Trackless Trams - Not the solution for Sydney
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 июн 2024
- Images: www.ttg4.paintbrushguy.xyz/tr...
China costs: www.investopedia.com/articles...
Links ↓
*Join our Discord server: / discord
*Visit TheTrainGuy4 website: ttg4.paintbrushguy.xyz 
Игры
Someone here pointed out that these buses aren’t nearly as accessible as trams as tolerances between bus and platform must be higher. Anyone in a wheelchair would require a ramp, unlike modern trams.
Mybe... But ig, their platform heights must be equal to those citadis and urbos tramway...
@@nuffaildaniaelle977Trams run on a smooth steel surface and have solid wheels. Even then the tram height can vary by as much as 5cm between empty and full. Stick rubber wheels and bus type suspension and that's way more. It doesn't sound like much but 5cm is just about passable in a heavy electric wheelchair whereas 8cm can be a barrier. On buses this height (even with kneeling buses) can be way more. These wheelchairs are heavy (up to 150kg plus the user so up to 250kg isn't unreasonable (that's the reason most bus ramps are rated to 300kg by the way)), so lifting it up the small step is not an option.
These little differences pass unnoticed until it becomes an issue for you. They are big issues for the people concerned.
Trackless trams are just bi-articulated buses having an identity crisis.
Fun fact: this identity crisis is actually imposed on CRRC by the Chinese government. In the national standard for automotive vehicles, only single-articulated buses are specified, and those are limited to 18m in length. CRRC's invention cannot be called a bus in China and them being mostly a railway rolling stock company, decided to call it a trackless tram.
I'm a bus who identifies as a train?!
The only thing trams have to offer is they are electric. Why can't buses use the same technology like they do in Europe? We already have the roads, so it would be much cheaper than building new tram lines. That in addition to the fact that buses can also use natural gas and don't need infrastructure to extend their range.
Fr
Trams are just buses without options
How Brisbane "metro" has panned out has convinced me that a bus will always be a bus, no matter what you call it.
It's just BRT not a metro at all... But that prticula mp who build it really demand us to calls it a "Metro" when actually they're not even one
@@nuffaildaniaelle977 I thought internal QLD Government Reports suggested calling it Metro was confusing and likely to be overall negative, and recommended renaming it to an eBRT
@@kyletopfer7818 those in qld has a great sense of mind
@@kyletopfer7818 And will the "metro" use electric buses? If not, then you're gonna have a rubber-tired version of eBART.
@@randomscb-40charger78 Yes, it uses battery buses with rapid charging capabilities.
A bus that LOOKS LIKE A TRAM. Whoever named it "trackless tram" has rocks in their head. It's a fucking bus.
It's a bus with nearly zero ground clearance
Whoever named it is a smart marketer. They realised the stigma associated with busses and worked around it. The people with rocks in their head are the ones buying this nonsense.
It’s for millennials and zoomers that think everything they come up with is new. Just look at the PR wash that is ‘tiny homes’ - caravans and mobile homes basically.
@@kojetono5853 Both sides have rocks in their heads haha One creates a fucked up name for a BUS, and the other ACCEPTS it. Just like with the EV mob.
Another thing that annoys me about this debate is the obsession with cost/km. Public transport should be judged on how many people actually use it, not just on how far it goes.
By the time the parramatta lines are done in 2032, trams will be carrying almost 60million passengers per year in NSW, for a total cost of about $10-11bn over a 20 year period.
The L2/L3 lines alone are already carrying 30-35 million passengers per year - even at the inflated cost of $3bn it is still spectacular value for money.
On high density short corridors of 10km or less, trams are always going to be able to carry more people more efficiently than buses.
Oh I agree too. Loads of commentators were dishing up shit for the CBDSE lines and now they’ve smashed their *precovid* 2036 patronage estimates!
They should probably factor in a decade of maintenance, or any other long-term period (ideally something with major works on the thoroughfare, and rolling stock replacements). That would be a metric like “cost per decade-kilometre”, or ideally “cost per century-kilometre”, with dollars deliberately adjusted to present-day and ignoring inflation. (Side-note: Half the time when projects take 10+ years to build and it’s because of inflation, people forget that it’s the money that’s changed value, not the project … and therefore the revenue that’s PAYING for the infrastructure will also go down in value but UP in numbers, with no guilt required whatsoever … it’s just inflation, chill).
for yor expense you can build and use whatever you wish. For ours? $200/trip subsidy? No way.
100% agree and 3:10 is the absolute killer argument to this technology. If you have to dig up your road so the "tram" can ride over it, put f$%^ing tracks down.
Also installing charging stations (overhead or in-ground) will be no faster and not significantly cheaper than overhead tram power.
The 'technology' would be better if it was a battery electric tram on rails and it'd cost roughly the same amount if you're going to rip up the road anyway, ignoring of course that it's a proprietary system and how that adds cost. Making the only difference between the two is one has over head and the other doesn't. Newcastle light-rail could be considered quasi system in that extent and look how that turned out in cost per km (not that really matters in real terms). The only reason its using rubber wheels is to market itself as being as cheap as a bus with the benefits of a tram when its just not the case.
