Apparently people in the comments don’t seem to understand how much more convenient these tram-buses are compared to other buses. Being only one storey, fully automated and having 3 articulated sections (which is uncommon in buses) is a Huge advantage for these tram-buses!!
Have you considered using overhead wires as in a trolly bus? This is a known system and reliable. This does add infrastrure cost but avoids the use of batteries etc so is much more enviroment friendly. .
The greatest advantages of trams are the rails! Less friction, much more durable wheels and tracks, as well as much higher efficiency. This kind of tram is cheaper for installing and buying, but in the long therm costs scalates through pavement reconstruction due to wheight concentration, battery wear out and wheels and suspension replacements. This must be considered as well, not just installation cost.
The tires are smaller, and the are low to the ground. The ride is significantly smoother than noisy heavy bus. If the automated system broke down, they could just drive it like a bus.
Mmmm....mixed feelings. As a diehard LRT fan, I can understand some of the supposed advantages regarding cost, construction, and operation. But how are these vehicles powered? I see no overhead wiring to draw power from. So... (rechargeable) battery, natural gas, or even hydrogen? Video does not appear to specify.
I don't see any upsides to this. Certainly not with cost. If it runs on dedicated lines, installing 2 rails is hardly any more expensive. And it makes up for it with the efficiency of steel on steel vehicle. Having rubber tires is the exact opposite of being efficient.
Who are you trying to fool? Anything that runs on rubber tires is nowhere near as efficient as things that have steel wheels and run on steel rails. That's what makes trains more efficient than any other method of transport. This is just an excuse to cheap out on building the rail infrastructure.
“There’s very little infrastructure to install. Ideally operating along a dedicated path.” Don’t you need to install the dedicated path? With bridges and tunnels to make it dedicated? There are very few examples where these were “given”. Interesting technology. China has one already that could have been mentioned. We’ll see.
Comparing the ride quality of this to the ride quality of a diesel bus is comparing apples to oranges. Modern electric buses are vastly smoother than their fossil-fueled counterparts, AND can be designed and manufactured in Australia. Plus, bus routes can operate through tight suburbs, where the trackless tram cannot (due to its size). Basically, wherever a trackless tram could operate, a light rail or conventional tram system could too, and the benefits of rail (minuscule rolling resistance, no need for charging) would play out. I reckon the main use cases for trackless trams are going to be pre-testing future light rail routes to check rider demand; and for underfunded areas where the capex for rail is too high, but the rider demand is suited to tram services.
@@ajen010nz I seriously doubt that, there's also the matter of road safety and road layout. I mean even the fastest BRT systems have no higher max speeds than 80km/h, largely due to the limits of the buses and the road.
@@allesineen1793 But there are other matters to that, like the fact the Obahn uses a additional guidance system, meaning only buses with those extra guidewheels can even use the busway. Plus finding buses permitted for any speed above 100km/h is hard, especially urban buses
Oh Dear Dear Here We Go Again! I presume that it is battery electric as I very much doubt that it is some sort of "Contact Stud" System using the Nodes as the power supply. In truth what was said about the cost of a rail system is true BUT and it is a critical but It is proven technology that actually works. Oddly this morning I was talking to a friend about the Cambridge Guided Bus System and the issues surrounding it's operation. Well it has proved to be vastly more expensive than a conventional Tram/LRT system to operate. Interestingly the French who have always been very keen on such things from as far back as the 1860's and M. Jean Larmanjart have discovered that such systems are all very well but the total costs over the lifetime of the system are often markedly higher than a conventional tramway. For example the system in Caen has been replaced by a modern tramway and the guided trolleybus system in Nantes will be replaced by a tramway. Also in the case of the Cambridge Busway it was demonstrated that a modern tramway out to St Ives would have been a far better bet on the old railway than what is there now. Sure I am all for innovation but this isn't it!
We have had our guidance system operational for 2 years doing 10,000km and no faults. I would be interested to see what costs were incurred for the operations in Caen and Cambridge that were not expected. The trams we use are very similar to the light rail trams available today. This difference in cost for our system is the difference in cost of building and maintaining roads over rail. The huge advantage of our system is that we can get our system up and running in months rather than years. We also avoid all of the disruptive digging that plagues the construction of rail.
