Trackless trams (a type of guided bus )

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/ProfPCDoherty/status/1044711205783265280

[SurfRail]

Peter Newman is a clever cookie, but he is persistently wrong about a number of things:

- Mandurah line costings are representative of costings 10 years after it was contracted, in more difficult terrain which is not substantially owned by the government
- Doncaster rail will do anything substantial other than cannibalise Hurstbridge and Ringwood patronage
- This.

I've ridden on Translohrs and similar.  They are SHITE.  Horrible ride quality.  This is even worse because it doesn't even have a fixed guide rail.  The rails are a massive advantage, not a weakness.

[ozbob]

https://vimeo.com/290106133

[ozbob]

Have a look at the video.  Newman reckons the ride is very good and the video of it tends to confirm it.  It has a lot of extras to stabilise the vehicles.

[verbatim9]

Great video, but he doesnt mention Brisbane as a potential site? I would of thought the Brisbane Metro project certainly would be a contender! Or is Brisbane and the Metro project just a basket case in reference progressive urban planning?

But I would like to see this as a vehicle of choice for the Bnemetro project (300pax capacity). This is future proofing. Especially the 4th Generation model being marketed next year. By 2023 the battery capacity would certainly be improved.

[ozbob]

Newcastle Herald --> NSW government says it's too early to roll out trackless trams in Newcastle

The state government says trackless trams are an untested technology and it is too early to consider them as a viable option for extending Newcastle's light rail network.

The Newcastle Herald quoted leading sustainability academic Professor Peter Newman AO this week saying trackless trams cost one tenth of light rail and can stimulate urban development in the same way.

The world's first trackless tram, running on rubber wheels and using automated optical guidance to follow dots on the road, was unveiled by Chinese firm CRRC last year.

But a Transport for NSW spokesperson said on Thursday that the technology had not been developed to the extent that it was a reliable alternative.

"Guided Electric Transit Systems, known commonly as trackless trams, are still in their infancy around the world with mixed results as to their viability and success," the spokesperson said.

"Due to the technology still being developed, Transport for NSW is not currently considering Guided Electric Transit Systems as a mass transport solution, but we are monitoring its development."

This position was supported by Monash University public transport researcher Professor Graham Currie, who said CRRC was the only manufacturer of the technology.

Professor Currie said the CRRC tram was "very encouraging", but he was "very supportive of the view we need to learn more".

He said it would be difficult for customers to get a good deal if the technology had only one supplier.

"Mature technologies need to have more than one supplier, otherwise you get this sort of effect," he said.

"We've got to move ahead because our cities are growing. We've got to invest now.

"All governments should have their heads in looking at this. We should be looking at it for the future, but we should get on with what we're doing now." 
A trackless tram in Zhuzhou, in south China's Hunan province.

A trackless tram in Zhuzhou, in south China's Hunan province.

Professor Currie said CRRC was one of the largest rolling-stock companies in the world, if not the biggest.

"They're an incredible organisation, but I was just at InnoTrans, the world's largest exposition of railways, and they were there, but they didn't have the trackless tram, which is interesting.

"Why would they not bring that along?"

He said other light rail alternatives coming out of Europe were more like buses.

The Transport for NSW spokesperson said the government's Future Transport 2056 transport strategy was designed to "incorporate emerging technologies as they become viable transport options".

The government says it will complete a strategic business case for extending Newcastle's light rail line by the end of this year and place it on public exhibition early next year.

"The need for improved bus services is also being considered as part of the strategic business case," the spokesperson said.

[verbatim9]

Newcastle Herald --> NSW government says it's too early to roll out trackless trams in Newcastle

The state government says trackless trams are an untested technology and it is too early to consider them as a viable option for extending Newcastle's light rail network.

The Newcastle Herald quoted leading sustainability academic Professor Peter Newman AO this week saying trackless trams cost one tenth of light rail and can stimulate urban development in the same way.

The world's first trackless tram, running on rubber wheels and using automated optical guidance to follow dots on the road, was unveiled by Chinese firm CRRC last year.

But a Transport for NSW spokesperson said on Thursday that the technology had not been developed to the extent that it was a reliable alternative.

"Guided Electric Transit Systems, known commonly as trackless trams, are still in their infancy around the world with mixed results as to their viability and success," the spokesperson said.

