RAIL - Back On Track Forum

They need to stop calling them trams. If it can depart from the guideway, it's a bus.

https://x.com/ozbob13/status/1705960468077244792?s=20

I'm still not clear what is actually happening here - a genuine trial would involve enough vehicles to run some sort of appreciably useful timetable.  I suspect the existing Route 990 will continue running between Scarborough and Perth via Glendalough and I can't see that the City of Stirling and its partners would be bringing over enough of these things to even cover a fraction of the services currently provided.  I'd be guessing it would be only a limited portion of the current route (maybe Scarborough to Innaloo or Glendalough only).

https://www.transperth.wa.gov.au/timetablepdfs/Bus%20Timetable%20206%2020230716.pdf

I saw it on the news, and its going to literally be a single unit running around in a car park, not unlike how those driverless bus trials were conducted.

^ Quelle surprise.

Maybe they can use it as an internal shuttle in one of the Stirling station car parks.

https://x.com/Ahead_of_Curve/status/1725345893468319972?s=20

https://x.com/ozbob13/status/1725701247548948754?s=20

How do these vehicles compare to Brisbane (not metro) vehicles? On the surface they look similar?l.

Quote from: kram0 on November 18, 2023, 16:16:19 PMHow do these vehicles compare to Brisbane (not metro) vehicles? On the surface they look similar?l.

Similar. Brisbane ' Metro vehicles ' are battery electric bi-articulated buses steered by a driver at all times.

The vehicle being trailed in WA is a battery electric bi-articulated optically guided bus (they can be manually steered if the need arises).

It is not as simple as some think ...

That's probably why they don't want the BNE Metro buses on the road with full loadings for the same reason. Hence being constraint to the Busways.

Quote from: kram0How do these vehicles compare to Brisbane (not metro) vehicles? On the surface they look similar?

Hi Kram0, so there are some differences between this and Brisbane Metro, apart from the automatic guidance part:

1. Doors on both sides of the vehicle, like a tram. Brisbane Metro bi-artics have doors on only one side. This means that a trackless tram does not have to pull into the left lane and stop at a kerb. It can stay in the road median.

2. Bi-directional driving, like a tram. This means there are driving cabs at both ends of the vehicle. It means that the vehicle doesn't need to make a turn at the end - the driver just switches cabs. Brisbane Metro bi-arctics are only driven from the front, and thus a turning circle, circuit, or roundabout needs to be provided for them to turn.

I think this sort of vehicle could really take off as it would allow bus stops to be placed into road medians, where it is faster than having to get stuck behind left turning traffic. It would also be a contender for the Sunshine Coast Mass Transit vehicle.

The so called 'trackless trams' haven't taken off yet.

The only lines in use are in China.

There are problems, not insurmountable.  Be interesting to see how this trial goes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Rail_Rapid_Transit

Quote... However, because the ART is a guided system, ruts and depressions could be worn into the road by the alignment of the large number of wheels, so reinforcement of the roadway to prevent those problems may be as disruptive as the installation of rails in a light rail system. Researchers in 2021 found evidence of significant road wear due to trackless tram vehicles, which undermined claims of quick construction, with the researchers finding significant road strengthening was required by the technology. The suitability of the system for winter climates with ice and snow has not yet been proven. The higher rolling resistance of rubber tires requires more energy for propulsion than the steel wheels of a light rail vehicle. ...

FYI

Emma Thomas
CEO at Sunshine Coast Council

> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/emma-thomas-ceosunshinecoast_masstransit-sunshinecoastcouncil-activity-7132490021625860096-oXUx

https://x.com/OzzyAussieOtty/status/1728599611890389047?s=20

Yes, the metros and the trams in China and across Asia usually have plastic or stainless steel moulded seats.

Cleaner I suspect.

Plastic seats are done on a cost basis. Cheaper fleet initial costs. Cheaper to replace. Less staff required for mtce. Cleaning normally involves a pump with cleaner and a hose. sh%t for riders but cheaper $$$ for the operator.

Trackless Trams   


Something like this would be fantastic down Mains Road or Kingsford Smith Drive, possibly Old Cleveland Road. These could be tram-like median island platforms, and unlike LRT, could run directly into the busway system without a new bridge or tunnel.

