Getting back to Curious V's original idea, and Paul F's answers:
From what I've read about the experiments with hi-rail buses on the Philadelphia Suburban Transportation Co's trolley/interurban lines (the "Red Arrow Lines"), the lack of traction given by rubber tires on a rather narrow steel rail was a problem for both getting moving and stopping. Wetness and leaves would just make it worse. I seem to remember that what completely killed the project was trying to run the hi-rail bus after an inch or so of snow. This was from a privately owned transportation company with rail lines that were partly on private right of way. They were highly motivated to make the project work, but it didn't. I think the experiment is discussed, but not in great detail, in The Red Arrow by Ronald DeGraw. I'll try to find it and quote it when I'm logged in at home.
Philadelphia Suburban did convert the Ardmore line to a paved busway. When I was last there about 5 years ago, about a mile of the busway was still there.
The broad gauge Media and Sharon Hill lines (with overhead wires and some street running) and standard gauge Norristown line (third rail, high speed, no grade crossings) are now run by a public agency. Hi-rail buses could allow flexible expansion of all these lines, but apparently no one has overcome the technological hurdle.
Rick W
LOL:
Hop on the Amtrak Crescent, or mosey on up I-85 for a day or two and I'll take you on the "redneck tour". (A tour of all the NASCAR team shops.) That's a good stress reliever.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe Vet wrote: Oltmannd:Scam may be a little strong, but overall I tend to agree with you that it is a bubble gum and baling wire approach usually planned by the penny wise and pound foolish.The plan here was articulated double busses in a dedicated busway operating like the light rail, stopping only at stations.The one light rail line that has been open here since November is so successful that they just ordered 4 more light rail trains so that they can run double trains all the time, not just at rush hour.The road along the silver line planned route is being upgraded. It is being made limited access, and lanes are being added. That is a totally separate project, but they are building the two lane busway down the middle of it during the upgrade. The people who live along that route turn out in huge numbers at every planning meeting, and are demanding light rail instead of BRT. The City/County are saying it will depend on available funding, but they are actually planning it both ways. If they can get the funding for light rail, they will run it in the busway instead of busses.In the mean time, engineering studies are under way to extend the Blue line 10 more miles, run commuter rail up the lake, the planned city center trolleys (real trolleys, not trolley busses) has been pushed up because of public demand, and the land has been acquired for the new multimodal facility in city center which will house Amtrak, the Maroon Line (commuter rail), and Greyhound.Just today, several bus routes were changed to make them integrate better into the light rail system.I only mentioned the BRT because the original poster was adamant that he wanted busses converted to run on rails in the existing single track right of way. Choosing only between those two options, BRT makes more sense.
Oltmannd:
Scam may be a little strong, but overall I tend to agree with you that it is a bubble gum and baling wire approach usually planned by the penny wise and pound foolish.
The plan here was articulated double busses in a dedicated busway operating like the light rail, stopping only at stations.
The one light rail line that has been open here since November is so successful that they just ordered 4 more light rail trains so that they can run double trains all the time, not just at rush hour.
The road along the silver line planned route is being upgraded. It is being made limited access, and lanes are being added. That is a totally separate project, but they are building the two lane busway down the middle of it during the upgrade. The people who live along that route turn out in huge numbers at every planning meeting, and are demanding light rail instead of BRT. The City/County are saying it will depend on available funding, but they are actually planning it both ways. If they can get the funding for light rail, they will run it in the busway instead of busses.
In the mean time, engineering studies are under way to extend the Blue line 10 more miles, run commuter rail up the lake, the planned city center trolleys (real trolleys, not trolley busses) has been pushed up because of public demand, and the land has been acquired for the new multimodal facility in city center which will house Amtrak, the Maroon Line (commuter rail), and Greyhound.
Just today, several bus routes were changed to make them integrate better into the light rail system.
I only mentioned the BRT because the original poster was adamant that he wanted busses converted to run on rails in the existing single track right of way. Choosing only between those two options, BRT makes more sense.