"Due to the technology still being developed, Transport for NSW is not currently considering Guided Electric Transit Systems as a mass transport solution, but we are monitoring its development."

This position was supported by Monash University public transport researcher Professor Graham Currie, who said CRRC was the only manufacturer of the technology.

Professor Currie said the CRRC tram was "very encouraging", but he was "very supportive of the view we need to learn more".

He said it would be difficult for customers to get a good deal if the technology had only one supplier.

"Mature technologies need to have more than one supplier, otherwise you get this sort of effect," he said.

"We've got to move ahead because our cities are growing. We've got to invest now.

"All governments should have their heads in looking at this. We should be looking at it for the future, but we should get on with what we're doing now." 
A trackless tram in Zhuzhou, in south China's Hunan province.

A trackless tram in Zhuzhou, in south China's Hunan province.

Professor Currie said CRRC was one of the largest rolling-stock companies in the world, if not the biggest.

"They're an incredible organisation, but I was just at InnoTrans, the world's largest exposition of railways, and they were there, but they didn't have the trackless tram, which is interesting.

"Why would they not bring that along?"

He said other light rail alternatives coming out of Europe were more like buses.

The Transport for NSW spokesperson said the government's Future Transport 2056 transport strategy was designed to "incorporate emerging technologies as they become viable transport options".

The government says it will complete a strategic business case for extending Newcastle's light rail line by the end of this year and place it on public exhibition early next year.

"The need for improved bus services is also being considered as part of the strategic business case," the spokesperson said.

Makes sense! I have seen other articles that the tech is in its infancy. Hence the Bne metro project is unlikely to rush and use this type of technology unless there is huge  advancements by 2020?

[#Metro]

Makes sense! I have seen other articles that the tech is in its infancy. Hence the Bne metro project is unlikely to rush and use this type of technology unless there is huge  advancements by 2020?

You can outlicence technology to a local or other manufacturer. That gets around the "one supplier" issue neatly.

[verbatim9]

Makes sense! I have seen other articles that the tech is in its infancy. Hence the Bne metro project is unlikely to rush and use this type of technology unless there is huge  advancements by 2020?

You can outlicence technology to a local or other manufacturer. That gets around the "one supplier" issue neatly.

Do you think the Chinese consortium that's owns the tech will do this?

[#Metro]

Do you think the Chinese consortium that's owns the tech will do this?

It helps if you ask. Company is faced with getting 100% of nothing and being unable to sell anything in the AU and NZ region otherwise.

Could be a new industry here given the underutilised car and rail manufacturing plants around the country, coincidentally almost always located in places that need more jobs.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1054771532407291909

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/MelbUrbanist/status/1186741109755506688

[Gazza]

With these systems, why cant the optical guidance system essentially vary the path the tram follows within a certain range (say 300mm either side) so it doesn't wear ruts in the road?

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/trnsprtst/status/1186766486305738752

[verbatim9]

Sydney's new CBD light rail line is unlikely to be expanded because automated metro trains and so-called "trackless trams" are more suitable for the city's future needs, says NSW Transport Minister Andrew Constance. https://t.co/zhe5KryBXz

https://twitter.com/Schrinner/status/1206730425051172864

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/TomaszAndraszek/status/1212392476440268800

[verbatim9]

https://twitter.com/TomaszAndraszek/status/1212392476440268800

^^True electric rubber tyre trackless trams still have the Rubber Tyre fragment pollution.  While tradition electric trams with steel.wheels, track and overhead wiring are overall better for the local environment.

But with the car traffic on the Freeway right next to the busway as major contributor to rubber tyre particle air pollution; I don't think trackless trams (metro buses) will be an environmental issue.

[#Metro]

The post compared mode vs mode rather than mode vs project requirements and timing.

Is the capacity of LRT justified in the area at this time? What about funding horizons?

Provided that the bus has doors on both sides, and runs in class B ROW, is there really that much difference?

[ozbob]

ABC News --> Researchers say economic and environmental benefits could flow from trackless tram in Townsville

Researchers say a trackless tram network could bring huge social, economic, environmental benefits to Townsville — if car-loving locals were willing to use it.

Key points:
Study found the trackless tram network could increase surrounding land values by six per cent
There is also a list of 30 risks, including construction costs, poor battery performance in humidity
Townsville business group estimates it could generate over 170 construction jobs
The Sustainable Built Environment National Research Centre (SBEnrc) has examined how the innovative technology could transform Townsville.