Oh, and something to note about these "trams," is that some of those in China have created grooves across the roads they traverse because of their weight, so effectively, the "trams" are creating their own tracks.
I literally said that…
Wrote this before I finished watching.
@@randomscb-40charger78 That's why it's good to save all comments, questions and concerns for the end...
That is only because the designers and contractors that built the roadways they travel along built them to a specification that is below what is necessary prevent tire ruts.
If the road can't take ART it'd not take BRT either. In that case you should shell out more money for a proper tram anyways.
This has been done before... Trolley Buses anyone? ....And how successful have they been?!! Actually, the key differentiator, and benefit of trams IS their track ... as it give a high degree of permanence that a bus route does not.... that is why as the US has found, when you put a light rail line into an area, it promotes investment in that area... adding a bus network does not...
Great video. The only advantage a trackless tram has over conventional trams and light rail is that they can be removed faster and their infrastructure turned back into roadway more easily. The point of having a permanent right of way is for it to be reliable and permanent. Trackless trams do not achieve this.
But not after wearing huge heavy grooves in it thus ruining it for the rest of us... Now if only there was a material harder than asphalt or concrete to do the job... Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...... I'm stumped! ;-)
@@stickynorth The pressure that individual ART wheels exert on the road is no greater than that of regular buses. It's nowhere as big of a problem as some claims it to be.
The even worse thing about Brisbane "Metro" is 95% of the infrastructure was already built before hand, using the already existing busway network. For $1.4 billion, Brisbane is purchasing 60 buses, building a depot for said buses, a small few dozen meter tunnel, 3 recharge stations, and adding some upgrades to bus stations. For $1.7 billion dollars, without a single kilometre of additional busway being built. For less money, The Gold Coast built 13 kilometres of brand new light rail from scratch, purchases a large handful of trams with nearly 3 times the capacity of The Brisbane Metro, a large large depot, all the overhead wires, a dozen brand new stations in the most expensive part of The Gold Coast to build anything, and create a much more environmentally friendly solution (lithium batteries is really bad for the environment).
The Gold Coast developed a light rail system for less money, and build a superior system that saw the construction of an order of magnitude more infrastructure. Light Rail automatically wins.
This is the same argument people had for removing Launcestons Tram network and replacing it with Trolleybus. Guided Buses just like trolleybuses don't get the same benifit as Trams. With Launcestons Tram network being removed because it was falling apart due to overuse, it was proposed that trolleybuses would do the exact same thing, expected they could not handle the passenger number and waiting as three full buses pass turned people off public transport.
We have something like that in Brussels, called the "ringtrambus" it’s clearly a longer bus that looks like a tram. And it’s often stuck in traffic 😂
In Brisbane we started with a metro with tracks on rubber wheels. Then we were to get trackless trams and now it’s just bendy busses but we still call it Metro. Truly the worlds next most exciting Olympic city…. Without an Olympic stadium 🙂
I'm looking forward to seeing the results from the Perth trial, nothing has really been mentioned in the media since the trial started though. There was already rutting within 3 weeks - with an empty vehicle too. Maybe the release of the results will finally shut the media up about it.
I believe that light rail construction will drop in price, now that we're getting the hang of building them again.
The entire idea of a tram is that it was originally a bus with tracks... So a tram without tracks is literally just a bus...
wonder mow many politicians realise that a "trackless tram" is just a bendy bus
a trackless tram or a bigger bendy bus faked up to look like a tram would be if adopted, become equivalent to another Sydney monorail, a lot of hype when planned but ended up becoming a escapee from an amusement park, go around in a circular path & went no where
Excellent video and informative. You and your compadres provide a service not found anywhere else in the Australian transport industry. You provide excellent service. Thank you 😊
Awesome vid. The Gold Coast tram is a massive success and is being expanded. I live in Bris and shake my head at the cost of the new 'bus system ' using existing roads n congestion or dedicated new lanes that a proper tram system doesn't need....sigh
Another argument (Though not really valid for Sidney): Snowfall can cover the guide lines, so busses have to wait for the snow to be cleared before they can be used again
The system has been tested and approved in northern Chinese cities with enough snowfall.
@@yihuzhai7364 do you know how the system operates in those conditions?
@@mathewferstl7042 Unfortunately not in detail, but the thing is that the system does not completely rely on visual recognition of those lines, it also involves other sensors and stuff.
Trams also can have grassy tram tracks.
I don't mind if we discuss about center running (if on-street), articulated trolley busses with as much separation from traffic as a tram would have. Once that reaches capacity limits, turning it into a tram isn't witchcraft.
But that's never the case. It's always NIMBYs hearing of a tram project, deeming it too expenisve (sometimes still complaining about traffic impedance, but even NIMBYs get that nowadays) and then suggesting something "cheaper" that isn't in the long run. Be it diesel/battery electric busses and/or no traffic separation.
They do get ridicuous arguing against an important project, pulling the most biased calculations from 20 years ago out of their ... folders
Added bonus: the same tech used in trolley busses (assuming you swap out the old trolley poles for the just generally superior pantograph, which you should be doing anyway) work surprisingly well for big trucks, too (and you can't even pretend that batteries are a superior option with them, because they're just straight up non-viable due to not being energy dense enough, despite already being energy dense enough to be a significant hazard in the event of mishap).