@@ajen010nz Thanks for your reply. The problem in Caen and Nantes was due to the unique nature of the equipment and due to the company that built the vehicles being no longer in business it became effectively impossible to replace them with new vehicles. As for the Cambridge system there have been a number of problems with the guide wheels failing particularly when the vehicles enter the guided section without due care and attention (This is a common fault with guided bus systems where the vehicles are used both on the guideway and normal roads) There were also issues with the guideway itself not being built to the required standard and the build costs etc were higher than expected. Another major problem with the Cambridge system is the fact that other road users can access it by mistake at the sites of the former railway level crossings. I presume that your system is self contained and other road vehicles cannot access it either officially or accidentally? The Cambridge system has also been plagued by potentially very hazardous behaviour from cyclists. As parallel to the guideway there is a cyclepath which is often poorly maintained as a result cyclists (Cambridge being a University City has thousands of cyclists!) have been using the guideway sometimes with fatal concequences! I presume that your system is such that people cannot easily access it? Anyway I would like to learn more about this could you send me details to villiers2stroke@live.co.uk Have you ever come across John Parry and the "Parry People Mover" as John Parry had several very interesting ideas including a track system that could be laid with minimal effort and costs.
Hi Fionan, the trackless trams are 31m long or longer. City buses are around 14.5m long. While the trackless tram can drive anywhere on a road it is advised to follow the path of the strategic positioning nodes as a long vehicle is very hard to steer.
@@ajen010nz Thanks Andrew, my City has very narrow roads so I was considering saving road space by operating the Tram on the kerbsides rather than along the median. In this instance we would of course have to allow cars to turn at junctions safely, but it would mean that passengers would never have to alight the tram into oncoming traffic. Do you think kerbside operation is possible?
@@ajen010nz Are you working with CRRC, I presume that they are the patent holders for this technology? I feel the exterior design could be improved, my favourite conceptual iteration of the Trackless Tram, is the Wellington version, listed on my website www.restory.ie Also concerned about the amount of Anti-Trackless sentiment online, it's almost as if people are being paid to talk negatively about it
What is wrong with rails? We have the money to install them. Steel wheels on rails provide no rolling resistance, therefore are faster, and no risk of puncture or flat tyre. Rubber tyres have lots of rolling resistance and is therefore slower. There is a reason why rails exist and is superior to rubber tyres on asphalt. The only benefit that trackless trams provide is lower installation cost, maintenance costs maybe higher though completely defeating the benefit and making trackless trams useless. We should look to building light rail instead of trackless trams. They are a step backwards in technology.
Which narcissistic engineers came up with that technical toy ? Have we not had enough bad experiences in the past with the so-called "O-Bahn" from Mercedes-Benz and the "Guided Bus" from Adelaide. And why have the French in their cities of Caen and Reims fed up with buses like this and switched back to the tram ? Hey guys ! ... From Germany, the country with the best inner-city rail passenger transport of the world, I can tell you why: Because that is an inferior substitute for a means of transport, that we already have for long - the tram ! It is the convulsive, technically perverse attempt to make the bus "rail-like". A sham package and not an innovation, at all. The separate lane - if it is to be respected by the motorists - i.e. the private or guided route for the right-of-way, is equivalent to a multiple anti-tank barrier in the transverse direction. In opposite, a fluted rail of a tramway, on the other hand, has never and nowhere restricted the use of the road surface. A harmonious urban integration of the transport system into existing greenstripes and parks or the creation of new green corridors within our cities to loosen-up/design main arterial roads, such as by the so-called "Turf Tracks" of the tramway, is impossible with the bus system, as well. Instead, the bus lobby wants the asphalt deserts, that still run through many cities today, being added by a concrete lane in each direction, which they simply paint green, then. What a madness ! And now to the fairy tale of lower costs. Here, apples and pears are confused with each other: What the bus lobby tends to forget: The decisive factor for the choice of the transport system are not the one-time costs for the installation of the infrastructure, but solely the running costs of day-to-day operation, which namely can amortize the higher tram investment. In Germany, we are legally allowed to run trams in traction bandages of up to 70 meters length in mixed traffic on streets, which is impossible for such buses to handle and so prohibited. The modern tram or lightrail of our days therefore replaces 3 standard buses or 2 articulated buses. If one wanted to transport these passengers by bus, considerably more vehicles and personnel staff would have to be used. That's why the tram is much more economic than the bus on main traffic axes with high ridership. On such lines, any kind of bus has no place (except, if the road routing has a gradient of more than 12% or curve radii under 18 meters). Further, the lifespan of tram vehicles is four times longer than of buses. The same applies to the lower coefficient of friction on steel and thus to better energy efficiency of trams. Over and above that, the driving comfort on roads by tires will never be as comfortable as the wheel-rail system. In the result, such guided buses do represent a subservientness to the motorist lobby, because they do not "hurt" anyone and transport policy doesn't really has to be changed. Those buses are ideally suited for cities and politicians, who do not have the courage to say goodbye to the "car-friendly city" of the 60s and 70s and have still not recognized the signs of the time ... or do not want to recognize. And by the way, the tram is the forefather of e-mobility. So, passenger associations and politicians, don't let them muck you ! Just think of your own car. Not everything what seems new, is necessarily better. Besides, I would never entrust my life just to a computer.