Trackless trams are battery-powered vehicles that follow sensors on the road and look similar to light rail.

"It's like a light rail but about a 10th of the cost," Peter Newman, a professor of sustainability at Perth's Curtin University and co-author of the report, said.

Professor Newman said if built the transit system would unlock the city's development.

It could be built incrementally, and would connect the city's separate retail, university, health and defence precincts with a route through the CBD and suburbs of Aitkenvale, Thuringowa Central, and Douglas.

"In this time of COVID, we've got a significant opportunity to start again with a whole new approach to the future of the city," he said.

But the report also said residents had a neutral-to-negative perception about using existing public transport.

Potential land value increase
The authors, from several universities, have looked at reports about Townsville's urban development potential, and gathered the perspectives of local stakeholders.

They found there would be potential six per cent average increase in the value of land surrounding the proposed network as a consequence of improvements in accessibility.

Other potential benefits of building the network in Townsville included easy access and mobility, job creation, improved economic diversity, and use of renewable energy.

Prof Newman said the project met the criteria of the Townsville City Deal, a 15-year plan between three levels of government aimed at growing the city's economy.

"It's innovative, it will enable affordable housing, it will enable the kind of sustainability outcomes that are all meant to be part of this kind of city deal," he said.

Risks and challenges
The study also lists 30 design, regulatory, social, financial, environmental operation and property risks.

They high construction costs, poor battery performance in the tropical climate and the possible decline or increase in property prices skewing the market.

"The risks don't outweigh the benefits," Professor Newman said.

"The risks are about how you deliver it and there are various steps to be gone through.

"We are doing a trial with the trackless trams in Perth and we will resolve many of the technical risks."

The report also said James Cook University was in discussions with SBEnrc about future trial sites and research opportunities for testing the performance of trackless trams in the tropics.

Townsville's peak economic body, Townsville Enterprise, has estimated a trackless tram would could about $81.5 million and create more than 170 construction jobs.

[SurfRail]

Yeah, I've read something recently suggesting (as we all suspected) that the performance and cost benefits from these things are nowhere near what was promised.

Townsville doesn't need these things - get artics to serve the 2 main Ross River Rd routes and run them more often, and then upgrade to light rail when justified.  Same with Cairns and the corridors identified in the Cairns Transit Network planning (ie Cairns to Gordonvale, Cairns to Palm Cove, Cairns to Smithfield via Redlynch).

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/AlanTudgeMP/status/1321997886549188610

[ozbob]

Public Transport Association of Canberra

Are trackless trams really ready to replace light rail?

https://ptcbr.org/2021/11/14/are-trackless-trams-really-ready-to-replace-light-rail/


Every few years a "revolutionary" new transport technology arrives on the scene, accompanied by a whole lot of fanfare about how it will render all other comparable forms of transport obsolete. Ten years ago, it was the "Transit Elevated Bus" or "TEB" which promised to solve congestion by straddling the road rather than taking up a lane of traffic.

Technologies like the TEB, which promise to fix our traffic woes at an affordable price thanks to the wonders of new technology, usually have one other thing in common – they never deliver on their wild promises.

When reality bites and these 'gadgetbahns' fail to live up to the hype, they often leave a trail of destruction in the form of traditional public transport projects that were delayed or cancelled thanks to unsubstantiated promises that this new technology could do the same job for less. In the end, the real losers are public transport users.

The latest technology to fit the mould is the "Trackless Tram" – a bi-articulated electric bus with optical guidance technology, manufactured by CRRC. Optically guided buses have been around since the turn of the century, but have struggled to gain traction due to dust, leaves, fog and severe weather limiting the practical functionality of the system in the real world.

Like most gadgetbahns, the Trackless Tram is currently being sold as a replacement for traditional public transport technology such as light rail. It does so by claiming to be cheaper and easier to install, while still giving the impression of being a high-quality system.

The cancellation of Adelaide's tram network expansion was justified on the basis that Trackless Trams will render such investments obsolete. Since then, there has been no investment by the South Australian Government in trams, trackless or otherwise. Money has instead been poured into extravagant road projects at the expense of public transport.

Other jurisdictions in Australia such as Geelong and Parramatta have also seen Trackless Trams floated as a viable public transport option. Proponents of the technology promise significantly lower costs and reduced delivery times as "there is no need to build rails, they will just use existing roads". Governments are led to believe that they can finally have their cake and eat it too.