Look at Perth trialing them now. They are going to regret it and scrap the plans. It's just a bus. They damage the roads too much
I knew it's too good to be true. Trackless Trams are gadgetbahns!
I’m from China. According to domestic forum, I would say many railfans regard the trackless trams actually as an alternative for BRT system. From the local transport authority, trackless tram is estimated to have more capability than traditional BRT and the cost is also below the traditional tram, which is inefficient in China due to heavy road traffic.
in australia they are being marketed as a light-rail alterative and not the other way around, also guided bus are a different flavour of BRT. Two of the same
London was going to use self-steering buses on the specially-built year 2000 Millennium Dome Busway but because of a concern over what would happen if the guidance system failed (and the bus 'derailed) the system failed to get a safety certificate. Using the buses without the automated steering was allowed. btw, these were high-spec normal single deck non-articulated buses
The Italian city of Bologna also wanted to use 'trackless tram' style buses but the safety people ruled the guidance system as 'not fit for purpose' for full-time use, however it is allowed for accurate bus stop docking (ie: stopping close to the kerb to make the system more accessible).
Las Vegas did use this system, for a while, but sand blowing over the road covered the white lines, causing issues for the optical nature of the guidance system.
Adelaide OBahn. Usual single or articulated buses, crawling in city and in suburbs on usual roads, line up and run 15 km from city to TTP interchange on special mechanical (!!!!) autosteer trough with 90 kmh speed. Nothing to invent, everything is working perfect.
Love this! I will add one other limit to such gadgetbahns: what I call "the drug dealer paradigm." The suppliers of such junk will sell you at a very low cost - maybe such that they make no profit. Then, once you are stuck with that system, replacement or additional units come at nosebleed prices. Not just whatever the market will bear, but whatever they can extract from you, no matter what an actual fair price might be. Once you are in bed with a proprietary system, you are stuck for a very long time. And if, like so many, they happen to stop making the system, you are stuck with aging and useless nonsense until either you or the system falls in a bin.
One more thing is, the ART guidance system are inspired by Irisbus Civis from France which once utilized the paint marking with LiDAR and GPS tracking
Inspired or ripped off... The result is still an inferior LRT alternative amiright?
@@stickynorth huhhhh??? Ripped off huh.... I think so.... But that does sound interesting actually 😂😂
0:08 the red train's front has matching color with the mexican sets of Manila's LRT 4th Generation train.
I believe trams are more appropriate for pedestrians in walkable areas too. Knowing that a tram can only go along the rails make them more predictable and easier to walk around and give way to, in a pedestrian street for example. You wouldn't do that with a bus. Plus, you can have a full patch of grass around the tram tracks for all the benefits (beauty, better air, noise reduction, temperature cooling, etc.) - again not something for a bus lane. I would go with trams.
great point. Pedestrianised areas don't work with buses, only trams
Other than cosplaying as a tram this seems to be the same thing as trolley busses. Trolley busses (and I'm sure trackless trams as well) are cheaper to install than conventional trams but they require more maintenance and the units don't last as long. Still better than ICE busses or battery busses, but it's not as good as a tram.
You know things called _"rails"_ - it's a *new* _brand_ technology!1!1!1!
Everyone always trying to reinvent the wheel as it were... Nah son, steel wheels on rail have worked well for 300 years, pretty sure they are going to keep moving for the next 300 unless some super cheap hovering technology out of Star Wars or Minority Report gets real invented yesterday... ;-)
@@stickynorth and something that "gets real invented yesterday" will certainly not be cheap...
The only gadgetbahn that I think could be useful are maglevs. There’s one maglev metro system in China that I’ve heard can climb steeper grades compared to conventional rails as well as accelerate faster when compared to them, which might improve headways and reduce journey times by a bit. But other than those advantages I see with maglevs, I’m not sure if the other issues they have are worth it.
@@randomscb-40charger78 One in China is just Airport link, not metro. Meanwhile in Japan they started ambitious project to make new maglev-like shinkansen (it's different from Chinese one, so better if you Google up).
Edit: Oh. I understand what you talking about. It's not maglev, but it uses magnets to accelerate.
I don't like it because, I like railways in more conservative style.
@@LeonidJP92 I’m not talking about the Transrapid Shanghai Airport one, I’m talking about a completely different system in the country.
The fact that anyone can look at this plan and unironically say “no it’s not just a bus” is hilarious to me!
My lord that Brisbane double bendy bus "metro" is so funny I had no idea. Bendy busses are great why have we got to rebrand them as something else?
These trackless trams remind me of a toy i used to have in the 60s called Trik Track- it had a battery powered car and pieces of plastic track that guided the wheels.
I remember when Tampa, Florida actually planned to use this scam of a transit mode.
Of course a city in Florida would... Any chance to cut corners and still declare anything a success.... Just like Bush under that Mission Accomplished banner.... LOL
"Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit" - the Holy Roman Empire of transport options.
