Bus conversion that allows it to ride the rails?

[Phoebe Vet]

Those buses are just running on electricity.  That is nothing new.  American cities had those in the 1930s.  They are not running on rails.

Charlotte has started construction of a busway, but the residents along the line are still demanding they change it to light rail.  The city is continuing construction and assuring the residents that if they find the money, they can just lay the rails in the busway.

The first operating light rail line is averaging 50% more riders than anticipated.

[oltmannd]

You'd probably do better by "containerizing" the passengers and swaping the container between highway and rail "chassis".  Perhaps the container would have the prime mover and would plug into the chassis, which would be fitted with electric traction motors.    Could use smaller version of motorized wheel used on those big, open pit mine dump trucks.

[JT22CW]

It would be great to run a BRT and light rail together in the same ROW and see how people used each. A direct comparsion. Not much extra cost to put rails down but the catenary and protective signaling would be costly.

Pittsburgh already has that in their South Busway.  The Mount Washington Tunnel, originally built for streetcars, was paved so that buses could operate through it.  Police and other emergency vehicles apparently can use it as well.

Some other cities have the "guided bus" concept.  Look at the huge speed advantage.  (East Leeds, England.)  Well, I'm being sarcastic; some operations like this can operate at 62½ mph.  But that doesn't match the best LRT out there.

Mr. Oltmann is right on the money when it comes to BRT.  It's such a scam, that bus builders need to mimic the appearance of modern light rail vehicles in order to sell the concept.  (Funny thing is, though, that GMC, Mack, White and the rest did the exact same thing by making the "old look" buses resemble the PCC car, so the new BRT buses are merely carrying on the tradition started by National City Lines.)  Below is a picture of a "Civis Bus", built by Irisbus, a division of Renault.

[Anonymous]

My 2 cents worth on this.

1.A lot of people do not like to transfer whilst traveling if they can avoid it. I've been to Seattle in the rainy season(winter) can't imagine Victoria is much better.

2. The problem with hybrids (ie a bus w rail wheels or a train w rubber tyres) is that they generally don't do either very well. X2000's comment on the rail bus were a prime example.

3. Los Angeles did have a number of "Bus ways". Dedicated roads for use by buses. Many of these I think were converted to rail use during the 80's-90's as RTD & the Los Angeles area started their rail operations.

4. Seattle. The mixed use transit tunnel(rail/bus) uses electric buses(sometimes call trackless trolleys) in the tunnels(I think it is a ventilation problem).

5. In theory anything is possible. But to quote George Carlin(I think) Reality what a concept.

 

Thx IGN

 

PS Just a final thought. Montreal & Paris use a system that rides on rubber tyres. The rails are only used to guide the equipment down the right of way

[JT22CW]

Just a final thought. Montreal & Paris use a system that rides on rubber tyres. The rails are only used to guide the equipment down the right of way

Actually, the steel wheels on the rails take most of the train's weight; the train can run with all tires deflated if necessary (but that's an unlikely scenario).  And of course, without the flanges on the steel wheels, the train does not stay on the rails.

[marknewton]

Curious Victorian,

In answer to the original question, Toyota/Hino and JR Hokkaido are developing a dual-mode vehicle. I'll spare you any Japanese language websites, but have a look at this:

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/05/half-bus-half-t.html

That's pretty close to what you wanted, yeah?

Cheers,

Mark.

[henry6]

I had the opportunity to hear a presentation by one of Alstom's vice preseidents and one of the points that came out is that North American railroading demands a "heavier" vehicle than elsewhere in the world.  Even with private rights of way.  Thus, what is common practice in Europe and Asia, cannot be done here.  A bus body with railroad wheels is too light and flimsy for North America as are some of the electric and dual electric vehicles available places like Sweden, Switzerland, and Japan.

[daveklepper]

The Rinault Civis bus operates on the "MAX" line in Las Vegas.   There it is a diesel electric, with use of the Alstom wheel-motor and has guided steering for much of the route.   Anyone out there actually ride it?   Any comments?

[scottlyke]

Why not go the DMU route?  Colorado Railcar builds some http://www.coloradorailcar.com/.

[Phoebe Vet]

That's essentially the same as light rail.

I would be reluctant to start a new major project that runs on deisel fuel in today's oil market.

[JT22CW]

Colorado Railcar DMUs are anything but light rail.  They can run anywhere on the FRA's network.  Nobody would call the Budd RDC light rail, would they?  And most light rail is electrified; diesel light rail is rare and uncharacteristic of the mode in general.

If "today's oil market" would snap our governing bodies out of their slumber and push them towards mass electrification of the railroads, that would be a good thing.  Still and all, even with the costs of diesel fuel (which railroads still get for cheaper than for road use), DMUs would reduce startup costs for new passenger service.