There are many reasons to be sceptical of claims that Trackless Trams are "ready to replace light rail", made most prominently by Curtin University's Professor Peter Newman. To uncritically buy into this hype is to ignore the many reasons why high-quality public transport is so rare – namely, that it costs time and money to build, which requires strong political support to deliver.

This piece examines the claims made about Trackless Trams to better understand their merits compared with existing public transport technologies such as light rail or traditional bus rapid transit. While focused on the debate in the Australian context, this analysis could be applied to any mid-sized city across the world.

Claim #1: Trackless trams are one-tenth the cost of light rail
The most commonly cited benefit of Trackless Trams is that they cost significantly less to build than light rail. A frequently referenced figure has the system cost $6-8 million per kilometre to install. Newman compares this to the cost of light rail systems such as Canberra's stage one ($57 million per kilometre) to illustrate the apparent cost savings.

How Newman arrives at the $6-8 million per kilometre figure is unclear. Another article of his suggests that Trackless Trams could cost between three and ten times less than light rail. This relative cost estimate is derived from a 2017 feasibility study on rapid transit for Sydney's Parramatta Road that estimates the per kilometre cost of light rail at $15.1 million and a "guided electric transit system" at $5.6 million, which it claims are sourced from a separate, unidentified 2014 study by the Canadian Government.

While the Parramatta Road study makes clear that these cost estimates should be used as a comparative guide only, as evidenced by the significant lowballing of the per kilometre cost of light rail, Newman et al. make no such distinction when reproducing the figures in their "manual" for Trackless Trams. This manual also claims that Trackless Trams are cheaper than traditional bus rapid transit, with the methodology behind these calculations being equally unclear.

The inaccuracy of this figure is further highlighted by the details of the first serious proposal for a Trackless Tram system in Australia, between the Melbourne suburbs of Caulfield and Rowville. With no bridges or tunnels required, it should be an ideal demonstration of how Trackless Trams can be implemented locally with minimal cost or disruption.

Instead, at $74 million per kilometre, Australia's first Trackless Tram system is expected to be significantly more expensive than stage one of Canberra's light rail. Far from being "one tenth" the cost, the Caulfield – Rowville proposal suggests that the actual cost of Trackless Trams is within the normal bounds of an Australian light rail project, which can start from as low as $30 million per kilometre.

Why is this the case? After all, isn't a Trackless Tram just a fancy bus with some lines painted on the road? Well, as it turns out the truth is a bit more complicated than that.

Claim #2: Trackless trams can be installed quickly with minimal disruption
Following cost, the second biggest selling point of Trackless Trams is their alleged ability to be installed "virtually overnight", as claimed by Peter Newman et al.

If this were true, it would certainly give Trackless Trams an edge over light rail, which requires significant upfront construction. The recent experience of the Sydney CBD and South East light rail has shown what happens when projects of this scale and complexity are mismanaged. It is understandable that cities might look for alternatives to avoid repeating the same costly mistakes.

The most complicated part of building a light rail system is relocating critical utilities under the corridor. This enables the construction of a sturdy and dedicated right of way to separate the vehicles from general traffic. It is acknowledged by Newman et al. as being one of the key drivers behind the cost, time and disruption of building light rail that they claim can be avoided with a Trackless Tram system.

One of the traditional problems associated with running mass transit on existing roadways is the rapid deterioration of the pavement ("rutting") due to the heavy wheels running repeatedly over the same sections of road, resulting in an uncomfortable passenger experience and damage to the vehicles. This issue is one of the key reasons the French city of Nancy is decommissioning its fleet of guided rubber-tyred trams.

In January 2019, Newman et al. claimed that the unique technology of the Trackless Tram meant that rutting would not be an issue. Instead, the system was said to be free to operate on existing roadways without needing to construct a reinforced right of way, therefore eliminating the requirement to build the most difficult and costly component of light rail.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, these claims turned out to be wildly premature. By January 2020, rutting at the first commercially operating Trackless Tram line in the Chinese city of Zhuzhou was so severe that the optical guidance system was no longer capable of docking at stations, rendering the line noncompliant with disability codes after only one year of operation.