I don’t mind changing from a tram to a train or train to train at all and friends who don’t often take public transport are of similar mind - a ride on rails is general pleasant and relaxing. Buses by contrast are noisy, bumpy, tend to lurch and break suddenly because they’re stuck in regular traffic and are generally uncomfortable. Brisbane’s idiotic (not a) Metro will be not significantly different to a regular bus and in fact might be worse. I’ve seen them testing along the AirportLink motorway and the middle and end sections bounce up and down like you wouldn’t believe. And that’s on a relatively new well engineered road.
i'm having trouble understanding how is trackless trams different from bendy bus...
Where I live (Liverpool UK), this technology is being promoted as an alternative to a tram system. Whilst I am not advocating this concept and would prefer a conventional tram, I think there are two points to be made.
First, a trackless tram differs from a guided bus (as I understand it) by having all axles steered. Consequently, each wheel follows the path of the wheel in front - just like a tram. That makes a lot of difference to the swept path of a vehicle meaning that a narrower width of road is required - particularly on bends. It also means that lining up of doors with platforms is much easier.
Second, whilst the wheel rutting problem is genuine, that can easily be resolved by laying two concrete strips. That is much cheaper than steel tram tracks but also obviates one of the main costs of tram construction which is diverting underground services away from the swept path of the tram. If a water main needs replacing, the trackless tram can be driven around the work and regain the 'track' further along.
There are obvious advantages to steel wheel on steel rail trams but this technology should be considered where the cost of a conventional tram is too high. By stimulating traffic it might make the case for a tracked tram.
"trackless trams" are operationally and Service wise more similar to a bus than a tram but with the cost of a tram. Just lay the damn track
@@mathewferstl7042 I doubt that the cost per seat of the vehicles is that different although there is meant to be lower costing for automotive technology compared to railway construction (due to volume). However, it is the cost of the track that is often the deciding factor and this is increased by service diversions and disruption to roads and businesses during construction.
Rather than say one form of technology is good and the other bad it is often best to write down the pros and cons for the particular route you are looking at. Sometimes a route doesn't justify a full LRT service but needs something better than buses.
I'm concerned about accessibility for these trackless trams. With proper trams wheelchairs can roll off and on with few problems as the tram stops are the same height as the tram (or within a cm or 2), there's also very little gap between the tram and the platform.
With the 'fake tram' systems they are on rubber wheels and have to have significant suspension which means greater height differences at stops. They also cannot get close enough to the platform to be truly roll on. This means they require ramps to be accessible which are inconvenient and vastly increase dwell time. It also means that only one door is likely to be accessible and leaving the bus will require getting the drivers attention.
Really these are just articulated buses but worse because they will cause ruts in the road.
The problem is that they selected this for the new public transport system for the new Nusantara Capital City.
You pretty much nailed all the points on the head.
Like they're not automatically guided transportation, they still require a driver, autonomous is something more like the METRO system in comparison to regular Trains.
I feel if this concept was approach better it could work better.
Like say auto guided trams that can potentially do ROUTES without the need for rails being installed in to roadways or such.
But the passenger limit and naming convention is so fucking dumb!
I mean, they're gadgetbus, there's no bahn involved.
They sound good. Its rapid but they just need specialised lanes near intersections, so they can keep on moving at good pace.
did you not watch the video?
@@mathewferstl7042 I'm not from Sydney. I've heard they have a shocking road network and traffic jams 24/7. I heard that rail is improving, so locals have some alternatives to sitting in traffic and walking.
In Malaysia, they are planning not one, but *TWO* systems to use these ART model, which breaks me because one of the system in Kuching Sarawak also have future plans to... use viaducts!
Crazy to think that they could have invested in trams or other light rail options, heck even a BRT system is good, yet they wanted to proceed with the ART technology that, as you have mentioned every single relevant point about it, is not viable for a long term solution.
Even the leased vehicles tested publicly in another city (Putrajaya) went very bad and did not even manage to keep up with their schedule (they're just running it like once per 2 hour or so!), so what's the difference with buses?
I just hope that the transport bodies and relevant parties in our countries realizes that not everything that is cheap and cool = future. It's just sad thinking about it when it could've been a much better situation and future but oh well, I guess they'll learn the hard way..
The Light rail lines in Sydney are great, they are worth the cost
I would think the best use of this gadgetbahn is the T-Way between Westmead and Rouse Hill (and possibly Blacktown) as there is already a dedicated right of way designed for heavy use of buses. A tram would be far better but I would question if the gradient is suitable as there are bridges and tunnels along the route with steepish gradients
Apparently the T ways were built with consideration for conversion to trams, so who knows. Some of the gradients are pretty stiff though.
High Floor LRT aka Pre-Metro is the solution to almost every rapid transit need... Edmonton and Calgary here in Alberta both are based on the Frankfurt U-Bahn and use its U2 cars, in Edmonton's case? As long as 5-car, 125m trains that can carry 1,000 people in a crush scenario, This can empty our largest stadium, Commonwealth, in about an hour or two if it was to do all the heavy lifting. Thankfully it also has a huge bus loop during massive events... Like U2 concerts which I believe still hold the capacity record at 66,000 or seats during the 360 tour a few years back!
Light metro is OK but if the funding and demand exists nothing beats a proper railway. We have plenty of them in Sydney with loads more under construction.
Going to be honest, if you think LRT is the soltuion to 'almost every rapid transit need'? ... you're doing LRT wrong.
