France has been fascinated by rubber tired rail cars since the 1930s when they developed the Micheline rubber tired railcar. There are actually a few still running in Madagascar but they are having trouble keeping them in service. The problem - you guessed it - getting tires for them.
@@KRYMauL Germany? France? Austria? Just to name a few ... For example, the tracks given up in Germany weren't because of Autobahn, but because "oh, these don't make enough money" - in other words, failing to understand network effects. (And many of them are now slowly being returned to service because politics has finally started to prioritize more climate-friendly transport solutions.)
@@KRYMauL From a quick Google: _Albania has a GNI per capita of $5,210. After the USSR's disintegration in the 1990s, Albania shifted from a socialist economy to a capitalist market economy. Although it is the fifth-poorest country in Europe, its economy is continually improving._
One issue you didn't mention is energy efficiency. Rubber-tired vehicles consume significantly more energy than steel wheels on rails, and as energy costs rise, you may see some of the rubber-tired systems being phased out. It also seems to me that some of the systems with both tires and steel wheels are more expensive to build and more expensive to maintain. Unless the tires provide a vital benefit (such as steep grades), I'd stick with the tried-and-true technology.
While I definitely think most of these tyre alternative modes are unnecessarily expensive, I generally think the energy efficiency point is greatly overblown. Energy costs should be going down as vehicles are electrifies (current European crisis not withstanding), and honestly the real advantage always comes from getting people out of a car.
@@neolithictransitrevolution427 I agree that rubber-tired public transit is far more efficient than automobiles, but I've read that moving freight by rail is 3 or 4 times more fuel-efficient than by truck. I assume that there is a similar fuel savings when comparing rubber-tired trains to standard rail. While the fuel costs may not be a significant factor right now, it's only going to go up. We need to make our cities less car-centric and more walkable/cycleable, and provide more public transit (even if it has to have rubber tires!). We also need to modify zoning, so that homes, shops and workplaces can all be within walking distance of each other.
@@neolithictransitrevolution427 rapid transit is mostly electrified anyway, and if carbon pricing works as planned, that electricity is probably going to get more expensive for a while, and energy is already a major operating cost from what I understand
@@Bobrogers99 Agree on all points, although I think a portion of the Frieght issue is the Giant train engines are far more efficient than the comparatively little truck engines, and average train speeds are actually quite slow compared to highway traffic trucks. Also, there is a good chance electrical costs will go down (relative to inflation of course).
@@feynaomi In the medium term the price will go up, but in the long term it will be decreasing as wind/solar farms pay off thier debt and produce effectively free energy, and perhaps with SMRs offering safe and flexible nuclear or Closed Loop Geothermal offering low cost power anywhere. Awfully huge chunks of the cost right now are building new transmission and rate subsidies for older versions of technology that is now cost competitive. Wind and Solar are both outbidding Coal plants, which is evidence of the net decrease in the cost of generating electricity.
I can't speak for other cities, but in the case of Lausanne (Switzerland) "Paris-style" rubber-tyred metro was a really great choice. The line literally replaced a urban rack railway in its lower part, and is (correct me if I'm wrong) the steepest rubber-tyred line in the world. It has been a huge success since its opening in 2008, constantly outpacing usage predicitions. The construction of a new line has been approved and will use the same rubber-tyred technology (again, because of the slope of the city).
Lausanne’s M2 metro could totally have used standard steel wheel trams. At the cost of lower accelerations. But the line, as is, is undeniably a success.
CDMX in Mexico has a mix of tyre and rail systems in its metro. It got me reading into it and the only real benefit I can see, is rubber can handle steeper inclines more effectively. There are other minor advantages, but I don't think they justify the use of rubber tyres. Being from the UK, I don't think London has any rubber wheels on the line and London is one of the best run metro systems in the world. Although I acknowledge London's underground is expensive, was built without any central planning and sometimes has poorly designed platforms. Edit: and London is mostly pretty flat.
@@Joshua-fi4ji Was reading that Mexico City is slowly sinking/settling over time, so its metro/subway tracks' profiles will change slightly over time also, & using rubber traction is less likely to lead to derailments as a result compared to steel traction (probably because rubber is a more flexible material)
Rubber tyred metros are a mild health hazard by virtue of the amount of the PM 2.5 they spew out. Also the underground rubber tyred Paris metro line stations smell horrendous because of the tyres.
@@BraxtonMeyer If you are talking about tire vs tyre, it depends on where in the world you're coming from. On a world wide scale either is acceptable.
A lot of that is because the wheel sets on the bogies don’t steer, at least on older versions. Both axles are rigid, as on a steel rail system, so on curves the ‘road tyres’ scrub around curves, much as the rear tyres on a non-steering twin rear axle truck do. Must make them wear and release their toxins much faster.
This is interesting because PM2.5 pollution is actually much better in the Montreal Metro when compared to the Toronto subway, even though Montreals system is entirely underground and quite air sealed!
Hi Reece, this video is much better than the one it replaced! My limited experiece with rubber tired trains, Montreal, is that the ride is equally comfortable and loud to steel-wheeled metros. Incidentally, I have only heard the screeching on the Toronto subway in the sharp curves into and out of Union. Thirty years ago, the screeching used to happen many more places in the system, so it is much improved.
@@Freshbott2 I am not sure exactly what changed. I think I remember hearing that the wheel profile was slightly different on newer train models, but I am not an expert on train design. (Maybe someone who is could comment.) I am just thankful that my trips between Old Mill and Jane are not interrupted by soul-piercing screams from the wheels as they were when I was a teenager.
@@andrewclarkson3401 I have no idea about metro/tram systems (even less specific ones), but I do know that at least DB actually uses automatic lubrication (at the rail) on sharp curves, to reduce the noise as well as the abrasion.
@@Freshbott2 Couple of big influencers: 1) welded continuous rail is infinitely easier on trucks/bogies 2) developments in flange lubrication have come a long way
A couple of minor additional points: Standard trams aren't too bad at hill climbing. Sheffield (UK), Prague (CZ), and especially Lisbon (PT) systems all have steeply-graded sections that regular trams cope fine with. Obviously if you have a really steep hill you might need rubber tyres, but only really at the extreme end of the scale. Secondly, one of my least favourite aspects of rubber-tyred metros is the smell of burnt rubber, and the tiny particles of rubber dust which passengers can't help but breathe in. I'd much rather endure flange-squeal than the smell of burnt rubber.
Those old four wheeled Oporto and Lisbon trams are amazing - how they get up those really curvy inclines is fabulous, not to mention coming down again! Line 28 in Lisbon! It’s been a few years, but I did notice that the old Lisbon and Oporto trams had had their running gear updated. This was after most of the older suburban trains on the London Underground Metropolitan Line dating from the 50s and 60s had been withdrawn. The new four wheel sets and sub-chassis for the Portuguese trams were each one power bogie/truck from the withdrawn London Underground trains, reconditioned. Nice bit of recycling!
In my home area, there was a trolley line with near 20 percent grades in locations. The 4 motor cars had no issue no matter the weather getting up and down the line.
I work in a light rail control room in Canada and you've got a lot more knowledge than a lot of the people I've worked with. You could make good money as a project consultant, especially with all the new projects opening in Toronto
I think that some gadgetbahn systems and respective technology (translohr, rubber-tired metro) may have a usage where classical systems fail or have major issues. Probably one of these cases are cities with a difficult topography where "steel" trains would need long tunnels and shallow gradients to change height, while rubber tires can use much more steep inclines, but without the need to build a funicular style system.
For the Medellin-Tram: A regular tram would have been possible. But, coincidentally, the system was built with a loan given from the French government. That was after representatives of French companies visited the country. You know, things just happen sometimes. :)
@@alfrredd THey have the best engineers of the world, best transit technologies (Alstom high speed, or Citadis, VAL technology bought by Siemens), solid consulting companies for the studying like Systra and excellent construction engineering companies like Vinci, Bouygues, Eiffage, all of them have build Trams, Metro, HSL.
I watched the Medellin Tram videos. That route with those slopes and curves, mixing with traffic and sudden stops etc. could NOT be possible with steel wheel regular trams. They would have to make bridges, tunnels and knock down a lot of building for a regular tram.
I think I have to mention that iron rail is "quite heavy". In my country, Japan, AGT (Automated Guideway Transitmit) ≈ Mitsubishi Crystal Mover is often used in bay area where the ground is not firm enough.
At least in Japan, automated guideways are at least well-implemented (at least in the Tokyo area). But some of these "gadgetbahn" systems are mechanical nightmares not worth building in the long run.
@@deptusmechanikus7362 Crystal mover technology can operate without a driver, the yurikamome line in Tokyo is driverless and has platform screen doors.
Speaks about Taipei Wenhu Line with that rubber tyre, I still recall former mayor of Taipei Chen Shui-bian quote: 馬特拉不拉 我們自己拉 (If Matra don't want to push our train, we will push the train by ourself) After the construction of Wenhu Line, the rolling stock provider MATRA suddenly terminate their contract to maintain them, surprised the Metro Taipei and government because they need to assembly their own crack team fast with homegrown component. Luckily Taiwan's industry prowess allow them to still let it run until today.
There is a similar system to these where I go to university. It's called the Morgantown PRT. They are self driving buses that run on a grade separated guide-way. Each car carries 15 passengers (if you overload them they scream at you). The system was built in the 70s and it has garnered a reputation for unreliability in recent years. It actually broke down a few hours ago; right as I was about to get on. It's an interesting system, and is the largest of its kind. It may be worth looking in to for a video sometime.
I think there is a big gap between those technologies, the translohr is a pain to use, it's shaky, often delayed, has frequent issues and so on. On the other hand, the VAL is such a pleasure on the daily, it sails smooth (unlike the neoval which apparently is quite shaky), is quite silent, and has 1 min headways. And as a user waiting 1 min instead of 8/9min can shorten your trip by a LOT.
You talk about the tram in Clermont Ferrand and for that thank you. One big thing I like about rubber tired trains, especially in Paris is that they are much more quiet than standard systems (this is one of the reason why the line 2 & 6 have been equipped with it) Also it helps with large hill. As a user of the Paris metro everyday to go to work I prefer taking the line 14 over the line 7 (which is as loud as it can possibily be, the MF77 is an absolute horror) even if it means having 5 to 10 minutes of travel in addition. If you ever go to Paris you might be interested in "Les journees du patrimoines" where the RATP allow us, with someone from the RATP, to go on the track of some unused station like Haxo where you will be able both rubber and non rubber track. This was the place where they first tried rubber tired track. On another hand one thing I like about how it was implemented in Paris is that the track are compatible with normal trains meaning that if they ever want to swap the train they can! On some occasion you will even find some metro from line 4 on non rubber tired track in order to go to maintenance.