You are right. Scam is too strong. I've been (stuck) in Atlanta too long and am cynical!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Phoebe Vet wrote: Check out this image. The area in the middle of the road separated by concrete barriers is called a busway. At this time, standard buses run in it, but it will be the path for the BRT when it is completed. BRT are double LENGTH buses. The people along the route are fighting it. They want light rail instead of BRT. The city says if they can get the financing to go that route they will run the light rail in the busway.http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCC&cp=35.211102~-80.805388&style=a&lvl=16&tilt=-42.6889711765207&dir=0&alt=1374.9795569405&cam=35.199385~-80.805104&scene=21383997&phx=0.430736990761338&phy=-0.308307186901999&phscl=10.4375&encType=1If you are going to use the existing track, you might as well buy rail vehicles. The cost of adding high rail equipment to buses has got to be high. To make it bidirectional may only need passing sidings.Another thought. You can pave the rail ROW without removing or interfering with the tracks. That might be more cost effective than converting your buses. Then you could use existing buses.http://www.fta.dot.gov/assistance/technology/research_4240.html
Check out this image. The area in the middle of the road separated by concrete barriers is called a busway. At this time, standard buses run in it, but it will be the path for the BRT when it is completed. BRT are double LENGTH buses. The people along the route are fighting it. They want light rail instead of BRT. The city says if they can get the financing to go that route they will run the light rail in the busway.
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCC&cp=35.211102~-80.805388&style=a&lvl=16&tilt=-42.6889711765207&dir=0&alt=1374.9795569405&cam=35.199385~-80.805104&scene=21383997&phx=0.430736990761338&phy=-0.308307186901999&phscl=10.4375&encType=1
If you are going to use the existing track, you might as well buy rail vehicles. The cost of adding high rail equipment to buses has got to be high. To make it bidirectional may only need passing sidings.
Another thought. You can pave the rail ROW without removing or interfering with the tracks. That might be more cost effective than converting your buses. Then you could use existing buses.
http://www.fta.dot.gov/assistance/technology/research_4240.html
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.
It's only cheaper if you forgo the separate ROW. If you do this, in town, you just have jsut slightly improved city bus service. If you do this on freeway HOV lanes, you are still stuck using the same, already overcrowded freeway access roads and have stations with built-in noise and air quality issues.
If you do the separte ROW, then the costs and service levels maybe equivalent, but I don't think I've ever seen a proposal where system capacity is equivalent.
The bus "trains' they talk about are merely city articulated buses - nothing more than a bus pulling trailer. If there is techology to run 4 unit "bus" trains at highway speeds, I've not seen it.
A bus will never ride as well or be as quiet as train or trolley.
I think BRT has two main groups of supporters. The late-to-the-party, new-ideas-are-always-better, transit advocates and urban planners who don't know fully what they're talking about and the "our buddies make money pouring concrete" state DOT types who's ox is gored everytime transit is built. The former is operating on wishful thinking the latter is hoping the former eventually gets exposed and nothing gets built.
Guess who gets left holding the bag.....
Around October or November 1950, another MIT undergraduate railfan, Frank Fairbanks (passed on), and I rode from Kingston on the NE Corridor (then New Haven) to Naragansett Pier and back on the Naragansett Pier's converted blue schoolbus which simply had flanged wheels replacing the usual hub and tire -- and part of the time we rode backwards, without any rear-end controls, because the NPRR track at the Kingston Station was sub-end.
Your idea is technically feasible, and the same type of equipment as used on railway inspection "hi-railers" can be beefed up to handle buses. Whether it makes sense operationally or economically is another question. Despite the limitations and expenses, an all rail solution might be found that would be better.
FYI If I remember correctly, both Pittsburg & Seattle both use mixed light rail/busways.
Crazy idea(thought about this whilst writing this) what about putting the busses on a flat car, a variation of TOFC(BOFC) & running a group of busses by rail.
Rgds IGN
curious Victorian wrote: Paul, thanks for finding this photo - this is exactly what I was talking about... You say that this was an experiment that never took hold for lack of traction... pardon my naivety, but do you mean that the rear wheels didn't have enough traction on the rails to brake (or accelerate) effectively, or just that the idea never gained any "traction" with traffic planners.By the way, can you, or any other reader, direct me to more information about this so-called experiment? I would love to read about it, since judging by the apparent age of the bus in the photo this was probably tried several decades ago. A lot of time has passed since then, and what might have been experimental technology then may well be completely do-able and practical today. Again, thanks
Paul, thanks for finding this photo - this is exactly what I was talking about...