Articulated buses are buses. Doesn't matter how you spin it, it's a bus. A tram by definition runs on rails, there is no such thing as a trackless tram. Rename Metronet "flightless planes".
![The Wall Song ร้องข้ามกำแพง | EP.215 | พาเวล นเรศ - พูห์ กฤติน | 17 ต.ค. 67 [1/5]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IUzrjuf60P4/mqdefault.jpg)
Apparently people in the comments don’t seem to understand how much more convenient these tram-buses are compared to other buses. Being only one storey, fully automated and having 3 articulated sections (which is uncommon in buses) is a Huge advantage for these tram-buses!!
Have you considered using overhead wires as in a trolly bus? This is a known system and reliable. This does add infrastrure cost but avoids the use of batteries etc so is much more enviroment friendly.
.
But on high ridership lines trams are already cheaper than buses.
The greatest advantages of trams are the rails! Less friction, much more durable wheels and tracks, as well as much higher efficiency. This kind of tram is cheaper for installing and buying, but in the long therm costs scalates through pavement reconstruction due to wheight concentration, battery wear out and wheels and suspension replacements. This must be considered as well, not just installation cost.
that's literally just a bus, maintenance costs are gonna be insane
The tires are smaller, and the are low to the ground. The ride is significantly smoother than noisy heavy bus.
If the automated system broke down, they could just drive it like a bus.
@@nntflow7058 it's a bus
@lwf51 when did I say buses were bad? Go on point me to where I said that
@@nntflow7058 it’s literally a bus
@lwf51 yeah that’s what I’d call a tram.
Mmmm....mixed feelings. As a diehard LRT fan, I can understand some of the supposed advantages regarding cost, construction, and operation. But how are these vehicles powered? I see no overhead wiring to draw power from. So... (rechargeable) battery, natural gas, or even hydrogen? Video does not appear to specify.
The GETS system is battery powered and recharges at recharging stations constructed at stations where the passengers alight and board.
I don't see any upsides to this. Certainly not with cost. If it runs on dedicated lines, installing 2 rails is hardly any more expensive. And it makes up for it with the efficiency of steel on steel vehicle. Having rubber tires is the exact opposite of being efficient.
@@RR-us2kp Exactly and that is why I believe that trackless trams are a step backwards in technology contrary to what they say.
You don't get potholes on railtrack
Who are you trying to fool? Anything that runs on rubber tires is nowhere near as efficient as things that have steel wheels and run on steel rails. That's what makes trains more efficient than any other method of transport.
This is just an excuse to cheap out on building the rail infrastructure.
Exactly, trackless trams are a step backwards in technology, not a step forwards like what they say.
“There’s very little infrastructure to install. Ideally operating along a dedicated path.”
Don’t you need to install the dedicated path? With bridges and tunnels to make it dedicated?
There are very few examples where these were “given”.
Interesting technology. China has one already that could have been mentioned. We’ll see.
Comparing the ride quality of this to the ride quality of a diesel bus is comparing apples to oranges. Modern electric buses are vastly smoother than their fossil-fueled counterparts, AND can be designed and manufactured in Australia.
Plus, bus routes can operate through tight suburbs, where the trackless tram cannot (due to its size). Basically, wherever a trackless tram could operate, a light rail or conventional tram system could too, and the benefits of rail (minuscule rolling resistance, no need for charging) would play out.