The Nancy TVR will soon be replaced by 24m long trolleybusses, with "In Motion Charging" onboard batteries by HESS. Paris choice to build so many different and non-interoperable LTRs is just incredible ! (TVR, 2,45m/2,65 wide trams, 750VDC/1500VDC Overhead lines...)
I do think there’s benefits to having some non-standard transit technology around. Sometimes a later development only made possible by the fact people are still holding on to an odd system helps them become far more competitive. For instance, there were very valid reasons behind cities choosing buses over trams in the mid 20th century but they’re coming back because some cities held on to a seemingly inferior technology and figured out how to make them better. (Also, I will take the roar of rubber over the squeal of metal on metal *any* day.)
I'm using the Translohr T6 line south of Paris every day and I'm very happy with it. In addition it has a steep sections which it manages really comfortably, not bumpy and not at all noisy. Also it looks very good and is clean. I think it helped the neighborhoods around the line to significantly increase in value. I would say it is a great success.
My favourite transit choice anywhere is the rubber-tyred NS-93 on line 1 in Santiago. Huge windows, spacious, wonderful sound, and amazing acceleration and deceleration. Combined with the extremely short stops, excellent headways.
As a native of Boston who has lived in NYC since the 1980s (ie, lifelong familiarity with steel on steel subway and trackless trollies), I am an unabashed fan of the two rubber tire subway systems I’ve used extensively (Paris and Montreal). They provide a much more quiet (or at least pleasing to the ear) riding and waiting experience and in my opinion a much more comfortable ride whether seated or standing. Furthermore, I believe you stated it exactly opposite (in my subjective opinion) when you stated you don’t significantly prefer the ride in Toronto’s conventional system to Montreal’s rubber tire system, though YMMV and obviously does.
The difference in cornering for rubber/steel tires though is significant and it's not just noise. Rubber can take very tight corners and faster. The core issue with steel wheels is they don't have a differential and have to rely on banking which requires very precise tolerances to work well. With any vehicle going over any road/track there will be wear. The question is do you want the track wearing out or the wheels? I would argue it's better to have the wheels wear out. Steel wheels will actually erode not only the rails, but the sleepers and fish plates. This creates a safety hazard or forces trains to travel artificially slow because the rails are in bad condition. If you hear noise on the track then that is either the rails or wheels being stressed or being degraded. racks that support rubber tires usually don't wear out and don't require expensive/time-consuming repairs. The real problem however with rubber tires though is track switching...it is difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to have a switching system for rubber tires, while steel wheels can switch tracks very easily.
On the older Parisian lines, the rubber tyred wheels are non-steering AND on solid axles. So they scrub around curves, AND rotate at the same speed as each other. Wear and toxin release must be horrendous.
@@Twittler1 I agree that is bad. Honestly all metros should have differentials...they are quieter and reduce wear on tracks/wheels. Monorails actually have a decent solution in that they have one set of wheels for up/down and one set for laterally holding the vehicle to the track.
@@billyswong Added expense and weight for no real benefit. And another potential failure point; thick, heavy solid steel axles rarely break down. Split them to put a differential in - you’ve now designed in a weak point. The natural differential action of cone shaped wheel profiles is sufficient for all but the tightest curves. Some older trams/streetcars in North America (the PMT(?) types) did have Pullman bogies/trucks, the powered ones of which did have differentials. I rode them in Boston in the 60s, but whether they helped is another matter. Wheel squeal on tighter bends was as loud as ever. Modern low floor trams get round this by not having axles at all - each wheel is independent of all the others and independently suspended too. But they still squeal. It’s the nature of the beast (flanged steel wheels, steel rails).
@@Twittler1 rubber tired Paris metro trains have differentials since the beginning, in 1951... And I'm sure of that because I've got the plans and have seen them... As to why steel trains don't have differentials is due to the conical shape of the wheels doing this job. The exact profile of the rolling table determines the dynamic behaviour and is a great point where innovative shapes reduce screeching and wheel hunting. They are great at that in Asia iirc
I would love if you could discuss New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, its a fairly large system that should be covered, if you make one I think it will help more people understand our unique system.
Nice video! I like how you explain some technical aspects of the technology and why it was chosen, and still make your videos easily consumable by most people! Rubber tires usually cause a more bumpy, slower ride than steel wheels. I’m still hoping that urban maglev systems with speeds between 100-160kph get built, like the Linimo in Nagoya Japan and various Chinese urban maglevs. One major benefit to grade separated rail systems is that it can’t hit cars, bikes, pedestrians, etc.
Ok but the noise a pretty obvious win. I take the Montreal metro every day and I've experienced conventional rail metro in New York a bunch of times and the small roaring is much nicer than the metal friction noise imo.. It feels so much quieter.
I just consider it more meddling from a bunch of France wannabes. Mayor Jean Drapeau, should have had his butt kicked for it. (Also lived in this province my whole life)
The trains on Montreal Metro are LOUD when they depart from a station! Some say it’s the traction motor(I can’t find the source), but I really enjoyed it when I visited Montreal a few months back. Also I believe Montreal Metro has the highest capacity rubber tire metro trains out there. It’s a system that adds personality to the city, I do wish it was more expansive!
If you are talking about the sort of melody the older trains makes when they depart then yes it comes from the motors. They also decided to use that sound for the door closing chimes.
Loud traction motor startups is endemic to AC traction motors made before about the last decade, most common to trains from the 1990s-2009 or so. Prior to IGBT technology the gating transistors that AC traction motors needed to modulate their power were quite noisy. This sound is most notable on the 1993 stock London underground trains (the infamous sound of the Jubilee Line), the high pitched REEEEEEEEEEEEEE that LIRR M7 trains make at 6mph and the musical scale startup sound of the "singing" Siemens Taurus locomotives (most commonly used by OBB in Austria, go figure). The musical scale gating transistors of the Siemens Taurus was a deliberate easter egg on that locomotive.
it doesn’t have a lot of the disadvantages that RMTransit mentioned here because it’s literally just a fancy bus. There’s no guideways or rails or overhead lines, just wheels on tarmac.
The Yurikamome in Tokyo actually really benefits from the rubber tire rail configuration as it allows a smaller footprint across the small islands of Odaiba, Aomi and Ariake district. It also lets the smaller trains move faster and stop quicker, which makes the trip through the rather winding tracks a lot better.
I first experienced rubber tired Metro in Montreal when visiting Expo 67 World's Fair. As I recall, the advantage provided, was the slope downward leaving a station that helped accelerate the trains and the next upslope which saved on brakes. This also let the stations not be so deep as steel wheeled subways tend to be. Paris did not have that feature on the ones I rode there.
Nuremberg subway system was built in a way that the tunnels between two stations dip down a several metres in the middle. This helps with using less energy for acceleration and deceleration.
Singapore has such a design also though it also means that if you want to lengthen the platforms, the ends will no longer be level, which would complicate accessibility
Good video and I cannot help but add something. I don't think Translohr is better than a tram (and not just because the hybrid electric-pneumatic door system is unpleasant to test after we assemble it in our factory). However to be completely fair to it there are two advantages of it that I have not seen mentioned and as you said in some niche cases they can contribute to this system winning. 1. the noise - despite the guide rail the one I have seen in person in Paris was singificantly quieter in the street than a tram. Modern trams make the difference smaller and smaller with clever wheel designs but the only time I have seen a translohr running the lack of expected noise was the first thing I noticed and after I wondered why that is I finally saw that it is a Translohr and not a tram. So I guess in some cases this could be a factor when deciding what to build. 2. narrow spaces and two-wheelers - one thing I absolutely hate about trams is that whenever there is the need for the tram to go to the side of the road in a tram stop or the tram stop is extended towards the rails and there is no cycle path behind the tram stop away from the rails all cyclists passing throuh face a choice of two bad options - ride the narrow space between the high tram stop curb and the rail (and pray no stupid driver will start overtaking you in the remaining space where they fit with whole 5cm to spare) or you can cross the nearer rail at a horribly sharp angle, ride in between the rails through the tram stop and then cross back to the side again. If the rails are a bit wet and/or you are not capable of jumping with your bike you will crash and possibly get run over by anything following behind you. I have seen motorbikes crash in these tram stops too. Translohr will have something like 1.2m between the curb and the guide rail negating the need to go over the rail. So if I had to mix something like a tram line with a lot of trafic on two wheels in narrow streets Translohr would get one plus point in the contest for this. So if the line is in a sunny dry city, passes through a flat center where tons of people cycle rather than walk and runs into steep hills on both ends where rich and powerful people living there demand it to be quiet Translohr just migh fit. It will be no cheaper to operate like you said but it could fit the need of such a transit line - climb hills, less noise and fewer raild in the road.
I recently moved to Adelaide from Melbourne Australia, in Adelaide they have something called the O-Bahn, it’s a bus most of the time but they have specific tracks at specific locations to reduce travel time and traffic congestions. I think that is pretty cool
I was actually surprised you didn't talk Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit (sometimes called "trackles tram" such as in an article by The Conversation - and that one is kind of a joke, really) which takes the Translor idea but with less infrastructure i.e. the "rails" is just paint on the street and the vehicles are battery only, no overhead wires.
@@KRYMauL While that's a common alternative name to trolleybuses (though I put them to the same category as normal buses in the same way how I call diesel trains diesel trains and not tracked buses), the vehicles of ARRT are battery buses and aren't connected by overhead wires.
That’s actually fantastic. Without using a steel guide and pantograph it can avoid the infrastructure cost and it can be varied very slightly to avoid wear. It can go up hill and have better braking. But it can all offer better amenity and higher capacity than BRT. “Paint on the street” isn’t an insult, it’s exactly how we designate bus lanes and stop cars from parking in public space for basically nothing. It’s treated as a joke cause “real trams” already exist but the idea actually achieves things trams don’t. Appealing to the status quo didn’t get horses very far when cars came around. I think these will be very common one day. While people discuss whether they can be a thing car companies are making electric vehicles and mining companies run guided trucks. They didn’t umm and ahh about it asking for permission.
I remember when Vancouver was considering GLT as a potential technology for the Evergreen Line extension. THANKFULLY cooler heads prevailed and they stuck with the SkyTrain technology that was already being used.
Maybe you should also make a video about trolley-busses, quite popular in the eastern Europe. The main advantage is that you don't have to lay any rails, only the trolleys and you have some (very little) flexibility while driving (if there is a pothole, for example, you can drive around), but you don't have the pollution from the combustion engine.