Just for conversation's sake, here's the only CRC DMU product in revenue service.  This is the bilevel DMU they built for Tri-Rail (SFRTA) in Florida; it's running under its own power here (photo taken at the new Boca Raton station).  A bit over 19 feet tall above rail, which makes it over three feet taller than most bilevels.

[gardendance]

That's essentially the same as light rail.

I would be reluctant to start a new major project that runs on deisel fuel in today's oil market.

One of the rationales for starting up diesel, similar to the rationale for starting up rubber tired, is that one can always electrify later. Of course one of the worries is that if you build it on the cheap it'll stay that way. All other things being equal I believe some service, whether diesel or electric, rubber tired or steel wheel on steel rail, is preferrable to no service at all.

Seattle for example built their subway for rubber tires, but laid rail for future conversion, and now indeed they are in the process of adding rail service. No, they didn't necessarily get it right the first time, http://world.nycsubway.org/us/seattle/tunnel.html says "

September 2005- The Tunnel is temporarily closed so that the tracks (described below) can be upgraded to support Seattle's new light rail line, which is under construction.

"

Also remember electric does not necessarily mean not diesel powered. It all depends on what your power plant uses to make electricity. If it's an oil plant there are only possible economies of scale and possible regenerative braking that make it different from a regular diesel vehicle. I'm guessing that Seattle and Victoria get some signifigant portion of their electricity from hydro.

[henry6]

But also remember the economies of steel wheel on steel rail as opposed to rubber wheels on concrete, asphalt, and hard dirt.  Diesel, even gasoline, will be more effecient when there is less friction to overcome.

[Phoebe Vet]

Sorry, diplomacy is not my long suit.

I did not intend my comparison to light rail to be a criticism.

Light rail has very little to do with weight.

It is true that most light rail is electric.  I consider that to be a plus.

My comparison was that it is a self propelled vehicle that can be joined to others when load dictates.  I consider THAT a plus.  Using a 4500 HP diesel to pull one or two cars for the relatively short distances of commuter rail seems like a waste of fuel.  I do  believe that they should pay more attention to aerodynamics.

While gasoline and diesel fuel will probably peak and then go back down some, it will NEVER go back to the level it was at 7 years ago.  I will refrain from going off on that now no longer relevant tangent.  It is true that much of our electricity is produced with petroleum products, some fuel oil and much natural gas, and a lot is also produced with coal, that will not always be the case.

If the budget precludes electrifying the new rail project, then my personal recommendation would be a diesel/electric/hybrid self propelled vehicle that is designed to be easily converted to external electric in the future.

[henry6]

But, too, you're not talking 4500hp but less than 1000hp, maybe even 450hp per unit and 200hp per powered axel, when talking light rail as opposed to heavy rail.  And you also must define commuting distances.  In my mind, and  my mind only, light rail is good perhaps up to 10 or 15 miles at best, above that and you must consider heavy rail for comfort and speed (efficiency).

[Phoebe Vet]

We don't really seem to be in disagreement here.  At least not much.

I believe that a 1,000 hp DMU makes more sense than a 4,500 hp locomotive pulling cars for commuter length runs with trains of fewer than 4 cars.

Speed is really more related to the distance between stops than power source.

Traditional light rail has the 50 mph or so top speeds because that is what they are geared for.  They could easily be geared higher.  The fastest trains in the world are electric.

I have always been inclined to plan for the future.  I believe that in the near future electricity will be cleaner, cheaper, and more readily available than any fossil fuel.  While electric may be a greater up front capital investment, if you factor in operating cost over the life of the system, I bet electric will win out in the long run.

That is why I suggested a diesel/electric/hybrid that you can run on fuel now, and can convert to electric when fuel passes $6 a gallon.  By building the DMU to run both, you can electrify in zones over a long period of time, running electric where it's available and fuel on the nonelectrified sections and either way still do dynamic braking which recovers electricity and reduces wear on the mechanical brakes.

[JT22CW]

Also remember electric does not necessarily mean not diesel powered. It all depends on what your power plant uses to make electricity. If it's an oil plant there are only possible economies of scale and possible regenerative braking that make it different from a regular diesel vehicle

Unless the power plant is using a piston engine that uses compression to ignite the fuel in order to generate power, you are not using diesel power.  Diesel is a type of engine, not a fuel.