You say that this was an experiment that never took hold for lack of traction... pardon my naivety, but do you mean that the rear wheels didn't have enough traction on the rails to brake (or accelerate) effectively, or just that the idea never gained any "traction" with traffic planners.
By the way, can you, or any other reader, direct me to more information about this so-called experiment? I would love to read about it, since judging by the apparent age of the bus in the photo this was probably tried several decades ago. A lot of time has passed since then, and what might have been experimental technology then may well be completely do-able and practical today.
Again, thanks
Sorry, but I was employing a pun to accomplish both thoughts -- literally the traction of the rear wheels was very low, especially on rainy days (no sanding system, etc. to increase traction), AND the idea simply didn't have a lot of support since congestion wasn't as bad as it is today, and the system that tested it in the area where I grew up (Philadelphia Suburban Transit) did ultimately rip out existing tracks and re-use the right of way as a paved, bus only route (Ardmore line).
Although not specific to this bus on rails issue, there is an interesting link you may want to consider -- http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt_2006-08a.htm
Paul F.
passengerfan wrote:You might want to check with the New Haven historical Society as that road had some buses that operated on branch lines that had the ability to turn just the body around so they would be facing forward for the return trip. The MP operated city type buses on rails somewhere around Houston I believe but don't know what they did for the return trip or if they were bi-directional. Al - in - Stockton
You might want to check with the New Haven historical Society as that road had some buses that operated on branch lines that had the ability to turn just the body around so they would be facing forward for the return trip.
The MP operated city type buses on rails somewhere around Houston I believe but don't know what they did for the return trip or if they were bi-directional.
Al - in - Stockton
Similar designs - bus-styled motor-cars - existed on French narrow-gauge-railroads. They carried a small turntable with them. The turntable was lowered until the wheels did not touch the rails anymore. Then, the engineer and conductor (and helpers?) turned the motor-car by 180 degrees.
In addition to heavy commuter rail for some of its suburban communities, i.e. those served by existing rail lines, Adelaide, South Australia, built a unique guided bus transit way.
The transit way consists of two concrete rights-of-way that look a bit like troughs. They abut each other, so they require less space than a normal two lane highway. Each right of way, which has a wall that appears to be a couple of feet high, if I remember correctly, is just wide enough to accommodate a bus. Once in the trough the bus is guided by a set of wheels that jute out from the front of the bus and touch the sidewalls. They steer the bus while it is in the trough. All the driver has to do is keep the bus rolling and look out for any buses ahead of him or her. The system does not require any signals, since the buses only go about 55 mph, and there are no blind curves on the system. It is like driving in traffic without having to steer or change lanes. It appears that the system was built on a former rail line.
Buses enter the transit way from downtown or one of the suburban communities served via a dedicated approach ramp. There are several exit points along the way (the driver must take control of the bus when exiting the system or passing through the exit point). Upon exiting the transit way, the driver runs a street route through the neighborhood that is served by the bus.
The beauty of the system is that for the run to or from the suburbs, the bus has an unimpeded right of way, which means that it can clip along nearly as fast as most light rail trains. The Charlotte trains, as an example, are restricted to 55 mph, while the Dallas trains are restricted to 60 mph. Moreover, because the bus can exit the system and travel along neighborhood or downtown routes, passengers don't need to change from a train to a local bus or downtown circulatory.
I suspect people favor the train over the bus because it is quicker. A bus, unless it can run on a dedicated right of way, is simply a big car. However, if it is as quick as a train, I suspect most people would not care whether they are on a comfortable bus or a comfortable train.
I don't know how much the Adelaide system cost, but I suspect that it was less than building a two track train system, especially given that it did not involve tearing up any downtown streets, as was the case in Dallas and Houston, as well as most other cities that opted for light rail. I understand that several German cities have a system that is similar to the Adelaide system, but I don't know their names.