QuoteIn the morning on Sunday the 26th of November 2023, the City of Stirling held its first public trial of its new "trackless tram" vehicle, showcasing it to the public and seeking their feedback. In this video we attend the event and ride the tram up and down the carpark at the council building, also getting several exterior shots of it there as it follows its designated guidelines (on the real road it will follow a magnetic track).

https://twitter.com/MAndrewWaugh/status/1728652044284870897?t=PgG9EGSOh6Qzn43Bof0jdQ&s=19

Why is it assumed the Victoria Bridge can take the weight of these things or that the road surface won't be wrecked?  Or for that matter it can properly interact with crewed buses in the same corridor?

Steel wheels on steel rails.  Proven.

'Gadgetbahn' not needed.

Doing some quick calculations on the damage these absolute units do to a road. Equals out to about 10-15 times the damage of high traffic from mixed sources per lane. So you need to rip up and resurface the road to reinforce it. So why not just install rails when you rip the road up and be done with it? There's even the trackless "trams" posted earlier with a steel guide rail and overhead wires. What's the bloody point? You've made 90% of a tram but produced something that is less efficient, gives a worse ride and destroys your road for what? Just so you can say you built something that isn't a tram? I'm convinced not a single engineer is involved in the consultation process when choosing to buy one of these.

Well, for one I am glad this technology has come out and it is being tested in the field. We should be very supportive of a trial, because trials generate new information that either confirms or allows us to reject an idea using facts and observations. Trials are a great way to discover the pros and cons of this mode.

No doubt City of Stirling will test it thoroughly.

Light Rail is better in many respects in the same way that a Ferrari might be better than an ordinary car, but it is not better in other aspects - costs and project delivery turnaround time. In many cases, this is a dealbreaker for the project.

City of Stirling Trackless Tram Business Case
https://www.stirling.wa.gov.au/your-city/shaping-our-city/search-all-projects/trackless-trams-business-case

I just rewatched the promo video and noticed that they use the figure of up to 500 passengers per tram. This is only true for the 5 car model, not the 3 car that they're testing. So that would increase the road wear to about 200 times the damage of mixed high traffic. This thing is going to make the road look like an IKEA mattress.

The layout is also horrid.

There are only 3 doors, which would make passenger exchange and movement much less efficient. 

The interior also looks very narrow.  Seating capacity looks lower than a Gold Coast Flexity 2 within the equivalent length, which is probably a function of the vehicle width not permitting 2x2 seating.

The Flexity 2s used on the Gold Coast don't have pivoting bogies so the wheelsets intrude into the interior more than on some other models (although the various CAF models floating around the country now where 2x2 seating is not possible in places are worse).  Jacobs bogies would help with that, but it would make the trams more expensive and given the line's geometry is not really required.  However, even with those issues, they look quite roomy compared to this pokey looking thing.

I was curious if simply adding more axles (or double wheels per axle) could be a way to reduce pavement rutting.
Curiosity got the better of me. I didn't find an answer to my question, but I stumbled across a few interesting links. I thought a few of you might find them interesting.

This one compares vehicle weight against busses, LRT and heavy vehicles: http://publictransportresearchgroup.info/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Reynolds-Pham-and-Currie-2021-Trackless-Trams-and-road-pavement-impacts.pdf

This one (Auckland LRT related) also casts doubt over the stated capacity.
https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/ALR-trackless-tram-tech-note-Sept-21.pdf

Great paper - good research is a great thing to have. I will add it to the research thread.

Not great news if you have modal favourites (conclusion in bold):

QuoteWill pavement strengthening reduce the construction and infrastructure cost advantages that the Trackless Tram has compared to Light Rail? We don't think so. Newman et al. (2018, p. 85) show an estimated cost of $10M per km (excluding vehicle costs) for Trackless Trams versus $34-85M per km (excluding vehicles costs) for LRT (Table 1). It is unclear how much allowance for roadworks is included in that $10M per km, but even if pavement costs prove high the Trackless Tram appears likely to still be much cheaper than LRT.

Newman is talking out of his arse - he's been captured by the proponents of this technology for years.

If you have to dig up the road for utility pit related purposes and to build stations it won't really matter what each one costs.  A fair comparison is more or less impossible to work out given that and the fact these systems are proprietary.

Quote from: #Metro on November 27, 2023, 10:43:14 AMGreat paper - good research is a great thing to have. I will add it to the research thread.

Not great news if you have modal favourites (conclusion in bold):

This is misleading, because cost is not the only variable. In the other article I linked, they articulated the 'trackless tram' had insufficient capacity (seated capacity and total capacity). And that was considering a corridor with significantly lower pax than the SEBusway.