Rubber tired trams have a counterpart: a traditional bus running on concrete guide tracks for part of its route. I'm thinking of the O-Bahn guided busway in Adelaide, South Australia. Those are normal buses that run on normal roads for a lot of their route, but then run on concrete tracks to cover larger distances with negligible demand for stops along the way. I've seen them with double bendy bus configuration so they aren't quite as long as your average tram, but then a tram doesn't have to take very tight corners.
Interesting video and interesting first comment below this one. I always enjoy your good transit videos. I never fail to learn something. I find lots of worthwhile comments by your viewers also which adds to the enjoyment and learning experience.
I know very well this system in Mestre and in Padua; the interior is narrower then a traditional tram (the ancient P.W.s in Milan are a salon in comparison), but in these cities there are some particular bridges, where ordinary tracks could be problematics for the slopes.
I rode the Montreal Metro recently, and I really enjoyed it. I felt the ride quality was very smooth, smoother than other metros I’ve been on (tho I’ll admit I’m from the U.S., where track quality is quite poor), and had no issues with the noise. It’s quite a cool and easy to use system, and I really think it’s one of my favorite Metros. I do agree however that steel wheels could probably do the job just as well, but I had no problem with the tires.
Montreal has a deeply optimized system when it comes to speed, efficiency and capacity. Transmission of vibration to neighboring buildings is something that Montreal wanted to avoid. Montreal's Metro takes full advantage of rubber tire configuration to build high-performance trains that can accelerate quickly, negotiate tight curves and climb slopes of 6.5%, almost always at 45 mph. Steel wheeled trains would cripple performance as they are generally limited to 4% slopes and speed restrictions through tight curves.
In my hometown, Bologna, there has been an attempt to an optic guided trolleybus called Civis that eventually never entered in service (as local bus drivers considered it unsafe and it failed safety checks) and it had to be readapted to be used by new conventional trolleybuses. The vehicles involved were Irisbus Civis trolleybuses, which then were replaced for free by Irisbus (as compensation) by the Irisbus Crealis Neo. And anyway, in Italy there are two rubber-tyred trams using Translohr tracks, in Padua and Mestre, with one line in the latter system extending to Venice. As for the Nancy system, it was retired last month
I clicked on this because I recognized my tram (Bombardier in Nancy, France) on your thumbnail. It actually limped to its inaugural day, pulled by a wrecker, and since then, it's been 20 years of throwing money at it to make it kind of work... Finally it will be put out of its misery in the coming months and be replaced by super long buses with optical guiding or something like that.
I have used the BRT in Jinan, Shandong, China, and for that size of city (3,25 million inner city, 5.6 million metro area, making it a smaller city by Chinese standards), it is ideal. Station stops are very efficient due to fare collection at the entrance to the platform. Miss a bus and the next one is following in 2-3 minutes. The only unanticipated delays are red traffic signals, and that's necessary for safety of others, especially bike and moped riders. More expensive options are not needed.
In Lyon, France, 3 of the 4 metro lines are rubber-tired lines. The 4th is “steel-tired” because is the oldest and the steepest (the oldest section open in 1891 as a funicular line) and the extensions in 1974. This line is among the steepest in the world with a 17,6% steep in the 1891 tunnel. Here the slope isn’t taken with rubber but with a rack rail as third rail. The train is powered by over wires. It’s so specific than Alstom had to design a specific train with this all tech only for Lyon metro system. The three other lines are very similar to Montreal metro
Nice Crocodile/Krokodil model behind you. Another way to provide a smooth ride was the PCC cars used in New York and other U.S cities in the 1950s. They had air suspension and air conditioning and were the most comfortable way to travel until displaced by the automobile.PCC cars had all the benefits of rubber tyred vehicles with none of the drawbacks and ran on regular tram tracks with high efficiency.
Also got one in Bangkok. Bangkok is most varied transit city in the world, we have subway, monorail, trains, elevated trains and also rubber wheeled train. Right next to each other. Heck, our train system is so crazy, you have to get off the train, buy a new ticket, then get in again if you go over a certain part of the city.
Medellin's hills are one instance where rubber tyres are vital. The city is along a valley, with the translohr up one side. Other perpendicular routes are operated by cable cars (gondolas) except regular metro along a side valley. But a trolleybus would also work - electric power but no track requirement.
Hey, you talked about my city! I live in Caen, Normandy, the city that replaced tyred trams with traditional ones (at 7:21). I witnessed the old trams (which were small and crowded, such that on chilly mornings, a lot of condensation formed on the windows), the transition period (lots and lots of road works, and sometimes the old trams hat to use their motor engines on sone sections, since the power lines had been removed) and the advent of the new tram!
Really wish you can do a video on Morgantown's PRT. In a way it is also a "rubber tyre tram", which is powered by guide bar. And by nature, it is a gadgetbahn. However, from a different point of view, it's more of an attempt to make automated taxi thingy using 70s era technology, and the only practical (?) pod car system.
In Japan, rubber tyred transit systems have been introduced in 3 types, subway, monorail and auto guided transit (AGT). Only Sapporo City adopts a full scale rubber tyred transit system for its subway lines similar to those in Paris. Other monorails and AGTs are adopted by a large number of business operators as a medium-capacity rail transport system. A rubber tyred tram system has not adopted even a trading company marketed Translohr in 2000s but no adoption result was made.
The RATP (the company running the Paris métro) itself gave up with rubber-tyres at the beginning of the 1970s because they realized steel weels were just more efficient and retrofitting existing lines was too expansive. However it was deemed worth it to implement rubber-tyres on metro systems built from scratch. That's why Lyon, Marseille and every VAL network are rubber-tyred. Paris line 14 (opened in 1998) is also rubber-tyred but that was mostly for rolling stock mutualisation.
"External factors" like building a streetcar/bus hybrid with rubber tires being adopted in a city with a large tire manufacturer being based in it. 8:29 A very diplomatic observation.
I don't see why you couldn't do that with steel wheels. In fact, I believe that at least some modern US freight train engines actually do that. (Probably helps especially with three-axle trucks.)
@@KaiHenningsen we use them because of the steep grades along several portions of our track. The city is built on the side of a large hill and the majority of our guideway is elevated, so the cars have to be capable of going up steep grades at times.
Hi. French here. Rubber trains ("Michelines", Paris Metro) were invented to overcome wheel slip, for better acceleration, better braking, and thus more frequent services, a problem now solved by distributed traction and vector control of electric motor. Thus, new Paris metro lines are built with steel wheels nowadays. The 14 was designed in between, it was modern enough to be automated (with antique computer, even for the time, as far as I remember, all is managed with PDP11s!) , but quite not ready for super duper traction control with beffy power transistors. It also was a somewhat spinoff VAL, as VAL and M14 have some origins in the ARAMIS PRT project. The VAL uses rubber tires because it was designed by MATRA, of automobile racing fame. Thus, it's very light, it's a minibus on a concrete guideway, allowing very light guideway to be built for pretty cheap, with automation from the get go and high frequency. I don't consider both to be gadjetbahns. The Paris metro used tires because there was no other way to improve a technical problem at the time, and the VAL is a pretty capable light metro system with many advantages that allowed small cities to have a transit system. (I wont talk about translohr, ok? it doesn't exists. )
@@neolithictransitrevolution427 to be fair I think the neoVAL is more gadgety than the original one. The original one had become a standard with fleet interoperability possible, and the neo killed it with the stupid translorh-derived proprietary guide rail. In Rennes they now have two different systems completely not related thanks to this stupid idea from Siemens. The Rennes metro cannot be considered at network...
@@Damien.D I agree its a negative improvement, the original had a clear area of expertise (although, I think Skytrain out performs with a similar outlay)
The fact that rubber tires makes less vibrations is important for metro like Paris or Lyon when the lines are not deep. Vibrations spread to the nearby buildings, and living nearby a metro line, I am pretty happy with the rubber tires.
I used to live in a somewhat steep city in Switzerland and they just had dual-mode trolleybuses which ran off of overhead lines in the city center and diesel in the suburbs and countryside. I don't know why more small-to-midsize cities in North America don't take advantage of this model, as the startup costs are relatively low and the flexibility of the system is quite good.
The rubber tired tramway in Nancy, France has a very steep lane. But when there is snow or ice, they can use their diesel to follow the road (not as steep). Same for at least one of the parisian tramway, it climbs a big hill, that cannot be done using steel wheel. And for the parisian subway, for the line 6 (the aerial one with rubber), using rubber tires is much much quieter than steel. This is important when the subway is aerial in wealthy neighborhood. (The second aerial subway has steel wheel, but it moves in more popular neighborhood so....)
Hello Nancy choosed this (the name is TVR) instead of a tram for a few reasons. The city of Nancy is a medium city that can’t really afford a tram, and also wouldn’t be very rentable. Also, the constructor of the TVR gave some reasons why they have to choose to build a TVR: - Like you said, it’s has less constuction costs. - Doesn’t use guided rails all the time, and can work as a trolleybus. - faster build time. - “Secure”. But the TVR was catastrophic.. First, the maintenance was difficult because only two cities were using the TVR, so finding replacement piece was difficult. Secondly, the contact TVR-Rails was dangerous because the guide thing that was superimposed to the rail was to weak to support (I simplified the security problem). Also, after a few years, the rails got damaged very quickly. That caused multiple crashes. Then, the TVR line was only doing a half of the line for security. That was too much for Nancy. They decided to do like Caen, and stop the TVR. But there is a problem. Nancy can’t afford a tram. So they choosed to make a 24 meters buses line for 2022-2023, and this is finally going to be the end of the TVR.
I really liked visiting Montreal’s metro. It was so quiet and pleasant. Tire roar is far less triggering to me and I am sure other autistic people thank those tires. Metros are already over stimulating, the sudden metal screeches just push me over the edge. The bouncing was fun too lol. Why is this not a pro? Sure its not “smooth” like Japanese rail, but nowhere in North America has well made rail and bumps on that are bone rattling. I dont know where you mentioned efficiency, if at all - but i figured that the real issue was rolling resistance and vastly increased energy use. Is this not the case?
Some comments mentioned VOC’s at 2.5 PM - thats very concerning. Maintenance and wheel replacement less so honestly. From a waste perspective its hardly an issue compared to the cars taken off the road. I concede, that better maintained and newer iron wheel configurations are a better use of funds. As any desired outcome from rubber tires can be achieved with steel, and perhaps a hybrid system that transitions to rubber on steep hills for places that need it. This comment only contests that tire roar and steel on steel clacks/screeches are equivalent sounds even at the same decibel level - because they are not for many who suffer from noise sensitivity. Or that a bouncy ride is equally bad as a bumpy one. Sports car over cobble road or a pick-up truck - which feels nicer? The road didn’t change, just how soft the suspension is.