Like every other mode of transport, including cars, it has roles for which it is the correct solution, sure. But likewise it has roles where using it instead of the correct mode is actively detrimental.
@@thetrainguy4 Railways are great! ... except for the whole 'last mile'/'short distance' use case, which they're just utterly incapable of for a whole bunch of practical reasons. Fortunately, trams, busses, and bicycles all exist (or, in rural contexts, cars! ... because much as using them in places they have no business being is ruining things for everyone, there are use cases where they're actually the correct option.)
I wonder why Sydney light rail (~100 million USD per km) costs nearly as much to build as Perth suburban rail, or Chinese or French metro, or about as much as Spanish or Korean metro
There were undocumented electricity and communication cables running accross Sydney's George Street. This contributed to the blow out in costs the delivery time as each time they found a cable, work had to stop so someone could determine what it was and how it could be by passed/removed.
I still don’t understand why hasn’t anyone considered using these busses to be as airport transit, it could replace the T bus and Qantas bus transfer
You’ve convinced me.
You convinced me.
APM
Cable Liner
Crystal Mover
Innovia APM
Hovair(poma)
Aeromovel
Wedway(lim driven)
It has the capacity of a bus but the limited mobility of a train
I live in Tianjin, a city that adopted a Translohr rubber tire tram system in the early 2000s. The system just recently ceased operation. I gotta say that I'd pick ART over Translohr any time. Obviously ART is not a tram replacement, but a BRT-like system able to expand to tram-level capacity with future investments. You did not mention that these 3-car units can be doubled up, at which point no bi-articulated buses can compete in capacity. ART's flexibility lies where it leaves many implementation-specific properties (and cost options) to the people that build the system.
The coupling (as far as I read) was virtual only so has no real advantages.
@@thetrainguy4 I'm not comparing it to a tram, I'm comparing it to BRT. You can't somehow link two bi-articulated buses together to make a "quad-articulated" bus.
0:42 Driving a extremely long bus
Yes, yes, yes! Such a great video and I'm right here behind you backing this!!!!
Need to send this video to brisbane
In Malaysia, multiple city councils have decided to go forward with these busses in place of light rail due to "budgetary constraints". Hell, one even went forward and made a hydrogen fueled version.
Some morons want to replace an ongoing LRT project with these thingamajigs because its "new" and "hip"
I can see where it could work to gauge public transport demand, but they will regret this and its going to be cancelled in 10 years.
Wouldnt trolley buses be a better solution?
Trackless train depend on how good the road is,not the train,in China,it works well in some cities,and bad in some
They’re called trolley buses.
I genuinely never understood the hype when you can just use this NEW HIGH TECH solution: bus lanes... But genuinely, why replace current buses with buses when you could improve traffic for the current buses by having dedicated lanes for them?
I've been working in railway industry for almost 10 years now, used to be with Sydney Trains and now with private contractor.
Apart from build cost, you also need to consider the operation and maintenance cost as well. Track and OHW cost a lot to maintain and replace later on, much more expensive than maintaining road. Electrified track also cause electroysis issue for surrounding infrastructures (building foundations, gas pipes, water pipe, etc) which means the cost to maintain these assets also increased. I don't believe trackless tram will be anywhere near the cost of track tram once you includes other costs. Yes they will carry less people but also cost less.
Also in regards of CRRC, all Sydney Trains Waratah trains are built by them in Changchun, China. No major issue so far. Most of the people do not know this, they thought its Made in Australia lol. It is actually built over there and assembled in Cardiff near Newcastle by UGL Rail.
To be honest, I don't even want a proper tram system as it can be delayed by traffic congestion, let alone those useless so-called "trackless trams". I would prefer metro or light metro systems that are completely grade separated and not affected by traffic condition.
Trams can quiet easily be separated from mixed traffic. You've spent to much in time in Melbourne experiencing our tram system. A light rail and metro serve two totally different purposes and are not interchangeable
The B-Line is about “as good as it gets” for buses, or anything pretending not to be. The B-Line is mysteriously fast, beating not just other buses but also cars, even when you drive past 2 or 3 stops where the B-Line has opened its doors. How exactly B-Line can go faster than other EXPRESS buses - on the same road! - is a mystery to me. The ride is also better than other buses, thanks entirely to the 3rd axle, but you can only get as good as a coach (i.e. long distance bus) vehicle. It’s never going to be a tram’s ride quality.
B1 can't afford to have many stops due to the service being run with double deckers. The lack of stops is what makes it "fast." But it really isn't. Can take over an hour to get to the CBD from Mona Vale, even when utilising bus lanes.
You've got most of that wrong. When the trackless tram was run here in Perth last year it was most definitely a biarticulated bus - but whats wrong with that? The whole weekend it operated in Perth it operated as a guided bus - no driver! Yes, there was a "driver" to supervise the operation of the vehicle - but he didn't steer, brake or accelerate. The "system" presented for perth was for 7 or 8 routes to connect with other mainline bus routes and at train stations. Of course, most people I know, including myself, prefer an actual tram/light rail system, but at what expense, apart from the dollars and length of time to construct, not including the chaos during construction to businesses along the routes. Regarding calling it a tram, well the vehicle certainly looked and felt like a tram not a bus. The difference was rubber tyres/wheels. Trains on the metros in montreal, paris and Mexico city run on rubber tyred carriages .. are they buses? No - they're trains. These so-called trackless trams are more technologically advanced than a tram system or any train system in Australia. The technology is what is used to run Sydney metro. It was worth a go, but won't be taken up apparently .. neither will the MAX tram system (trams) lined up for perth a few years ago which was a shame it didn't go ahead as well. It was stupidly expensive.