I reckon the main use cases for trackless trams are going to be pre-testing future light rail routes to check rider demand; and for underfunded areas where the capex for rail is too high, but the rider demand is suited to tram services.
The chinese will never allow any of their stuff made in Australia..their goal is everyone to be dependent on them.
What sort of speeds can these things reach? Apparently we're getting a whole metro system based on this in Cambridgeshire (England)
@LW F As computer chip processing speeds get faster the trams will be able to calculate positioning data faster to allow higher speeds.
@@ajen010nz I seriously doubt that, there's also the matter of road safety and road layout. I mean even the fastest BRT systems have no higher max speeds than 80km/h, largely due to the limits of the buses and the road.
@@drdewott9154 The O-bahn is allowed up to 90km/h and is has a design speed of 120km/h
@@allesineen1793 But there are other matters to that, like the fact the Obahn uses a additional guidance system, meaning only buses with those extra guidewheels can even use the busway. Plus finding buses permitted for any speed above 100km/h is hard, especially urban buses
Major problem with trackless tram is particulate emissions from multiple rubber tyres. Why is this overlooked? Tracks are best.
This is ART ? Autonomus Rapid Transit?
Oh Dear Dear Here We Go Again! I presume that it is battery electric as I very much doubt that it is some sort of "Contact Stud" System using the Nodes as the power supply.
In truth what was said about the cost of a rail system is true BUT and it is a critical but It is proven technology that actually works. Oddly this morning I was talking to a friend about the Cambridge Guided Bus System and the issues surrounding it's operation. Well it has proved to be vastly more expensive than a conventional Tram/LRT system to operate. Interestingly the French who have always been very keen on such things from as far back as the 1860's and M. Jean Larmanjart have discovered that such systems are all very well but the total costs over the lifetime of the system are often markedly higher than a conventional tramway. For example the system in Caen has been replaced by a modern tramway and the guided trolleybus system in Nantes will be replaced by a tramway. Also in the case of the Cambridge Busway it was demonstrated that a modern tramway out to St Ives would have been a far better bet on the old railway than what is there now. Sure I am all for innovation but this isn't it!
We have had our guidance system operational for 2 years doing 10,000km and no faults. I would be interested to see what costs were incurred for the operations in Caen and Cambridge that were not expected. The trams we use are very similar to the light rail trams available today. This difference in cost for our system is the difference in cost of building and maintaining roads over rail. The huge advantage of our system is that we can get our system up and running in months rather than years. We also avoid all of the disruptive digging that plagues the construction of rail.
@@ajen010nz Thanks for your reply. The problem in Caen and Nantes was due to the unique nature of the equipment and due to the company that built the vehicles being no longer in business it became effectively impossible to replace them with new vehicles. As for the Cambridge system there have been a number of problems with the guide wheels failing particularly when the vehicles enter the guided section without due care and attention (This is a common fault with guided bus systems where the vehicles are used both on the guideway and normal roads) There were also issues with the guideway itself not being built to the required standard and the build costs etc were higher than expected. Another major problem with the Cambridge system is the fact that other road users can access it by mistake at the sites of the former railway level crossings. I presume that your system is self contained and other road vehicles cannot access it either officially or accidentally? The Cambridge system has also been plagued by potentially very hazardous behaviour from cyclists. As parallel to the guideway there is a cyclepath which is often poorly maintained as a result cyclists (Cambridge being a University City has thousands of cyclists!) have been using the guideway sometimes with fatal concequences! I presume that your system is such that people cannot easily access it?
Anyway I would like to learn more about this could you send me details to villiers2stroke@live.co.uk
Have you ever come across John Parry and the "Parry People Mover" as John Parry had several very interesting ideas including a track system that could be laid with minimal effort and costs.
Obviously anything that runs on rubber tires is going to be less efficient than things that run on steel rails by steel wheels.
Are these vehicles capable of merging with car traffic where necessary?
Hi Fionan, the trackless trams are 31m long or longer. City buses are around 14.5m long. While the trackless tram can drive anywhere on a road it is advised to follow the path of the strategic positioning nodes as a long vehicle is very hard to steer.
@@ajen010nz Thanks Andrew, my City has very narrow roads so I was considering saving road space by operating the Tram on the kerbsides rather than along the median. In this instance we would of course have to allow cars to turn at junctions safely, but it would mean that passengers would never have to alight the tram into oncoming traffic. Do you think kerbside operation is possible?