The Autism factor can work the other way for other people. I'm autistic and have ridden the metro in Montreal, in terms of overstimulation I def handle the steel screech better than the roar of the rubber tires. Also the smell... But that's just me, obvi autism is going to affect people differently
The decibel level of the Montreal metro is absolutely insane compared to the TTC. Objectively those rubber tires are causing permanent heating damage non-stop. The infrequent and short lived screeching on the TTC is a far lesser issue imo.
I can't say I feel the same, I moved to a city that uses steel wheel trains exclusively, and I find it so much more relaxing than the constant Godzilla roar of the Montreal metro. It helps that the line I use to commute is mostly in a straight line so there is less screeching than usual, but I prefer the occasional loud screech to a constant highway sound. It's so loud you actually have to almost shout to have a conversation with someone. Not to mention the STM rolling stock (both the old and especially the new Azur trains) have a ton of wind blowing inside. Both because they're semi-open (which doesn't help with the roaring) and because the Azur has an insanely strong fan blowing air. I would often get a headache just commuting 20 minutes on the Montreal metro. Also the great thing about steel wheel trains is the satisfying ka-chunk-ka-chunk sound when going through railway switches :)
More modern train systems like Canada Line for example, can climb relatively steep grades (4 to 5% from the looks of it). So rubber tires are kind of redundant and over complicated. Plus, when it comes to manufacturing and maintenance, uniformity is key.
I haven't been in Paris since 1999, but when I was there we took the metro everywhere, and indeed..... they had rubber tire metro lines underground. I was intrigued, but it was a surprisingly comfortable ride.
One thing you failed to mention is greater friction caused by rubber tired metro trains. This causes more heat which can raise temperatures on trains and in stations. Friction can also lead to fires as seen on the Montreal Metro in 1971. I assume the only reason Montreal went with a rubber tired system is because it's French. Having to keep the entire system underground has greatly increased to cost of new lines.
Worth mentioning that LIM systems (such as Vancouvers skytrain) don’t require traction of the wheels as the train is essentially being pulled a long and not driven by its wheels. This basically eliminates the issue of wheel slippage.
in my city (Perth, Australia) there's been something of a push for 'Trackless Trams' recently--specifically, the ART system by CRRC. Pretty funny to me, since 5 minutes of searching will tell you their weight and tyre configuration makes them illegal to drive on our roads.
I hoped thats what this video was about. I'm looking forward to the Trackless Tram, I'm sure they can change the law. What will be interesting is to see if the vehicle alignment causes rut formation and requires concrete guide way, at which point it loses all value. But, if Perth lets ruts for, rips up the road and builds a real Tram, and then puts the Trackless Tram on a new route to repeat, that would be something
@@neolithictransitrevolution427 I don't get the trackless tram personally. Seems like a lot of work and expense for not much reward. I'd much rather see dedicated bus lanes and bus priority at traffic signals across all the 9xx bus routes, and maybe some rebranding, which would likely cost a fraction of the current vague plan to convert half a route to a "trackless tram". I also don't like that the City of Stirling is so obsessed specifically with the ART vehicle from CRRC. Volgren is making very similar vehicles for Brisbane Metro. But they're calling them what they are, buses. CRRC seems to be pretending they are in a different category in order to avoid a fair competitive tender process, and City of Stirling has fallen for the con.
@@neolithictransitrevolution427 This reminds me on ideas about treating BRT and trolleybuses as a base for new tramways and LRT since their infrastructure costs are lower than building a street railway.
@@MarioFanGamer659 I would love to see a jurisdiction explicitly set up a schedule for a project of that style. It's long time horizons, but you can cycle your Diesel buses onto a new route when they phase out, etc. At the same time you upzone along the corridor, so by the time an LRT is built you have a dense urban linear area.
Regarding the screeching, there are parts of the Berlin S-Bahn that will terrorize your ears to pain levels of noise. The north-south tunnel has a particular section that is notorious for the noise, reaching around 100 decibels. Since Corona in 2020 the windows are required to stay open, which has made that situation worse. I now avoid that train at all costs since it's really painful.
Fun fact: in Barcelona a similar vehicle operates as a superlarge bus in some of the busiest lines, but it is only that: a bus. When I saw the video image at first I thought you would talk about that hahah
Fun fact: some (I'd say most but IDK) trolleybus systems have relied on backup generators. In case of line work, emergency, or to move around the depot. The trolleybuses in Bergen, Norway had backup generators until very recently when a lot of the normal busses were electrified and the trolleybuses got batteries too. Source: I live very close to said depot.
Reece, I’d love to hear your thoughts on Eglinton Crosstown delay and when you’d think it’d become operational. It’s definitely not the first time that a major and complex transit line has been delayed but I think there are many things to read in how it’s been communicated by authorities and how the community is receiving it. It’d be an insightful comparison to other delayed projects globally
I would say that in some cities noise would also really play into it. A good friend of mine lives in the hague in the Netherlands, and the trams are insanely loud and seeing as there's about 8 lines running acros the intersection right next to his house, i could imagine rubber tires would actually be quite nice...
The French GLT / TVR makes for very nice trolleybuses, and especially when in driver steered mode I found them to be far superior to motor buses. Guided mode is best restricted to straight roads and perhaps slow speed pedestrian zones
To make them justice, GLT is a Belgian invention from BN and was designed to run on premetro infrastructure with vehicle able to couple together and run in reverse... What was done in the end with the idea is really sad
Occasionally, during extreme temperature periods in London, tube lines will be closed because the noise from screeching steel wheels on steel rails is too high for legal levels.
I much prefer a roar to a squeal. Gonna submit a plan for that Neoval to my local planning department. It sounds great for residence-heavy mixed use applications less that 20k riders per day
When I saw the thumbnail I thought you were gonna say something negative about double bendy buses, so I was very happy to see you were talking about something actually bad. Guided rubber wheel trains/buses are truly a bad idea and you have explained well why that is. As you implied in this video, these systems combine the disadvantages of rubber tires with the disadvantages of rail systems. The rubber tires wear down quickly while also wearing down the comparatively soft road surface quickly. The guide rails make the system as inflexible as any other rail system and have more or less the same infrastructure cost but they can't provide the ride quality or in most cases the capacity of regular rail systems. The only variation that sort of makes sense for me are the automated low capacity, high frequency people mover style systems but even then it seems questionable.
I found this video much more balanced than the previous ones. I enjoyed listening to the argumentation. I somehow like this type of "playing advocate for the devil" argumentation, I thinl in this case it made especially a lot of sense. Great job!
12:45 Actually when raining rubber tyres will suffer less loss in braking power compared to steel wheels, unless your tyres are slicks, which in the past would likely have meant that automating a train would've been easier if it used the former (unless its fully underground & thus the tracks won't be made slipperier by rain), though I guess improvements in propulsion/signalling technology would make this less of an issue for steel wheels now e.g. embedding sensors to detect if a track is more slippery due to rain, which would trigger trains to brake earlier & more gradually, & perhaps run at a higher top speed to make up for loss in time due to more gradual braking
The first thing I noticed from Toronto and Montreal was the lack of noise.40+ years of getting used to the T.O subway, then hearing Montreal, what a difference. Montreal you can actually hear yourself think. T.O is loud.
France has been fascinated by rubber tired rail cars since the 1930s when they developed the Micheline rubber tired railcar. There are actually a few still running in Madagascar but they are having trouble keeping them in service. The problem - you guessed it - getting tires for them.
Shouldn’t Michelin sell them tyres?
@Zaydan Naufal Well, I mean every rich country pulled out their old rail lines because they think that freeways are better.
@Zaydan Naufal By rich I meant, not incredibly poor. Albania is a developed country isn’t it?
@@KRYMauL Germany? France? Austria? Just to name a few ... For example, the tracks given up in Germany weren't because of Autobahn, but because "oh, these don't make enough money" - in other words, failing to understand network effects. (And many of them are now slowly being returned to service because politics has finally started to prioritize more climate-friendly transport solutions.)
@@KRYMauL From a quick Google: _Albania has a GNI per capita of $5,210. After the USSR's disintegration in the 1990s, Albania shifted from a socialist economy to a capitalist market economy. Although it is the fifth-poorest country in Europe, its economy is continually improving._
One issue you didn't mention is energy efficiency. Rubber-tired vehicles consume significantly more energy than steel wheels on rails, and as energy costs rise, you may see some of the rubber-tired systems being phased out. It also seems to me that some of the systems with both tires and steel wheels are more expensive to build and more expensive to maintain. Unless the tires provide a vital benefit (such as steep grades), I'd stick with the tried-and-true technology.
While I definitely think most of these tyre alternative modes are unnecessarily expensive, I generally think the energy efficiency point is greatly overblown. Energy costs should be going down as vehicles are electrifies (current European crisis not withstanding), and honestly the real advantage always comes from getting people out of a car.
@@neolithictransitrevolution427 I agree that rubber-tired public transit is far more efficient than automobiles, but I've read that moving freight by rail is 3 or 4 times more fuel-efficient than by truck. I assume that there is a similar fuel savings when comparing rubber-tired trains to standard rail. While the fuel costs may not be a significant factor right now, it's only going to go up.
We need to make our cities less car-centric and more walkable/cycleable, and provide more public transit (even if it has to have rubber tires!). We also need to modify zoning, so that homes, shops and workplaces can all be within walking distance of each other.
@@neolithictransitrevolution427 rapid transit is mostly electrified anyway, and if carbon pricing works as planned, that electricity is probably going to get more expensive for a while, and energy is already a major operating cost from what I understand
@@Bobrogers99 Agree on all points, although I think a portion of the Frieght issue is the Giant train engines are far more efficient than the comparatively little truck engines, and average train speeds are actually quite slow compared to highway traffic trucks.
Also, there is a good chance electrical costs will go down (relative to inflation of course).
@@feynaomi In the medium term the price will go up, but in the long term it will be decreasing as wind/solar farms pay off thier debt and produce effectively free energy, and perhaps with SMRs offering safe and flexible nuclear or Closed Loop Geothermal offering low cost power anywhere.
Awfully huge chunks of the cost right now are building new transmission and rate subsidies for older versions of technology that is now cost competitive. Wind and Solar are both outbidding Coal plants, which is evidence of the net decrease in the cost of generating electricity.
I can't speak for other cities, but in the case of Lausanne (Switzerland) "Paris-style" rubber-tyred metro was a really great choice. The line literally replaced a urban rack railway in its lower part, and is (correct me if I'm wrong) the steepest rubber-tyred line in the world.
It has been a huge success since its opening in 2008, constantly outpacing usage predicitions. The construction of a new line has been approved and will use the same rubber-tyred technology (again, because of the slope of the city).