It's just a bus with brainless "tech bro" nonsense mixed in.
Time for some thunderfoot XD
Follow the money.
Light rails (trams) itself is already expensive as fuck. (I work in one) Then why doesn't the council / government try to continue something that's similar to the T-Bus ? Having their own lane when travelling between areas.
Buses don’t attract nearly as much patronage as they don’t have permanence. The T-way routes should probably be reclassified as B-lines and I guarantee their patronage will increase.
Trackless trams - buses or trolley buses.
Aren't these just trolley buses?
Without the wires
@@thetrainguy4 oh
They better make the B line better man
Pretty hard, they use all the buses and need more drivers anyway. There's talk of introducing B2 Dee Why - Chatswood to replace the 160x
@@thetrainguy4 Or you could funnel express buses towards Manly to interchange with a fast ferry service. Both Manly Fast Ferry and F1 Emerald class boats (both on the opal system) offer 5 minutes frequencies during the peak period between them. Problem would be Pittwater Rd congestion and a wharf to bus interchange, but their are clever solutions around that. Governments underutilisation of Ferries and the renovation of the ageing Freshwater-class boats for eye-watering amounts leaves much to be desired. Tourist water-bus it shall remain!
@joshporter5422 in some ways yes but most people would then change again at CQ, so perhaps not much of a time saving. Perhaps the 199 (?) should have an express service.
@@thetrainguy4 That's so good! I've caught the 160x a few times from that massive shopping centre near dee why and it felt like it stopped every 500 meters
@@thetrainguy4 Even changing for a tram at CQ to finish the journey to Wynyard, total time would be the same as a timetabled peak hour B-Line trip (assuming the hypothetical "199X" bus to Manly maintains a high average speed, 25-30kph). It would certainly be more comfortable, have higher through capacity, and not to mention it'll be a convenient, essentially free tram ride to anywhere along George St thanks to Opal benefits. Concept would also eliminate the upper northern beaches load from going through Mosman, relieving capacity along the Military Rd corridor.
But the bigger problem would be convincing people to interchange between modes multiple times to get where they want to go. Something Sydney-siders apparently loathe. Well, I don't see a NB Metro on the drawing cards anytime soon.
ART is just the young newborn siblings of Translohr and Bombardier's GLTs
Without half its annoying features but with even more issues! At least those could stay in their lane automatically as it were... I doubt this beast could do it without all the care and attention possible especially on most cities narrow roadways...
What about "Autonomous Railless Rapid-ish (sometimes) Transit" or ARRS'T. Can you be ARRS'T or can't you? If you don't like it we will ARRS'T you.
Trackless trams somehow manage to combine all of the costs of both light rail and buses while none of the benefits
sounds like you have rail glasses
Isn't that just a bus?
You show footage of a tram going on a train track. There is a massive amount of wasted space. A lot of cities in Australia don't have this, so trackless trams are clearly an alternative. Bring it on. Tram tracks increasingly just not feasible for the cities. It means making roads wider and lessening cycle tracks and footpaths. Removing trees and significant numbers and tremendous interruption to traffic while constructing and later.
Who says widening a road?
In most cases it means a reallocation of road space to higher-priority modes of transport, which is a good thing and squeezes more capacity out of a road of the same width.
@@thetrainguy4 It will involve widening. What were three lane roads, have turned into 1 or 2 lane roads over past 15 years. Thereby allowing cycle lanes in some cases and wider footpaths and islands and street furniture. The outcome of light rail will be to widen the road reserve and rip out pedestrian footpaths, cycleways trees... Rememher it was 3 lanes about 15 years and have already been largely reduced. So it can't get much less considering the traffic. That's the thing. The last 15 years in my city, many of the roads leading into and around the CBD have already been reduced in width for pedestrians, cyclists and trees. That's what these tram lovers don't acknowledge. Its just a return to a barren city landscape and a lot more cement and less trees. A hotter city.
@@thetrainguy4 Its just ripping out all the trees and street improvements for the last 15 years. Roads have been narrowed already. Getting trams just reverses all the good work by planners in the city and leading into the city. Its quite an oversight for people not to realise the impact of trams on the streetscape. Hundreds and hundreds of trees will be removed for starters, cyclelanes gone...
Where did you get the 50 million per K for Trackless Trams? I have seen online that the cost of a Trackless Tran system including stations and vehicles is about 1/3 of the coast of Light Rail! The simple double articulated electric buses to be used on the so called METRO in Brisbane are a CON JOB of the first order! I predict that this will be seen as a major error within a couple of years after opening. The Bus stations SHOULD have been DOUBLED in size to allow, say, five section vehicles, that are GUIDED like those in CHINA. A bad aspect of the new system is thar a number of bus routes will be cut back to connect with a METRO BUS. . . . . . causing STANDING ROOM ONLY in peak hours! I will of course make videos on opening day, but I WILL point out the points I have raided here!
