombie.
                            Well, the title of the thread is "Rails and zombies". Your OP is here:


                            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                            OK, I'm working on a concept: the US (and everyone else, but who cares about them) has been hit by a zombie outbreak. The government has been able to retain control of some areas.

                            I'm seeing the railroads as the primary source of communication, as rails are incredibly efficient, and trains themselves are easily zombie-proofed.

                            I'm thinking salvage operations and counter-zombie operations will be train-based, kind of like the armored trains use din the Russian civil war.

                            Say a salvage train: engine (with anti-zombie window/door/hatch protection), tanker car for fuel, a couple flatbeds with travel trailers as housing, the trailers inside a welded steel 'cage'. A couple flatbeds with deployable ramps with vehicles. A number of boxcars to hold the goods salvaged, a passenger car or two as needed for rescued subjects.

                            The train pulls onto a siding (ideally a remote siding free of zombies). The vehicles (diesel trucks so fuel is interchangeable) deploy off the flatbeds and conduct salvage/rescues operations, using the train as a 'mothership'. By dark the vehicles return, load back up onto the flatbeds (the ramps would be a tricky issue, since you can't count on facilities), and the operators bunk for the night, resuming the next day.

                            Once an area is worked out or the train is full, either relocate or head back.

                            Depending upon the length of the daylight hours and the terrain, salvage/rescue teams could forage nearly two hundred miles from the train for short operations (longer ones in summer).

                            So, what am I missing, overlooking, or just plain ignorant of?

                            Would a fuel car be needed?

                            Can you mix freight and passenger cars?
                            I think you mentioned trains a few times there yourself.

                            As for what you're "missing, overlooking, or just plain ignorant of?" I would say for starters the real world economics of various modes of transportation. Then perhaps the fact that zombies have no basis in reality and one completely fictional rendering of them is no more or less "childishly stupid" than another.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by deadkenny View Post
                              Well, the title of the thread is "Rails and zombies". Your OP is here:

                              I think you mentioned trains a few times there yourself.

                              As for what you're "missing, overlooking, or just plain ignorant of?" I would say for starters the real world economics of various modes of transportation. Then perhaps the fact that zombies have no basis in reality and one completely fictional rendering of them is no more or less "childishly stupid" than another.
                              Fuel, maintenance, lift: still hard and cold facts.

                              If you read my OP, it said nothing of running over zombies with a train. That's your fixation.

                              I know you don't come around much, but go easy on the snide. I would rather not have this thread locked.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                                Fuel, maintenance, lift: still hard and cold facts.

                                If you read my OP, it said nothing of running over zombies with a train. That's your fixation.

                                I know you don't come around much, but go easy on the snide. I would rather not have this thread locked.
                                You posted this earlier:

                                Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                                .... You googled on chart and made a claim. I pointed out that you weren't telling the truth. I was generous by taking the assumption that it was simple ignorance on your part. Now I'm thinking I was far too kind...
                                So perhaps you should start with heeding your own advice before dispensing it to others.

                                The chart that I 'googled' was from the US Department of Transportation. It clearly refutes your claim regarding the 'bulk of land transport by ton' being by rail. Rail isn't even first, never mind the 'bulk', by any measure. You started the entire thread about trains in a zombie apocalypse scenario. Now you've repeatedly accused me of being 'obsessed' with trains? I wasn't even the first one in the thread to suggest a WW Z wall scaling type of problem. But I guess you just posted this thread to have others lavish you with praise over your 'brilliant' train idea, and have no tolerance for contrary opinions.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X