Lausanne’s M2 metro could totally have used standard steel wheel trams. At the cost of lower accelerations. But the line, as is, is undeniably a success.
CDMX in Mexico has a mix of tyre and rail systems in its metro. It got me reading into it and the only real benefit I can see, is rubber can handle steeper inclines more effectively.
There are other minor advantages, but I don't think they justify the use of rubber tyres.
Being from the UK, I don't think London has any rubber wheels on the line and London is one of the best run metro systems in the world.
Although I acknowledge London's underground is expensive, was built without any central planning and sometimes has poorly designed platforms.
Edit: and London is mostly pretty flat.
@@Joshua-fi4ji Was reading that Mexico City is slowly sinking/settling over time, so its metro/subway tracks' profiles will change slightly over time also, & using rubber traction is less likely to lead to derailments as a result compared to steel traction (probably because rubber is a more flexible material)
@@lzh4950 makes a lot of sense actually. I knew that about CDMX, but never put 1 and 1 together.
My dad actually worked on the prolongation of one of the lausanne metro lines. the slope is indeed incredible !
Rubber tyred metros are a mild health hazard by virtue of the amount of the PM 2.5 they spew out. Also the underground rubber tyred Paris metro line stations smell horrendous because of the tyres.
Don't rubber tires also require much more maintenance?
that's not how anyh of that is spelled.
@@BraxtonMeyer If you are talking about tire vs tyre, it depends on where in the world you're coming from. On a world wide scale either is acceptable.
A lot of that is because the wheel sets on the bogies don’t steer, at least on older versions. Both axles are rigid, as on a steel rail system, so on curves the ‘road tyres’ scrub around curves, much as the rear tyres on a non-steering twin rear axle truck do. Must make them wear and release their toxins much faster.
This is interesting because PM2.5 pollution is actually much better in the Montreal Metro when compared to the Toronto subway, even though Montreals system is entirely underground and quite air sealed!
Hi Reece, this video is much better than the one it replaced! My limited experiece with rubber tired trains, Montreal, is that the ride is equally comfortable and loud to steel-wheeled metros. Incidentally, I have only heard the screeching on the Toronto subway in the sharp curves into and out of Union. Thirty years ago, the screeching used to happen many more places in the system, so it is much improved.
What caused this? My only guess is that old trains typically used through-axels and that new ones don’t but one never seen anything to support it.
So great to hear that! It’s my goal!
@@Freshbott2 I am not sure exactly what changed. I think I remember hearing that the wheel profile was slightly different on newer train models, but I am not an expert on train design. (Maybe someone who is could comment.) I am just thankful that my trips between Old Mill and Jane are not interrupted by soul-piercing screams from the wheels as they were when I was a teenager.
@@andrewclarkson3401 I have no idea about metro/tram systems (even less specific ones), but I do know that at least DB actually uses automatic lubrication (at the rail) on sharp curves, to reduce the noise as well as the abrasion.
@@Freshbott2 Couple of big influencers:
1) welded continuous rail is infinitely easier on trucks/bogies
2) developments in flange lubrication have come a long way
A couple of minor additional points:
Standard trams aren't too bad at hill climbing. Sheffield (UK), Prague (CZ), and especially Lisbon (PT) systems all have steeply-graded sections that regular trams cope fine with. Obviously if you have a really steep hill you might need rubber tyres, but only really at the extreme end of the scale.
Secondly, one of my least favourite aspects of rubber-tyred metros is the smell of burnt rubber, and the tiny particles of rubber dust which passengers can't help but breathe in. I'd much rather endure flange-squeal than the smell of burnt rubber.
Those old four wheeled Oporto and Lisbon trams are amazing - how they get up those really curvy inclines is fabulous, not to mention coming down again! Line 28 in Lisbon!
It’s been a few years, but I did notice that the old Lisbon and Oporto trams had had their running gear updated. This was after most of the older suburban trains on the London Underground Metropolitan Line dating from the 50s and 60s had been withdrawn. The new four wheel sets and sub-chassis for the Portuguese trams were each one power bogie/truck from the withdrawn London Underground trains, reconditioned. Nice bit of recycling!
Lausanne, a very hilly city in Switzerland, replaced their dense tram network with buses and trollybuses.
In my home area, there was a trolley line with near 20 percent grades in locations. The 4 motor cars had no issue no matter the weather getting up and down the line.
And dog kennel hill in london
where in prague is there steep tram line?
I work in a light rail control room in Canada and you've got a lot more knowledge than a lot of the people I've worked with. You could make good money as a project consultant, especially with all the new projects opening in Toronto
If you google him you'll find he is a consultant and this is just a side thing
I think that some gadgetbahn systems and respective technology (translohr, rubber-tired metro) may have a usage where classical systems fail or have major issues. Probably one of these cases are cities with a difficult topography where "steel" trains would need long tunnels and shallow gradients to change height, while rubber tires can use much more steep inclines, but without the need to build a funicular style system.
This is what the Morgantown PRT does to allow very tight turns and steep grade climbs.
@@thomaserickson5737 I belive because few cites are built on steep slopes. They are widely used in Switzerland for commuter rail though.
@@thomaserickson5737 Rack railways are incredibly slow, I think rarely faster than 30 kph, which is far too low for any metro-style service.
You're right. One successful case is Medellín's tramway, only the rubber tires could climb that steep roads.
Yep that’s my thinking, tunnelling is not cheap!
For the Medellin-Tram: A regular tram would have been possible. But, coincidentally, the system was built with a loan given from the French government. That was after representatives of French companies visited the country. You know, things just happen sometimes. :)
That tracks, unlike Translohr...
Stop giving transit projects to the french.
Same thing in Cuenca tram tho
@@alfrredd THey have the best engineers of the world, best transit technologies (Alstom high speed, or Citadis, VAL technology bought by Siemens), solid consulting companies for the studying like Systra and excellent construction engineering companies like Vinci, Bouygues, Eiffage, all of them have build Trams, Metro, HSL.
I watched the Medellin Tram videos. That route with those slopes and curves, mixing with traffic and sudden stops etc. could NOT be possible with steel wheel regular trams. They would have to make bridges, tunnels and knock down a lot of building for a regular tram.
I think I have to mention that iron rail is "quite heavy". In my country, Japan, AGT (Automated Guideway Transitmit) ≈ Mitsubishi Crystal Mover is often used in bay area where the ground is not firm enough.
At least in Japan, automated guideways are at least well-implemented (at least in the Tokyo area). But some of these "gadgetbahn" systems are mechanical nightmares not worth building in the long run.
Why not simply use a trolleybus then?
@@deptusmechanikus7362 Crystal mover technology can operate without a driver, the yurikamome line in Tokyo is driverless and has platform screen doors.
I’m skeptical that this is a good reason these days, lots of traditional rail is used in such areas even in Japan!
Not just Tokyo, but you also have Kobe Portliner as well.
Speaks about Taipei Wenhu Line with that rubber tyre, I still recall former mayor of Taipei Chen Shui-bian quote:
馬特拉不拉 我們自己拉 (If Matra don't want to push our train, we will push the train by ourself)
After the construction of Wenhu Line, the rolling stock provider MATRA suddenly terminate their contract to maintain them, surprised the Metro Taipei and government because they need to assembly their own crack team fast with homegrown component. Luckily Taiwan's industry prowess allow them to still let it run until today.
There is a similar system to these where I go to university. It's called the Morgantown PRT. They are self driving buses that run on a grade separated guide-way. Each car carries 15 passengers (if you overload them they scream at you). The system was built in the 70s and it has garnered a reputation for unreliability in recent years. It actually broke down a few hours ago; right as I was about to get on. It's an interesting system, and is the largest of its kind. It may be worth looking in to for a video sometime.
I think there is a big gap between those technologies, the translohr is a pain to use, it's shaky, often delayed, has frequent issues and so on. On the other hand, the VAL is such a pleasure on the daily, it sails smooth (unlike the neoval which apparently is quite shaky), is quite silent, and has 1 min headways. And as a user waiting 1 min instead of 8/9min can shorten your trip by a LOT.
You talk about the tram in Clermont Ferrand and for that thank you. One big thing I like about rubber tired trains, especially in Paris is that they are much more quiet than standard systems (this is one of the reason why the line 2 & 6 have been equipped with it) Also it helps with large hill. As a user of the Paris metro everyday to go to work I prefer taking the line 14 over the line 7 (which is as loud as it can possibily be, the MF77 is an absolute horror) even if it means having 5 to 10 minutes of travel in addition. If you ever go to Paris you might be interested in "Les journees du patrimoines" where the RATP allow us, with someone from the RATP, to go on the track of some unused station like Haxo where you will be able both rubber and non rubber track. This was the place where they first tried rubber tired track.
On another hand one thing I like about how it was implemented in Paris is that the track are compatible with normal trains meaning that if they ever want to swap the train they can! On some occasion you will even find some metro from line 4 on non rubber tired track in order to go to maintenance.
la 2 c'est du materiel fer (MF01) il me semble
@@potdefrite7632 yep, line 2 are not rubber. Paris metro with rubber systems are 1, 4, 6, 11 & 14
The Nancy TVR will soon be replaced by 24m long trolleybusses, with "In Motion Charging" onboard batteries by HESS.
Paris choice to build so many different and non-interoperable LTRs is just incredible ! (TVR, 2,45m/2,65 wide trams, 750VDC/1500VDC Overhead lines...)
I do think there’s benefits to having some non-standard transit technology around. Sometimes a later development only made possible by the fact people are still holding on to an odd system helps them become far more competitive. For instance, there were very valid reasons behind cities choosing buses over trams in the mid 20th century but they’re coming back because some cities held on to a seemingly inferior technology and figured out how to make them better.
(Also, I will take the roar of rubber over the squeal of metal on metal *any* day.)
Some systems are nonsense that should never be built though. Just to be clear.
I'm using the Translohr T6 line south of Paris every day and I'm very happy with it. In addition it has a steep sections which it manages really comfortably, not bumpy and not at all noisy. Also it looks very good and is clean. I think it helped the neighborhoods around the line to significantly increase in value. I would say it is a great success.
I'm happy too. Frequency is great. Just hope it won't diseappear and turn into a bus when the technology gets to end of life.
My favourite transit choice anywhere is the rubber-tyred NS-93 on line 1 in Santiago. Huge windows, spacious, wonderful sound, and amazing acceleration and deceleration. Combined with the extremely short stops, excellent headways.
The only problem I have with those is seat distribution. I don't want to talk to strangers on my way to university!!
@@thepedrothethethe6151 Good point. I just never sit so hadn't thought of that.
NS-93 is based on Paris's MP89. TL 8/8 from Lausanne also looks very similar !