They're trying to get one up and running here in Melbourne too, between Caulfield and Monash Uni. I'd personally prefer either a regular tram, a train line or nothing at all. None of this fake, "trackless tram" BS.
Sure you're not being too negative there?
Because there's nothing on Earth
Like a genuine, bona fide
Electrified, bi-articulated gagdet-rail!
What'd I say?
Gagdet-rail!!!
There’s nothing like a technology that has a competitive market, lots of industry knowledge and a proven record. Many tram alternatives have come (and all of them have gone) in the past, these will be the same.
"Gadget-Rail! Gadget-Rail! Gadget-Rail! Gadget-Rail!" I heard those things are awfully loud?!?
@@thetrainguy4 It's a Simpsons monorail joke and just like Lyle Langley every Gadgetbahn maker has their own huckster out there selling their own garbage tech. The last gadget bahn that was actually worth its salt was the UTDC Skytrain technology that now powers the Vancouver and Dubai automated metro systems... And even that one was technologically downgraded in many cases where the automation tech is used by not necessarily the Linear Induction Motor power system since even Vancouver's Canada Line uses traditional third rail power tech unlike the rest of the system making it isolated and incompatible for operations...
@@stickynorth It glides as softly as a cloud!
Here's a fun bonus: Monorails actually have valid use cases where they are, in fact, the Correct option (when built by a compitent company that actually intends to deliver what is promised rather than running some sort of scam). They're fairly niche, but they do exist.
They only become gadgetbahns when they get used instead of regular rail for reasons that have everything to do with marketing and extracting more money from the public purse and nothing to do with actually providing any real advantages.
I’m not down on busways. They have a place for low - medium density routes. Perhaps cities like Hobart and Newcastle could install them on disused rail corridors. Darwin might also consider them if growth picks up a bit.It’s only when they are oversold as an alternative to trams etc that they become problematic. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridgeshire_Guided_Busway
Sydney isn’t known for their transport intelligence
They got rid of the monorail
The monorail was stupid, the good decision was removing it
@@thetrainguy4 the Monorail was still more intelligent than you
i am from jacksonville florida and they are trying to do something very similar called the u2c project and i would love if you could make a video talking about how stupid it is. Instead of actually making a light rail network, they are working with autonomous pods that would follow set paths, they are going to replace what little rail network we did have (a terrible people mover system to nowhere called the skyway) and use the infustructure of the skyway to make roads on them the pods could follow. These pods are not going to be very helpful at all due to their small maximum distance and run time, small capacity (9 people), slow speeds, and the fact that cant be used in rain or fog (which are constants for months at a time here) I actually like the idea of the pods as miniature people movers for less dense areas or last mile transit from a larger means of transport but as a main transportation method its laughable.
They've allegedly spent nearly 450 million on the project which infuriates me because miami built its people mover system for a little under 500 million in todays money
Its funny to read how so many blokes on here becoming emotional with comments like "its just a fancy bus". Its "transit" full stop!
Ha ha... Fake Metro.
But a really shitty REAL bus! All the bouncy noisy ride of the bus with all the cramped conditions of a bus! Where do I sign up??? ;-)
it also disappoint me greatly over here somewhere in Borneo they decide to go with these oversized buses.
Have the government every take a moment to THINK - they can't even operate NORMAL busses well with proper coverage and consistency, how on earth they can even operate these oversized ones at all... It will likely be just another "flower-pot" project that barely brings any tangible benefits. Low coverage & conflict with road traffic, in the end just complete waste of money.
Sure, I'd loves to see they prove me wrong. But I really can't see how these oversized buses can solve any traffic issue. They can't even do it with normal busses.....
Not a system that makes sense in the long term anywhere
Will there be a suitable automation guided mass transit that can replace buses in the future Sydney?
Yeah it’s called the metro, a proper autonomous rail rapid transit system…
It’s a bus but stupid.
The future new capital of Indonesia are getting these as well. So sick of these gadgetbahns. It's basically a longer articulated bus😭
Why get these when the old capital, Jakarta, already has a pretty good brt system. The goverment can recreate that in the new capital. or If they really want trains, get some trams.
These will not work if they will be running on mixed used roads, they need their own dedicated lane to run fast
I think they want them for the supposed “300 passenger capacity” thing because that place is overcrowded as heck. They’ll be disappointed to find out that the buses have half the capacity unless you squeeze them in like they do in Japan
This is a bus
Can these trackless trams divert around obstructions such as another broken-down tram or a collision? That's the biggest limitation with all track-based transport: once there is a problem, the entire system stops.
Mixed traffic separated light rail almost never suffers from that issue. Switches and turn around points and relieve this 'problem' anyway
I do not know why you say optically guided buses are only used in China. This is a technology also developed by Siemens, is known as Optiguide, and is deployed in Rouen and Nimes, and has been adapted for trolley buses in Spain. Personally I much prefer a metro rail system like London's Underground to any trams and guided buses, so I am not advocating the French system. Just pointing out that the Chinese system is not the only optically guided bus system in the world.