If repaving is required, then I fail to see how 'trackless trams' stack up.

Cost isn't the only variable but as I mentioned earlier, using an analogy, if one compared an ordinary car to a Ferrari, the Ferrari would outperform on most specifications - except cost.

Hence the reason most of us drive around in ordinary cars, and not Ferraris. Even though they are 'better'.

Similar thing here.

As for the linked document from Auckland Light Rail, Auckland light rail price tag is $NZD 14.6 billion or so. It is currently an at risk project which the new NZ Government is likely to scrap due to astronomical costs. This demonstrates my point.

In terms of capacity, we are interested in line capacity more than the vehicle capacity.

In addition to that, roads are routinely resurfaced every few years. Rutting already occurs on parts of the bus network such as Melbourne Street portal, and it seems to be managed. You may have noticed parts of the busway already use reinforced concrete in parts.

It would be interesting to see whether this road maintenance cost would fall into a project specific budget or a general roads budget, as currently the roads buses run on outside of the busway network aren't paid for by the bus operator.

Notes

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/10/incoming-prime-minister-christopher-luxon-to-scrap-light-rail-auckland-mayor-suggests-cheaper-option.amp.html

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/national-to-scrap-governments-146-billion-light-rail-project-in-auckland-and-spend-on-seven-roading-and-public-transport-projects/UVUSFZ2N7VH77BKM4LWVH6R5X4/

Line capacity and vehicle capacity will always be together but so too does network design. For instance heavy rail in Queensland on selected lines will always go to 9 car trains instead of increasing frequency simply due to cost. Cost for rollingstock. Cost for signalling. Costs for crews.

The busway network is horrible as it makes great claims for capacity and numbers but there are serious fundamental flaws.

We have problems here on the existing bus network where 66 services are filled to the brim and then 20 seconds later a near empty one rocks up. I've mentioned this to death but we have people wanting to go to Chermside from Roma street or king George square but physically can't not board a large portion of 330/333 services as uni students transfer to them from cultural centre instead of boarding a 66 as they are over crowded. Meanwhile empty 111/222 and a host of other services go empty past. Some people will wait for a 330/333 instead of a 66 purely because of the 66 crowding. The same thing will happen with the metro project. It will dump everyone off at CCBS/KGSBS/RSBS and then everyone boards the same regular buses again.

Roads aren't always being resurfaced. But it doesn't help when the BCC spends over half its budget on road projects. You also have to remember the majority of the metro bus travel isn't actually on bcc roads but state controlled infrastructure.

Curtin University, WA Department of Transport, City of Stirling, CRRC, NHVR and a whole host of other organisations are working together to get road certification for this vehicle through testing in Perth.

This is a highly intentional and co-ordinated effort. Feedback will go back to the CRRC factory in China to adjust the vehicle design.


You cannot view this attachment.

Note the doors on both sides of the vehicle. I believe the suspension of trackless tram vehicles borrows from railways as well.




Note, the vehicle appears to be driving on ordinary roads. There seems to be a driver which suggests that the autonomous driving/guidance feature isn't being used.

Note the doors on both sides. Note how it's still simply a bus.

Ref: This is the bus description, images from here and Google.

The difference between trackless trams and articulated buses is mostly cosmetic, essentially a form that is shaped like a tram, with wheel covers or hidden wheels to make it look more like a tram.
All of them to date have some form of guidance system. I guess dual cabs is another point of difference.

Think of it this way. You have a hatchback or an SUV. They both have 5 seats, 4 wheels, 4 doors, rear hatch and a motor.
"On paper" that means they are identical but in the real world they are not.

https://x.com/aaron_hill/status/1742677194852442608?s=20

Well, buses exist. Better buses should be welcomed. According to the discussion video earlier in this thread, the suspension on trackless trams are borrowed and adapted from rail.

Yes it will probably compete with LRT at the lower volume end of the market. That's what competition does.

It will mean though that cities that are smaller can get some form of mass transit going sooner, for less, or both.

Train/tram manufacturers should offer a better/cheaper product if they want to hold market share.

Why is this a better bus though? Looks slow.

Notice how in that footage several sections have the video sped up.
You can tell because the other cars are zipping past unnaturally fast, and the PID on the front of the vehicle is scrolling too quick.

BBC ---> https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgxq3v3d088o.amp

^^I think this is where RACQ got their idea from in regards to  trackless light trams in the suburbs.