As a native of Boston who has lived in NYC since the 1980s (ie, lifelong familiarity with steel on steel subway and trackless trollies), I am an unabashed fan of the two rubber tire subway systems I’ve used extensively (Paris and Montreal). They provide a much more quiet (or at least pleasing to the ear) riding and waiting experience and in my opinion a much more comfortable ride whether seated or standing.
Furthermore, I believe you stated it exactly opposite (in my subjective opinion) when you stated you don’t significantly prefer the ride in Toronto’s conventional system to Montreal’s rubber tire system, though YMMV and obviously does.
The difference in cornering for rubber/steel tires though is significant and it's not just noise. Rubber can take very tight corners and faster. The core issue with steel wheels is they don't have a differential and have to rely on banking which requires very precise tolerances to work well. With any vehicle going over any road/track there will be wear. The question is do you want the track wearing out or the wheels? I would argue it's better to have the wheels wear out. Steel wheels will actually erode not only the rails, but the sleepers and fish plates. This creates a safety hazard or forces trains to travel artificially slow because the rails are in bad condition. If you hear noise on the track then that is either the rails or wheels being stressed or being degraded. racks that support rubber tires usually don't wear out and don't require expensive/time-consuming repairs. The real problem however with rubber tires though is track switching...it is difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to have a switching system for rubber tires, while steel wheels can switch tracks very easily.
On the older Parisian lines, the rubber tyred wheels are non-steering AND on solid axles. So they scrub around curves, AND rotate at the same speed as each other. Wear and toxin release must be horrendous.
@@Twittler1 I agree that is bad. Honestly all metros should have differentials...they are quieter and reduce wear on tracks/wheels. Monorails actually have a decent solution in that they have one set of wheels for up/down and one set for laterally holding the vehicle to the track.
But differential doesn't seem rubber tyre exclusive. I don't see any inherent issue that prevent it from being put on a steel wheel tram.
@@billyswong Added expense and weight for no real benefit. And another potential failure point; thick, heavy solid steel axles rarely break down. Split them to put a differential in - you’ve now designed in a weak point. The natural differential action of cone shaped wheel profiles is sufficient for all but the tightest curves.
Some older trams/streetcars in North America (the PMT(?) types) did have Pullman bogies/trucks, the powered ones of which did have differentials. I rode them in Boston in the 60s, but whether they helped is another matter. Wheel squeal on tighter bends was as loud as ever.
Modern low floor trams get round this by not having axles at all - each wheel is independent of all the others and independently suspended too. But they still squeal. It’s the nature of the beast (flanged steel wheels, steel rails).
@@Twittler1 rubber tired Paris metro trains have differentials since the beginning, in 1951... And I'm sure of that because I've got the plans and have seen them...
As to why steel trains don't have differentials is due to the conical shape of the wheels doing this job. The exact profile of the rolling table determines the dynamic behaviour and is a great point where innovative shapes reduce screeching and wheel hunting. They are great at that in Asia iirc
I would love if you could discuss New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, its a fairly large system that should be covered, if you make one I think it will help more people understand our unique system.
seconded
Is that the one with diesel powered trams? My goodness
@@shaunmckenzie5509 No I am talking heavy rail
Nice video! I like how you explain some technical aspects of the technology and why it was chosen, and still make your videos easily consumable by most people! Rubber tires usually cause a more bumpy, slower ride than steel wheels. I’m still hoping that urban maglev systems with speeds between 100-160kph get built, like the Linimo in Nagoya Japan and various Chinese urban maglevs. One major benefit to grade separated rail systems is that it can’t hit cars, bikes, pedestrians, etc.
Ok but the noise a pretty obvious win. I take the Montreal metro every day and I've experienced conventional rail metro in New York a bunch of times and the small roaring is much nicer than the metal friction noise imo.. It feels so much quieter.
Yeah but New York is a very old and not always wonderfully maintained system!
@@RMTransit Sure is an old metro.. Thanks, nice to know!
What timing. Just the other day I was in the Montreal Metro and wondering if people would consider it a gadgetbahn.
I just consider it more meddling from a bunch of France wannabes. Mayor Jean Drapeau, should have had his butt kicked for it. (Also lived in this province my whole life)
The trains on Montreal Metro are LOUD when they depart from a station! Some say it’s the traction motor(I can’t find the source), but I really enjoyed it when I visited Montreal a few months back. Also I believe Montreal Metro has the highest capacity rubber tire metro trains out there. It’s a system that adds personality to the city, I do wish it was more expansive!
If you are talking about the sort of melody the older trains makes when they depart then yes it comes from the motors. They also decided to use that sound for the door closing chimes.
Loud traction motor startups is endemic to AC traction motors made before about the last decade, most common to trains from the 1990s-2009 or so. Prior to IGBT technology the gating transistors that AC traction motors needed to modulate their power were quite noisy. This sound is most notable on the 1993 stock London underground trains (the infamous sound of the Jubilee Line), the high pitched REEEEEEEEEEEEEE that LIRR M7 trains make at 6mph and the musical scale startup sound of the "singing" Siemens Taurus locomotives (most commonly used by OBB in Austria, go figure). The musical scale gating transistors of the Siemens Taurus was a deliberate easter egg on that locomotive.
Brisbane’s new “metro” is literally a long bus with rubber wheels and that makes me mad
It’s just a pretty standard bus! So it’s fine!
It boggles my mind why they don't follow Sydney's example and build a full automated metro system instead.
it's Just a really long articulated bus to me and they were designed for use on the pre-built busways
it doesn’t have a lot of the disadvantages that RMTransit mentioned here because it’s literally just a fancy bus. There’s no guideways or rails or overhead lines, just wheels on tarmac.
@@Justin-xk7yj it'll be so hot
The Yurikamome in Tokyo actually really benefits from the rubber tire rail configuration as it allows a smaller footprint across the small islands of Odaiba, Aomi and Ariake district. It also lets the smaller trains move faster and stop quicker, which makes the trip through the rather winding tracks a lot better.
I first experienced rubber tired Metro in Montreal when visiting Expo 67 World's Fair. As I recall, the advantage provided, was the slope downward leaving a station that helped accelerate the trains and the next upslope which saved on brakes. This also let the stations not be so deep as steel wheeled subways tend to be. Paris did not have that feature on the ones I rode there.
Nuremberg subway system was built in a way that the tunnels between two stations dip down a several metres in the middle. This helps with using less energy for acceleration and deceleration.
Singapore has such a design also though it also means that if you want to lengthen the platforms, the ends will no longer be level, which would complicate accessibility
Good video and I cannot help but add something.
I don't think Translohr is better than a tram (and not just because the hybrid electric-pneumatic door system is unpleasant to test after we assemble it in our factory). However to be completely fair to it there are two advantages of it that I have not seen mentioned and as you said in some niche cases they can contribute to this system winning.
1. the noise - despite the guide rail the one I have seen in person in Paris was singificantly quieter in the street than a tram. Modern trams make the difference smaller and smaller with clever wheel designs but the only time I have seen a translohr running the lack of expected noise was the first thing I noticed and after I wondered why that is I finally saw that it is a Translohr and not a tram. So I guess in some cases this could be a factor when deciding what to build.
2. narrow spaces and two-wheelers - one thing I absolutely hate about trams is that whenever there is the need for the tram to go to the side of the road in a tram stop or the tram stop is extended towards the rails and there is no cycle path behind the tram stop away from the rails all cyclists passing throuh face a choice of two bad options - ride the narrow space between the high tram stop curb and the rail (and pray no stupid driver will start overtaking you in the remaining space where they fit with whole 5cm to spare) or you can cross the nearer rail at a horribly sharp angle, ride in between the rails through the tram stop and then cross back to the side again. If the rails are a bit wet and/or you are not capable of jumping with your bike you will crash and possibly get run over by anything following behind you. I have seen motorbikes crash in these tram stops too. Translohr will have something like 1.2m between the curb and the guide rail negating the need to go over the rail. So if I had to mix something like a tram line with a lot of trafic on two wheels in narrow streets Translohr would get one plus point in the contest for this.
So if the line is in a sunny dry city, passes through a flat center where tons of people cycle rather than walk and runs into steep hills on both ends where rich and powerful people living there demand it to be quiet Translohr just migh fit. It will be no cheaper to operate like you said but it could fit the need of such a transit line - climb hills, less noise and fewer raild in the road.
I recently moved to Adelaide from Melbourne Australia, in Adelaide they have something called the O-Bahn, it’s a bus most of the time but they have specific tracks at specific locations to reduce travel time and traffic congestions. I think that is pretty cool
i believe this channel has covered that system
I was actually surprised you didn't talk Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit (sometimes called "trackles tram" such as in an article by The Conversation - and that one is kind of a joke, really) which takes the Translor idea but with less infrastructure i.e. the "rails" is just paint on the street and the vehicles are battery only, no overhead wires.
I think ART is still too new to be relevant atm, no cities actually use them yet except experiment units.
Isn’t that just a trolley bus?
@@KRYMauL While that's a common alternative name to trolleybuses (though I put them to the same category as normal buses in the same way how I call diesel trains diesel trains and not tracked buses), the vehicles of ARRT are battery buses and aren't connected by overhead wires.
That’s actually fantastic. Without using a steel guide and pantograph it can avoid the infrastructure cost and it can be varied very slightly to avoid wear. It can go up hill and have better braking. But it can all offer better amenity and higher capacity than BRT. “Paint on the street” isn’t an insult, it’s exactly how we designate bus lanes and stop cars from parking in public space for basically nothing. It’s treated as a joke cause “real trams” already exist but the idea actually achieves things trams don’t. Appealing to the status quo didn’t get horses very far when cars came around. I think these will be very common one day. While people discuss whether they can be a thing car companies are making electric vehicles and mining companies run guided trucks. They didn’t umm and ahh about it asking for permission.
They are really just another new bus design that has lots of issues that make me skeptical
13:05 "And so the idea that if it snows a bit your metro might not work" -- As a resident of Vancouver, I'm entirely too familiar with that.
Oui oui, Nancy. Been there on interrail, didn’t know this contraption existed, rode it (single fare was €1,30) and loved it
I remember when Vancouver was considering GLT as a potential technology for the Evergreen Line extension. THANKFULLY cooler heads prevailed and they stuck with the SkyTrain technology that was already being used.
Judging on the title and thumbnail I first thought that you are making a case against trolleybuses. But luckily I was wrong.
Those rubber tire metro systems in Paris,the most notable thing is that all the stations smell like rubber there :)
Maybe you should also make a video about trolley-busses, quite popular in the eastern Europe.