I was specifically referring to ARRT which is what most pollies bring up.
Not optiguide anymore... It's Irisbus Civis
@@nuffaildaniaelle977 Thank you for the update.
@@artistjoh yr welcome... I tried search vids on the optiguide under Siemens but none came out... You can check it out... It's a 16 yo tech and now got redevelop as ART... Their local media and Aussies called them as IRT and DRT(seriously why???)
Why get fake tram when you can get real, better tram...
Mate, what a joke. You don't understand the technology elements. It's just articulated buses.
You failed to debunk trackless trams.
You have zero knowledge of the overhead costs and maintaining the system.
Steel on steel is very noisy. Far noisier than tyres, you just don't realise that there are more of them. You brush through the efficiencies of batteries and claim overheads are efficient. 😂😂😂
Please stay away from this topic
... rubber on road is objectively Noisier if you're traveling at any appreciable speed. At low speeds it's so quiet that the lack of noise becomes a hazard to pedestrians and such in electric cars, at higher speed it's so loud that the Engine noise is irrelivant and electric cars provide no noise benefit over ICE cars (the break point is below 50kph, in case you were wondering). Mind you, a lot of busses Do spend a lot of their time going slow enough that it might be a point in their favour... were the noise of steel on steel not routinely overstated.
Steel on steel is only 'very noisy' if you are using the wrong gauge track for how sharp your turns and switches are, or aren't maintaining your vehicles and track properly. Overheads are efficient. Batteries aren't much worse on that front, but do introduce extra problems that need to be solved or brushed under the rug (safety, ethics, and environmental mostly, but also charging... turns out the Easiest and cheapest way to solve charging is... overhead wires and pantographs so they charge on the move. At which point what benefit the batteries still provide (and they do provide Some)... can be achieved with much fewer downsides by way of using capacitors instead.)
Mind you, that's not to say there aren't situations where a bus is a better option than a tram (though in many of Those a Trolley bus is better again), just that these trackless trains are a nonsense.
Propritary tech that doesn't actually provide any benefit that can't be gained just as well with the existing non-propritary tech base Always costs more... either because the people who own the rights to the tech crank the price to squeeze more money out of the clients who can't easily switch away, or because they decide it's not profitable and abandon the tech (while still retaining the rights so you can't do anything to fix it... because this WILL be at a point where the system is having problems), leaving you on the hook to replace the entire thing with... well, in this case regular trams and/or busses... and then it turns out that the resulting service is Better Anyway, because the main things that determine quality of service are Actaully Doing The Maintenance and choosing the right transport mode and route to use in the first place! (There are a number of other things one might expect me to mention here, but they're all impossible without the Maintenance happening, and meaningless if the route's wrong.)
@laurencefraser mate, some of the stuff makes sense. I work in public transport rail. Steel wheels make a lot of noise, and our neighbours constantly complain that we have had to put up barriers at wheel height. Slow moving units in the yard, around bends like trams would follow. I have also been on several trams; Melbourne, Denmark, and Dublin. They are noisy, clunky, slow, uncomfortable, and dangerous. The coefficient of friction also means the stopping distance is significantly longer, a hazard to small and older people. The overhead voltage is high, and another hazard to other vehicles and, if damaged, creates an insane amount of maintenance issues. The cost to install and maintain is ridiculous. Tracks are not maintenance-free. There are several machines that would need to be purchased to maintain the tracks. Because there are hills in a city, the steel wheels slid, which requires sand to be applied at certain locations. The sand would then be removed at another cost. Melbourne has huge issues with this. Denmark is flat, so that city is better off. If a rail car fails on traffic, it would need to return to the depot. This is not as easy as a bus that can be moved to the side and wait for a fitter. Another unit can continue on the service. The tram would hold up the entire line, requiring busses to replace the service. The purchase of trams is a big deal as it requires years of parts and stiff regulations, thus making maintenance costs unaffordable for the long term. Busses are easily replaced and have a much lower cost to maintain. Tram lines have been removed from many cities for very good reasons.
@laurencefraser please don't try selling capacitors as an option it is not an effective solution and hasn't proven to work. Batteries are the future of transport.
Did you ever been in Adelaide? OBahn - no, never heard? Clear. Continue to beg for another $3B for useless trams.
The O-Bahn sits in its own right of way which defeats the purpose of a tram. The L1 extension from Lilyfield to DH was also on its own ROW and cost something like $300 mil all up, exceptional value for a railway.
@@thetrainguy4 Nonsense. In Adelaide OBahn goes along Torrens river, nothing more, they had this space unused for 150 years, but nothing prevents to build it right the same way as your beloved trams along ANZAC. The very idea of this system is fast long transit (3 stops for 15 km in Adelaide), not to crawl all way long 40 kmh with stops, road intersections and so on like tram to Randwick. But, not like a tram, this obahn bus drives off the ramp and continues further as usual bus on usual streets, with ZERO cost to build anything special there.
Tram from Lilyfield to DH used all existing infrastructure designed for heavy rail (bridges, cuttings) and payd off 100 years ago, and underuses it several times relative to what it can be as heavy rail.