That is why I suggested a diesel/electric/hybrid that you can run on fuel now, and can convert to electric when fuel passes $6 a gallon. By building the DMU to run both, you can electrify in zones over a long period of time, running electric where it's available and fuel on the nonelectrified sections and either way still do dynamic braking which recovers electricity and reduces wear on the mechanical brakes

Be careful using the term "hybrid", because it's not defined, especially when it comes to the railroad. Some people say "hybrid" when they mean "dual-mode". No railroad buys dual-mode power with an eye to "converting to electricity later on" (except possibly for SNCF, with their B 81500 and B 82500 class D/EMUs, and meanwhile, they are planning to electrify all rails in their country); it's always a stop-gap measure in order to avoid doing engine changes, and it's always more expensive than choosing one or the other. Also, in the USA, dual-mode has merely been a means to allow diesel trains to enter underground stations/terminals that have limited ventilation.

A diesel-electric can be considered a "hybrid" in and of itself, especially when compared to diesel-mechanical or diesel-hydraulic locomotives.

Dynamic braking is not what "recovers electricity". That's called regenerative braking.  Dynamic braking is, roughly, the equivalent of the "jake brake" on trucks and tractor-trailers.

[daveklepper]

One of St. Louis's new light rail lines is truly an interurban, stretching for more that 40 miles through Bellville and beyond.   And it is succesful and people do commute the whole distance.   There is no real wall separating light rail from heavy rail in comfort and speed.   I rode the front platform of a North Shore train passing every mile post in 36 seconds between Deerpath and Skokie.   But we started out on city streets, stopping for traffic lights, from the downtown Milwaukee Station  and ended up in Chicago on the elevated.   The interurban between Manheim and Heidelburg serves snack food, like the North Shore's Electroliners did.   Some modern light rail cars are more comfortable and some travel at higher speeds than certain commuter railroad equipment, although the trend is the opposite. 

[Falcon48]

I'm late to this string, since it has been several months since the last post.  On the chance someone is still watching it, here's a tidbit that may be of some interest.

The idea of a bus that can operate on either highways or rail isn't new.  Red Arrow Lines, which operated a suburban trolley system in the Philadelphia area (still operating as part of SEPTA) conducted experiments with a rail/highway bus in the 1960's or 70's, with the announced intent of using them to replace their trolleys.  Suffice it to say that the bus was not a success (a considerable understatement).  The problem was that the rail/tire interface was not very good, even on dry rail, and the vehicle sometimes couldn't even move itself, let alone a full load of passengers.  Another brilliant idea that never got any traction (sorry, I couldn't resist, even thoug I know I should have). 

[matthewsaggie]

In the early 1970's British Leyland built a rail bus that was demonstrated in the US. I recall it operated for several months on the MBTA line from Lowell up to Nashua NH. I recall pictures in Trains. It seems that it was also tried in Cleveland. See:

http://nepa.railfan.net/retroscans/railbus.htm

 If you Google British Layland railbus, you will come up with other links and pictures

[jkeaton]

oltmannd

IMHO BRT is a scam.

The BRT proponents almost always claim that it's the best of both light rail and bus.  The problem is that they never really define what BRT is.  Is it primarily bus "trains" running al most exclusively on new, dedicated ROW or is is just exiting city buses with some enhanced  traffic control or is it buses running on existing HOV lanes with "stations" in the median.

Being the "best" at one aspect or the other may be true, depend on which BRT you are talking about, but it's never best at all.

 Bus Rapid Transit works great in my city city of 800,000, for a reason you didn't mention - because it is flexible!  The buses use the dedicated busways to get out of downtown, bypass congestion on the highways, etc., then exit the busways to provide local service through suburban or industrial park areas.  This gives you speed, like LRT, plus flexibility for local service, like buses, PLUS no transfers - because transfers are a huge turn-off for many commuters.

 Once your passenger loading gets high enough, it makes sense to start converting some of the busways to LRT for the heavy routes (to universities etc.) but having a joint BRT/LRT then gives capacity and flexibility.

 Come to Ottawa sometime and see it for yourself.  Just wait until our transit strike is over though.

 

Jim in Ottawa, Canada

[jkeaton]

matthewsaggie

In the early 1970's British Leyland built a rail bus that was demonstrated in the US. I recall it operated for several months on the MBTA line from Lowell up to Nashua NH. I recall pictures in Trains. It seems that it was also tried in Cleveland. See:

http://nepa.railfan.net/retroscans/railbus.htm

 If you Google British Layland railbus, you will come up with other links and pictures

 It also demonstrated in Canada, specificly in northern Manitoba, where CN wanted to evaluate using it to replace mixed trains on remote lines without highways.  They also evaluated a GM transit bus with a built-in turntable. 

 Jim, Ottawa

[aegrotatio]

 Search for "kerb guided bus" and you'll find lots of interesting material.