@@Fionan95 Hi Fionan, our trackless trams can run on the kerbside or along the median. I am not a fan of passengers alighting into oncoming traffic.
@@ajen010nz Are you working with CRRC, I presume that they are the patent holders for this technology?
I feel the exterior design could be improved, my favourite conceptual iteration of the Trackless Tram, is the Wellington version, listed on my website www.restory.ie
Also concerned about the amount of Anti-Trackless sentiment online, it's almost as if people are being paid to talk negatively about it
nah, i dislike the thought of trackless trams. besides australia has the budget for normal trams, i dont see why there isnt more of them.
What is wrong with rails? We have the money to install them. Steel wheels on rails provide no rolling resistance, therefore are faster, and no risk of puncture or flat tyre. Rubber tyres have lots of rolling resistance and is therefore slower. There is a reason why rails exist and is superior to rubber tyres on asphalt. The only benefit that trackless trams provide is lower installation cost, maintenance costs maybe higher though completely defeating the benefit and making trackless trams useless. We should look to building light rail instead of trackless trams. They are a step backwards in technology.
Which narcissistic engineers came up with that technical toy ? Have we not had enough bad experiences in the past with the so-called "O-Bahn" from Mercedes-Benz and the "Guided Bus" from Adelaide. And why have the French in their cities of Caen and Reims fed up with buses like this and switched back to the tram ?
Hey guys ! ... From Germany, the country with the best inner-city rail passenger transport of the world, I can tell you why:
Because that is an inferior substitute for a means of transport, that we already have for long - the tram ! It is the convulsive, technically perverse attempt to make the bus "rail-like". A sham package and not an innovation, at all.
The separate lane - if it is to be respected by the motorists - i.e. the private or guided route for the right-of-way, is equivalent to a multiple anti-tank barrier in the transverse direction. In opposite, a fluted rail of a tramway, on the other hand, has never and nowhere restricted the use of the road surface. A harmonious urban integration of the transport system into existing greenstripes and parks or the creation of new green corridors within our cities to loosen-up/design main arterial roads, such as by the so-called "Turf Tracks" of the tramway, is impossible with the bus system, as well. Instead, the bus lobby wants the asphalt deserts, that still run through many cities today, being added by a concrete lane in each direction, which they simply paint green, then. What a madness !
And now to the fairy tale of lower costs. Here, apples and pears are confused with each other:
What the bus lobby tends to forget: The decisive factor for the choice of the transport system are not the one-time costs for the installation of the infrastructure, but solely the running costs of day-to-day operation, which namely can amortize the higher tram investment. In Germany, we are legally allowed to run trams in traction bandages of up to 70 meters length in mixed traffic on streets, which is impossible for such buses to handle and so prohibited. The modern tram or lightrail of our days therefore replaces 3 standard buses or 2 articulated buses. If one wanted to transport these passengers by bus, considerably more vehicles and personnel staff would have to be used. That's why the tram is much more economic than the bus on main traffic axes with high ridership. On such lines, any kind of bus has no place (except, if the road routing has a gradient of more than 12% or curve radii under 18 meters).
Further, the lifespan of tram vehicles is four times longer than of buses. The same applies to the lower coefficient of friction on steel and thus to better energy efficiency of trams. Over and above that, the driving comfort on roads by tires will never be as comfortable as the wheel-rail system.
In the result, such guided buses do represent a subservientness to the motorist lobby, because they do not "hurt" anyone and transport policy doesn't really has to be changed. Those buses are ideally suited for cities and politicians, who do not have the courage to say goodbye to the "car-friendly city" of the 60s and 70s and have still not recognized the signs of the time ... or do not want to recognize. And by the way, the tram is the forefather of e-mobility.
So, passenger associations and politicians, don't let them muck you ! Just think of your own car. Not everything what seems new,
is necessarily better. Besides, I would never entrust my life just to a computer.
Articulated buses are buses. Doesn't matter how you spin it, it's a bus. A tram by definition runs on rails, there is no such thing as a trackless tram.
Rename Metronet "flightless planes".
Teleportation will render all of the above-mentioned irrelevant!
another gadgetbahn simply build trams/light rail
2:18 MRT Purple line in Thailand