China introduces trains without rails (contractor, electric, transit)

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

The "trains" in the OP appear to have the same form factor as a typical light rail train. Why would they require more ROW?

That was going to be my response as well. As far as I know, there are no "bends" in the Beltline that would require a sharp turn anyway. The only difference I can really discern here is the absence of track line...a big plus ($$$$$) in my estimation.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

The "trains" in the OP appear to have the same form factor as a typical light rail train. Why would they require more ROW?

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

That was going to be my response as well. As far as I know, there are no "bends" in the Beltline that would require a sharp turn anyway. The only difference I can really discern here is the absence of track line...a big plus ($$$$$) in my estimation.

A busway needs to allow for a certain amount of 'drift', even with a guide. This means that more than just the vehicle's width needs to be paved, especially if the vehicles are running at any kind of speed. Light rail doesn't. They can fit in anything as wide as the vehicle is. The tracks keep drift to practically non existent levels. That allows tighter tolerances, and greenery between the rails, which are both important for the BeltLine. Additionally, the rails offer an extra safety measure to keep vehicles from accidentally turning into pedestrians, even in the off chance they jump the track. These buses don't have that.

Some similar guided busway projects to what was shown here have actually had issues where they were even more expensive than implementing light rail or streetcars. Rutting pavement has been a real problem with these systems in the past, adding lots of maintenance costs for the right of way, the vehicles themselves still have the higher maintenance costs of buses, and unless you spend the money on an electric system the fuel costs are higher over time.

All this is is a more expensive articulated bus that has many, if not more problems of trying to put buses on the BeltLine versus rail. Its a tired old debate that's already been run ad nausium. This doesn't change anything about it.

Originally Posted by arjay57

Those old boys in China don't mess around.

They really, really do, though.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

A busway needs to allow for a certain amount of 'drift', even with a guide. This means that more than just the vehicle's width needs to be paved, especially if the vehicles are running at any kind of speed. Light rail doesn't. They can fit in anything as wide as the vehicle is. The tracks keep drift to practically non existent levels. That allows tighter tolerances, and greenery between the rails, which are both important for the BeltLine. Additionally, the rails offer an extra safety measure to keep vehicles from accidentally turning into pedestrians, even in the off chance they jump the track. These buses don't have that.

Some similar guided busway projects to what was shown here have actually had issues where they were even more expensive than implementing light rail or streetcars. Rutting pavement has been a real problem with these systems in the past, adding lots of maintenance costs for the right of way, the vehicles themselves still have the higher maintenance costs of buses, and unless you spend the money on an electric system the fuel costs are higher over time.

All this is is a more expensive articulated bus that has many, if not more problems of trying to put buses on the BeltLine versus rail. Its a tired old debate that's already been run ad nausium. This doesn't change anything about it.




They really, really do, though.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your POV.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

A busway needs to allow for a certain amount of 'drift', even with a guide. This means that more than just the vehicle's width needs to be paved, especially if the vehicles are running at any kind of speed. Light rail doesn't.

These new Chinese trains can make sharp turns.

No need to fool with laying tracks -- just paint on the sensors. The driver is only there to take over in case of an emergency.

The width of the cars is 2.65 m, which is the same as the Siemens S70 that the Atlanta streetcar uses.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr9-J3nOKbE

[primaltech]

Rail is definitely the right choice for the Beltline, but I'd like to see these 300-passenger-capacity, battery-powered road train vehicles running on the roads, replacing buses, functioning as a light rail line. At least on certain key corridors in the metro.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by arjay57

These new Chinese trains can make sharp turns.

No need to fool with laying tracks -- just paint on the sensors. The driver is only there to take over in case of an emergency.

The width of the cars is 2.65 m, which is the same as the Siemens S70 that the Atlanta streetcar uses.

The problem isn't a matter of turning radius, it's a matter of simple drift potential while operating, and general margins of error. As I said, the buses need roads wider than they are to be able to operate due to natural drift to one side or the other as the sensors track the guide, and the inaccuracies of tires on open ground, especially at any kind of speed. It's why BRT required more land to implement a Connect 400 route than heavy rail.

Streetcars and light rail don't have those problems, and even have the added benefit of being able to grow grasses and plants between, and right up to the rails.

Originally Posted by primaltech

Rail is definitely the right choice for the Beltline, but I'd like to see these 300-passenger-capacity, battery-powered road train vehicles running on the roads, replacing buses, functioning as a light rail line. At least on certain key corridors in the metro.

Instead of implementing some specialty thing that's barely, if at all, actually in the market and which as no 3rd party support, why don't we just use already tried and tested BRT systems?

If this becomes commercially available, complete with multi-company, and 3rd party support, then great, but similar systems that have been implemented in the past have had real affordability problems in both the short and long terms. Some even cost more than an equivalent implimentation of light rail and streetcar, and had even worse per-rider figures.

Standard BRT is the real solution in addition to the planned streetcar and light rail routes for now, not a system that doesn't have the commercial viability to properly replace existing modes.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by primaltech

Rail is definitely the right choice for the Beltline, but I'd like to see these 300-passenger-capacity, battery-powered road train vehicles running on the roads, replacing buses, functioning as a light rail line. At least on certain key corridors in the metro.

I think these would make great replacement for Northside BRT and Buford Hwy, even Peachtree if it gets dedicated lanes. But not the BeltLine or it's crosstown routes.

[cqholt]

Streetcars and light rail don't have those problems, and even have the added benefit of being able to grow grasses and plants between, and right up to the rails.

Eugene Emerald Express BRT has paved tire tracks.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Eugene Emerald Express BRT has paved tire tracks.

Just to point out, the difference between this and the OP is the missing center guidance paint & pavement.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Eugene Emerald Express BRT has paved tire tracks.

I like that idea of having grass between the pavement, cq.