The main advantage is that you don't have to lay any rails, only the trolleys and you have some (very little) flexibility while driving (if there is a pothole, for example, you can drive around), but you don't have the pollution from the combustion engine.
maybe you should check his channel
The lengths these people go to to not build a steel wheeled train or a tram is astonishing.
Rubber tired trams have a counterpart: a traditional bus running on concrete guide tracks for part of its route. I'm thinking of the O-Bahn guided busway in Adelaide, South Australia. Those are normal buses that run on normal roads for a lot of their route, but then run on concrete tracks to cover larger distances with negligible demand for stops along the way. I've seen them with double bendy bus configuration so they aren't quite as long as your average tram, but then a tram doesn't have to take very tight corners.
Interesting video and interesting first comment below this one. I always enjoy your good transit videos. I never fail to learn something. I find lots of worthwhile comments by your viewers also which adds to the enjoyment and learning experience.
I rode the Translohr system in Clermont-Ferrand this summer. It was one of the most uncomfortable journeys I've had on a tram.
I know very well this system in Mestre and in Padua; the interior is narrower then a traditional tram (the ancient P.W.s in Milan are a salon in comparison), but in these cities there are some particular bridges, where ordinary tracks could be problematics for the slopes.
Lyon is NOT using a VAL, it is using a full size metro, even wider than Paris metro actually. Both of them using standard UIC gauge.
I rode the Montreal Metro recently, and I really enjoyed it. I felt the ride quality was very smooth, smoother than other metros I’ve been on (tho I’ll admit I’m from the U.S., where track quality is quite poor), and had no issues with the noise. It’s quite a cool and easy to use system, and I really think it’s one of my favorite Metros. I do agree however that steel wheels could probably do the job just as well, but I had no problem with the tires.
Montreal has a deeply optimized system when it comes to speed, efficiency and capacity. Transmission of vibration to neighboring buildings is something that Montreal wanted to avoid. Montreal's Metro takes full advantage of rubber tire configuration to build high-performance trains that can accelerate quickly, negotiate tight curves and climb slopes of 6.5%, almost always at 45 mph. Steel wheeled trains would cripple performance as they are generally limited to 4% slopes and speed restrictions through tight curves.
In my hometown, Bologna, there has been an attempt to an optic guided trolleybus called Civis that eventually never entered in service (as local bus drivers considered it unsafe and it failed safety checks) and it had to be readapted to be used by new conventional trolleybuses.
The vehicles involved were Irisbus Civis trolleybuses, which then were replaced for free by Irisbus (as compensation) by the Irisbus Crealis Neo.
And anyway, in Italy there are two rubber-tyred trams using Translohr tracks, in Padua and Mestre, with one line in the latter system extending to Venice.
As for the Nancy system, it was retired last month
Didn't expect to hear about my home town ! CAEN
That's the one who replace the whole tram after only a decade !
I clicked on this because I recognized my tram (Bombardier in Nancy, France) on your thumbnail. It actually limped to its inaugural day, pulled by a wrecker, and since then, it's been 20 years of throwing money at it to make it kind of work... Finally it will be put out of its misery in the coming months and be replaced by super long buses with optical guiding or something like that.
I have used the BRT in Jinan, Shandong, China, and for that size of city (3,25 million inner city, 5.6 million metro area, making it a smaller city by Chinese standards), it is ideal. Station stops are very efficient due to fare collection at the entrance to the platform. Miss a bus and the next one is following in 2-3 minutes. The only unanticipated delays are red traffic signals, and that's necessary for safety of others, especially bike and moped riders. More expensive options are not needed.
In Lyon, France, 3 of the 4 metro lines are rubber-tired lines. The 4th is “steel-tired” because is the oldest and the steepest (the oldest section open in 1891 as a funicular line) and the extensions in 1974. This line is among the steepest in the world with a 17,6% steep in the 1891 tunnel. Here the slope isn’t taken with rubber but with a rack rail as third rail. The train is powered by over wires. It’s so specific than Alstom had to design a specific train with this all tech only for Lyon metro system. The three other lines are very similar to Montreal metro
Nice Crocodile/Krokodil model behind you. Another way to provide a smooth ride was the PCC cars used in New York and other U.S cities in the 1950s. They had air suspension and air conditioning and were the most comfortable way to travel until displaced by the automobile.PCC cars had all the benefits of rubber tyred vehicles with none of the drawbacks and ran on regular tram tracks with high efficiency.
Also got one in Bangkok. Bangkok is most varied transit city in the world, we have subway, monorail, trains, elevated trains and also rubber wheeled train. Right next to each other.
Heck, our train system is so crazy, you have to get off the train, buy a new ticket, then get in again if you go over a certain part of the city.
Medellin's hills are one instance where rubber tyres are vital. The city is along a valley, with the translohr up one side. Other perpendicular routes are operated by cable cars (gondolas) except regular metro along a side valley. But a trolleybus would also work - electric power but no track requirement.
Hey, you talked about my city!
I live in Caen, Normandy, the city that replaced tyred trams with traditional ones (at 7:21).
I witnessed the old trams (which were small and crowded, such that on chilly mornings, a lot of condensation formed on the windows), the transition period (lots and lots of road works, and sometimes the old trams hat to use their motor engines on sone sections, since the power lines had been removed) and the advent of the new tram!
Really wish you can do a video on Morgantown's PRT. In a way it is also a "rubber tyre tram", which is powered by guide bar. And by nature, it is a gadgetbahn. However, from a different point of view, it's more of an attempt to make automated taxi thingy using 70s era technology, and the only practical (?) pod car system.
In Japan, rubber tyred transit systems have been introduced in 3 types, subway, monorail and auto guided transit (AGT). Only Sapporo City adopts a full scale rubber tyred transit system for its subway lines similar to those in Paris. Other monorails and AGTs are adopted by a large number of business operators as a medium-capacity rail transport system. A rubber tyred tram system has not adopted even a trading company marketed Translohr in 2000s but no adoption result was made.
Yep! It’s mostly crystal movers and monorail
I need Transit Engineering 101 to follow this. But, yes, I am skeptical of proprietary gadgetbahns, too.
When I was in Mestre Italy, I saw a tram climbing a fairly steep ramp without any problems and was curious how they did it. Now I finally know! :)
The RATP (the company running the Paris métro) itself gave up with rubber-tyres at the beginning of the 1970s because they realized steel weels were just more efficient and retrofitting existing lines was too expansive. However it was deemed worth it to implement rubber-tyres on metro systems built from scratch. That's why Lyon, Marseille and every VAL network are rubber-tyred. Paris line 14 (opened in 1998) is also rubber-tyred but that was mostly for rolling stock mutualisation.
If I’m not mistaken, the Nancy rubber tire tram is going to be replaced by standard trolley buses.
as someone who works on them, loving the Krokodil in the background :)
"External factors" like building a streetcar/bus hybrid with rubber tires being adopted in a city with a large tire manufacturer being based in it. 8:29 A very diplomatic observation.
Tires are based, like the MPRT. They do allow for tight turns using 4 wheel steering.
I don't see why you couldn't do that with steel wheels. In fact, I believe that at least some modern US freight train engines actually do that. (Probably helps especially with three-axle trucks.)
@@KaiHenningsen we use them because of the steep grades along several portions of our track. The city is built on the side of a large hill and the majority of our guideway is elevated, so the cars have to be capable of going up steep grades at times.
Love the Crocodile model in the background❤
Sapporo isn't only inside cause of the tires but also the 2nd snowiest city in the world. the amount of snow they get also hampers the rail
The Metro from Paris is so awesome 😍Better the the U-Bahn of Berlin! Brussel has a amazing system of Bus.Was called ,,Ringtram Bus ''❗
Hi. French here. Rubber trains ("Michelines", Paris Metro) were invented to overcome wheel slip, for better acceleration, better braking, and thus more frequent services, a problem now solved by distributed traction and vector control of electric motor. Thus, new Paris metro lines are built with steel wheels nowadays. The 14 was designed in between, it was modern enough to be automated (with antique computer, even for the time, as far as I remember, all is managed with PDP11s!) , but quite not ready for super duper traction control with beffy power transistors. It also was a somewhat spinoff VAL, as VAL and M14 have some origins in the ARAMIS PRT project.
The VAL uses rubber tires because it was designed by MATRA, of automobile racing fame. Thus, it's very light, it's a minibus on a concrete guideway, allowing very light guideway to be built for pretty cheap, with automation from the get go and high frequency.
I don't consider both to be gadjetbahns. The Paris metro used tires because there was no other way to improve a technical problem at the time, and the VAL is a pretty capable light metro system with many advantages that allowed small cities to have a transit system.
(I wont talk about translohr, ok? it doesn't exists. )
Very informative comment, thanks!
Great input, although Gadgetbahns Don't have to be a failure, so I would still keep them in the catagory (along side the SkyTrain)
More informative than the whole video, thank you.
@@neolithictransitrevolution427 to be fair I think the neoVAL is more gadgety than the original one. The original one had become a standard with fleet interoperability possible, and the neo killed it with the stupid translorh-derived proprietary guide rail.
In Rennes they now have two different systems completely not related thanks to this stupid idea from Siemens. The Rennes metro cannot be considered at network...
@@Damien.D I agree its a negative improvement, the original had a clear area of expertise (although, I think Skytrain out performs with a similar outlay)
The fact that rubber tires makes less vibrations is important for metro like Paris or Lyon when the lines are not deep. Vibrations spread to the nearby buildings, and living nearby a metro line, I am pretty happy with the rubber tires.
Interesting, it may be a less expensive way to deal with NIMBYs than boring. This idea deserves some digging into.
@@neolithictransitrevolution427 Your comment certainly deserves some form of a punishment.
Sorry...
I used to live in a somewhat steep city in Switzerland and they just had dual-mode trolleybuses which ran off of overhead lines in the city center and diesel in the suburbs and countryside. I don't know why more small-to-midsize cities in North America don't take advantage of this model, as the startup costs are relatively low and the flexibility of the system is quite good.
btw they are removing the GLT here in Nancy too, current plan is to replace with trolly buses but who knows what will happen in the end
The rubber tired tramway in Nancy, France has a very steep lane.
But when there is snow or ice, they can use their diesel to follow the road (not as steep).
Same for at least one of the parisian tramway, it climbs a big hill, that cannot be done using steel wheel.
And for the parisian subway, for the line 6 (the aerial one with rubber), using rubber tires is much much quieter than steel. This is important when the subway is aerial in wealthy neighborhood. (The second aerial subway has steel wheel, but it moves in more popular neighborhood so....)
Have you ever done a video on the guided bus systems like Cambridgeshire, Adelaide O-Bahn, etc?