Despite the early optimism, Trackless Trams appear bound by the same laws of physics that apply to other heavy, rubber-tyred vehicles. To deliver the same smooth ride, level of passenger comfort and long-term infrastructure savings associated with light rail, Trackless Trams are likely to require a similar level of upfront investment to reinforce the roadway, along with all the accompanying time, costs and disruption.

This begs the question – how are proponents of Trackless Trams able to make sweeping statements about cost and disruption that appear to have very little basis in reality? As it happens, they don't have an awful lot of material to work with.

Claim #3: Trackless trams are already popular around the world
One of the strangest aspects of the hype around Trackless Trams is the speed with which they have gone from "emerging technology" to "tried and tested" in the public consciousness, despite there being very little publicly available information about the systems that do exist.

In reality, CRRC's Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit (ART) is a proprietary technology that has seen very limited deployment, with less than 50 kilometres of route currently in operation. These routes have already demonstrated shortcomings with the technology, including the identified rutting issues and top speeds significantly lower than the advertised 70km/hr (50km/h at Zhuzhou and 55km/h at Yibin).

Contrary to popular belief, Trackless Trams are an immature technology, with many of the purported benefits yet to be adequately demonstrated in the real world. What little evidence we do have instead suggests that Trackless Trams are destined to be the latest in a long line of gadgetbahns whose lasting impact will be the meritless and premature cancellation of otherwise worthy public transport projects.

Far from solving our congestion problems, there is a real risk that the false hype around Trackless Trams will do significantly more harm than good, leaving our cities more congested, less accessible, and devoid of public transport options that are actually proven to work.

[#Metro]

The provision of the guideway, running-way, or right-of-way is really the main cost. If it requires tunneling or exclusive lanes, then it is going to be expensive, no matter what vehicle ultimately runs along it.

[Gazza]

Bingo, and if you are building a ROW, why not embed a couple of nice hard steel rails that will outlast the trams themsevles:

https://assets.ehp.qld.gov.au/website/preview/image/lhis/116545?maxsize=1000&quality=8&format=jpeg&=.jpg

[verbatim9]

Perth Now---> Stirling to welcome trackless tram as part of Australian-first trial with Curtin University

The City of Stirling has secured a trackless tram as part of an Australian-first trial of the technology in partnership with Curtin University and the Federal Government.

Under the City's vision, trackless trams would travel 7km from Glendalough train station to Scarborough Beach to offer contemporary,

[verbatim9]

Still not as good as traditional LRT I reckon.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of this trial though.

[#Metro]

I think it is similar to what BCC is rolling out with the Brisbane BRT-metro, its just that the Brisbane BRT-metro has a driver.

I'm not sold on the lack of driver. Once your bus has lots of capacity (200-500 pax) there are so many paying passengers relative to the driver that I don't think it would really sway things cost-wise. High-tech also means all sorts of fancy sensors etc, which probably are not cheap.

They should just try the bendy buses that BCC are getting.

[ozbob]

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/grescoe/status/1570876514455154689

[#Metro]

It's a bus. 

[AJ Transport]

I'm against adopting systems which aren't already widely used (maintenance costs are too high and you're too reliant on one company for their proprietary technology).

But my understanding of these trackless trams is that the ride is much smoother and more pleasant than a bus, riders have a more tram-like experience. So I think they're superior to Brisbane's big bus.

[Jonno]

I'm against adopting systems which aren't already widely used (maintenance costs are too high and you're too reliant on one company for their proprietary technology).

But my understanding of these trackless trams is that the ride is much smoother and more pleasant than a bus, riders have a more tram-like experience. So I think they're superior to Brisbane's big bus.

They key question is can it move pph like light rail!  350-450 per vehicle(s)

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/johnb78/status/1571335402904236036

[ozbob]

^

[verbatim9]

CNBC--->


Trackless tram test roll out.

[verbatim9]

I didn't realise they were testing them in Isreal too.

[#Metro]

The test for whether something is a train (or a tram), among other characteristics, is whether the vehicle can or in principle depart from the guideway.

- If it can, it's a bus.

- It it cannot, it's a train.

ART is not a train, as it is possible to drive it off the guideway to a depot or somewhere else. It's a bus.

The same thing with Brisbane 'Metro'. It's a bus.

[ozbob]

^ correct #Metro.

' Trackless Trams ' are a type of guided bus.

The guidance systems can be be optical (e.g. laser) or electronic, or physical eg. O-Bahn.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/humantransit/status/1651042167786467329

[ozbob]

I have registered for this.