Hello
Nancy choosed this (the name is TVR) instead of a tram for a few reasons. The city of Nancy is a medium city that can’t really afford a tram, and also wouldn’t be very rentable. Also, the constructor of the TVR gave some reasons why they have to choose to build a TVR:
- Like you said, it’s has less constuction costs.
- Doesn’t use guided rails all the time, and can work as a trolleybus.
- faster build time.
- “Secure”.
But the TVR was catastrophic..
First, the maintenance was difficult because only two cities were using the TVR, so finding replacement piece was difficult. Secondly, the contact TVR-Rails was dangerous because the guide thing that was superimposed to the rail was to weak to support (I simplified the security problem). Also, after a few years, the rails got damaged very quickly. That caused multiple crashes. Then, the TVR line was only doing a half of the line for security. That was too much for Nancy. They decided to do like Caen, and stop the TVR. But there is a problem. Nancy can’t afford a tram. So they choosed to make a 24 meters buses line for 2022-2023, and this is finally going to be the end of the TVR.
I really liked visiting Montreal’s metro.
It was so quiet and pleasant.
Tire roar is far less triggering to me and I am sure other autistic people thank those tires. Metros are already over stimulating, the sudden metal screeches just push me over the edge.
The bouncing was fun too lol. Why is this not a pro? Sure its not “smooth” like Japanese rail, but nowhere in North America has well made rail and bumps on that are bone rattling.
I dont know where you mentioned efficiency, if at all - but i figured that the real issue was rolling resistance and vastly increased energy use.
Is this not the case?
Some comments mentioned VOC’s at 2.5 PM - thats very concerning. Maintenance and wheel replacement less so honestly. From a waste perspective its hardly an issue compared to the cars taken off the road.
I concede, that better maintained and newer iron wheel configurations are a better use of funds. As any desired outcome from rubber tires can be achieved with steel, and perhaps a hybrid system that transitions to rubber on steep hills for places that need it.
This comment only contests that tire roar and steel on steel clacks/screeches are equivalent sounds even at the same decibel level - because they are not for many who suffer from noise sensitivity. Or that a bouncy ride is equally bad as a bumpy one. Sports car over cobble road or a pick-up truck - which feels nicer? The road didn’t change, just how soft the suspension is.
The Autism factor can work the other way for other people.
I'm autistic and have ridden the metro in Montreal, in terms of overstimulation I def handle the steel screech better than the roar of the rubber tires. Also the smell...
But that's just me, obvi autism is going to affect people differently
I’m pretty sensitive to loud noise and I’d much rather hear an occasional screech than a constant deep roar
The decibel level of the Montreal metro is absolutely insane compared to the TTC. Objectively those rubber tires are causing permanent heating damage non-stop. The infrequent and short lived screeching on the TTC is a far lesser issue imo.
I can't say I feel the same, I moved to a city that uses steel wheel trains exclusively, and I find it so much more relaxing than the constant Godzilla roar of the Montreal metro. It helps that the line I use to commute is mostly in a straight line so there is less screeching than usual, but I prefer the occasional loud screech to a constant highway sound. It's so loud you actually have to almost shout to have a conversation with someone.
Not to mention the STM rolling stock (both the old and especially the new Azur trains) have a ton of wind blowing inside. Both because they're semi-open (which doesn't help with the roaring) and because the Azur has an insanely strong fan blowing air. I would often get a headache just commuting 20 minutes on the Montreal metro.
Also the great thing about steel wheel trains is the satisfying ka-chunk-ka-chunk sound when going through railway switches :)
More modern train systems like Canada Line for example, can climb relatively steep grades (4 to 5% from the looks of it). So rubber tires are kind of redundant and over complicated. Plus, when it comes to manufacturing and maintenance, uniformity is key.
I haven't been in Paris since 1999, but when I was there we took the metro everywhere, and indeed..... they had rubber tire metro lines underground. I was intrigued, but it was a surprisingly comfortable ride.
One thing you failed to mention is greater friction caused by rubber tired metro trains. This causes more heat which can raise temperatures on trains and in stations. Friction can also lead to fires as seen on the Montreal Metro in 1971. I assume the only reason Montreal went with a rubber tired system is because it's French. Having to keep the entire system underground has greatly increased to cost of new lines.
Kinda why the REM is being built as opposed to a metro expansion.
Worth mentioning that LIM systems (such as Vancouvers skytrain) don’t require traction of the wheels as the train is essentially being pulled a long and not driven by its wheels. This basically eliminates the issue of wheel slippage.
in my city (Perth, Australia) there's been something of a push for 'Trackless Trams' recently--specifically, the ART system by CRRC. Pretty funny to me, since 5 minutes of searching will tell you their weight and tyre configuration makes them illegal to drive on our roads.
Why would they be illegal?
I hoped thats what this video was about. I'm looking forward to the Trackless Tram, I'm sure they can change the law. What will be interesting is to see if the vehicle alignment causes rut formation and requires concrete guide way, at which point it loses all value.
But, if Perth lets ruts for, rips up the road and builds a real Tram, and then puts the Trackless Tram on a new route to repeat, that would be something
@@neolithictransitrevolution427 I don't get the trackless tram personally. Seems like a lot of work and expense for not much reward.
I'd much rather see dedicated bus lanes and bus priority at traffic signals across all the 9xx bus routes, and maybe some rebranding, which would likely cost a fraction of the current vague plan to convert half a route to a "trackless tram".
I also don't like that the City of Stirling is so obsessed specifically with the ART vehicle from CRRC. Volgren is making very similar vehicles for Brisbane Metro. But they're calling them what they are, buses. CRRC seems to be pretending they are in a different category in order to avoid a fair competitive tender process, and City of Stirling has fallen for the con.
@@neolithictransitrevolution427 This reminds me on ideas about treating BRT and trolleybuses as a base for new tramways and LRT since their infrastructure costs are lower than building a street railway.
@@MarioFanGamer659 I would love to see a jurisdiction explicitly set up a schedule for a project of that style. It's long time horizons, but you can cycle your Diesel buses onto a new route when they phase out, etc.
At the same time you upzone along the corridor, so by the time an LRT is built you have a dense urban linear area.
Regarding the screeching, there are parts of the Berlin S-Bahn that will terrorize your ears to pain levels of noise. The north-south tunnel has a particular section that is notorious for the noise, reaching around 100 decibels. Since Corona in 2020 the windows are required to stay open, which has made that situation worse. I now avoid that train at all costs since it's really painful.
really, i thought the s-bahn was relative quiet compared to the u-bahn.
I'm surprised you didn't draw a comparison to cable cars. If it works in hilly San Francisco, it can probably work anywhere.
Fun fact: in Barcelona a similar vehicle operates as a superlarge bus in some of the busiest lines, but it is only that: a bus. When I saw the video image at first I thought you would talk about that hahah
I’ve long been wanting to hear an explanation like this. Thanks!
Fun fact: some (I'd say most but IDK) trolleybus systems have relied on backup generators. In case of line work, emergency, or to move around the depot. The trolleybuses in Bergen, Norway had backup generators until very recently when a lot of the normal busses were electrified and the trolleybuses got batteries too.
Source: I live very close to said depot.
Also: rubber tyres in Paris creates oscillation.
In Padua, next to Venice, 2 more lines of the transhlor tram are being built. the system seems to be working decently
Regarding the noise: when I ride the VAL here in Toulouse I feel like I'm riding on a vacuum cleaner
Reece, I’d love to hear your thoughts on Eglinton Crosstown delay and when you’d think it’d become operational. It’s definitely not the first time that a major and complex transit line has been delayed but I think there are many things to read in how it’s been communicated by authorities and how the community is receiving it. It’d be an insightful comparison to other delayed projects globally
Watch Not Just Bikes recent video on Toronto
Val for Lyon ? never heard of this. Do you have a source to share ? I'm really curious about it
I would say that in some cities noise would also really play into it. A good friend of mine lives in the hague in the Netherlands, and the trams are insanely loud and seeing as there's about 8 lines running acros the intersection right next to his house, i could imagine rubber tires would actually be quite nice...
Might actually be louder if they are rubber tired, see the roar referenced in the video.
Love your content!
Please make a video on Warsaw trams and constantly changing metro plans.
Thank you in advance!
The French GLT / TVR makes for very nice trolleybuses, and especially when in driver steered mode I found them to be far superior to motor buses. Guided mode is best restricted to straight roads and perhaps slow speed pedestrian zones
To make them justice, GLT is a Belgian invention from BN and was designed to run on premetro infrastructure with vehicle able to couple together and run in reverse... What was done in the end with the idea is really sad
I love hearing the loud steel on steel squealing sound on the subway.
Proof that there's no idea so bad it won't be copied.
Occasionally, during extreme temperature periods in London, tube lines will be closed because the noise from screeching steel wheels on steel rails is too high for legal levels.
I much prefer a roar to a squeal.
Gonna submit a plan for that Neoval to my local planning department. It sounds great for residence-heavy mixed use applications less that 20k riders per day
When I saw the thumbnail I thought you were gonna say something negative about double bendy buses, so I was very happy to see you were talking about something actually bad.
Guided rubber wheel trains/buses are truly a bad idea and you have explained well why that is. As you implied in this video, these systems combine the disadvantages of rubber tires with the disadvantages of rail systems.
The rubber tires wear down quickly while also wearing down the comparatively soft road surface quickly. The guide rails make the system as inflexible as any other rail system and have more or less the same infrastructure cost but they can't provide the ride quality or in most cases the capacity of regular rail systems. The only variation that sort of makes sense for me are the automated low capacity, high frequency people mover style systems but even then it seems questionable.
I found this video much more balanced than the previous ones. I enjoyed listening to the argumentation. I somehow like this type of "playing advocate for the devil" argumentation, I thinl in this case it made especially a lot of sense. Great job!
12:45 Actually when raining rubber tyres will suffer less loss in braking power compared to steel wheels, unless your tyres are slicks, which in the past would likely have meant that automating a train would've been easier if it used the former (unless its fully underground & thus the tracks won't be made slipperier by rain), though I guess improvements in propulsion/signalling technology would make this less of an issue for steel wheels now e.g. embedding sensors to detect if a track is more slippery due to rain, which would trigger trains to brake earlier & more gradually, & perhaps run at a higher top speed to make up for loss in time due to more gradual braking
VAL system is also used for Turin's metro
The first thing I noticed from Toronto and Montreal was the lack of noise.40+ years of getting used to the T.O subway, then hearing Montreal, what a difference. Montreal you can actually hear yourself think. T.O is loud.
Id just wear headphones, idk. Rubber particles aint good
Is the shot of the TTC streetcar at 6:52 a sumbliminal dig at "Bombardier's not-great moments"? LOL
Doesn't require a driver = I'll let it slip.
Still requires a driver = WTF are you even doing?!?