Thanks for your comments Phoebe... a few responses spring to mind...
Again, thanks for your feedback.
Graydon Gibson
Victoria BC
curious Victorian wrote: At one point early on in this debate, a letter to the editor talked about the possibility of using transit buses which are also able to drive onto railway tracks, by lowering their steel wheels (or raising their rubber ones) depending on whether they were riding the rails or a paved roadway. [Snip] So... my questions to all you rapid transit buffs are:Is there such a thing as a bus that can also operate on rail lines?If so, are they being used in the manner I have described above, anywhere in the world that you know of?, and ...Any idea how much it would cost to buy one of these buses, or failing that, to convert a regular (probably deisel) commuter/passenger bus into a hybrid that can ride the rails as well? I look forward to hearing from you, or to answer further questions about our situation here in Victoria, if any. Thanks
At one point early on in this debate, a letter to the editor talked about the possibility of using transit buses which are also able to drive onto railway tracks, by lowering their steel wheels (or raising their rubber ones) depending on whether they were riding the rails or a paved roadway.
[Snip]
So... my questions to all you rapid transit buffs are:
I look forward to hearing from you, or to answer further questions about our situation here in Victoria, if any. Thanks
How about this bus (preserved at a museum -- as an experiment that never took hold for lack of traction).
http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?10981
Your solution sounds complicated and maint intensive. The maint of those retractable wheels can't be cheap.
Charlotte, NC is a city of aprox 700,000 with a surrounding metro area that brings it well over a million. We are in the process of building a multifaceted mass transit system.
Currently in service are standard busses, the first light rail line,
and 3 replica trolleys.
Also planned, but not yet in service are 2 more light rail lines, a trolley line through city center, one commuter rail line, and bus rapid transit. BRT are double busses that run on paved roads that are dedicated to the BRT only and run like the light rail, with boarding only at stations.
Each light rail station is the hub of a bus route system, and about half of them have park and ride lots. The light rail runs single cars every 15 minutes most of the day, and double cars every 7 1/2 minutes during rush hour. The light rail is averaging about 1/3 more riders a day than the consultants predicted.
BRT might be the most cost effective solution to your problem. CATS (Charlotte Area Transit) has discovered that many people happily ride the light rail who wouldn't be caught dead on a bus. Opponents predicted that the light rail would be inhabited by "those bus people", and the neighborhoods bordering the line would lose property value. Just the opposite is happening. Most of the weekday riders are people who work in city center, where 2 of the largest banks in the US are headquartered, and high end condos and mixed use office/residence condos are sprouting like weeds all up and down the light rail line.
Alphas, thanks for your encouraging response... I think you hit the nail on the head with your closing comment: "I wish you good luck with your efforts to get politicians to think outside of the box." I am convinced that this is a viable alternative/soluution to our particular and unique situation here in Vicgtoria, but it needs politicians/special interest groups, etc etc to support it or the prevailing (and traditional) mindsets will have their way. (Boy, this is getting complicated ;o)
Looks doable to me--but only IF you can get it through the government rail safety regulators. In the US that would be a big deal but I have no idea how Canada works. (And if there were no other type of rail vehicles using the tracks at all during the same time, it would go a long way towards simplifying things safety-wise.) I assume these buses would be equiped to trigger any crossing lights and gates, right? One thing you didn't mention was what would be needed, and how expensive, to upgrade the track to do this.
I agree with your logic that the buses would generate many more passengers and be more cost efficient than just the standard commuter trains for the reasons you mention. However, there could be a union battle over which union would represent the drivers.
Let's put it this way--your idea sounds more reasonable than many of the others you see posted on these various Trains forums. I wish you good luck with your efforts to get politicians to think outside of the box.
Here in bucolic Victoria BC we are engaged in an ongoing debate about what kind of rapid transit system we need for this city of 350,000. One of our enormous assets, and already in place though dreadfully under-used, is an existing railway track that runs from our Western communities (where most of our rush hour traffic originates) right into the heart of downtown Victoria. This line is now (and almost unbelievedly so) used only to allow one self propelled passenger rail car to leave from downtown Victoria in the a.m., and make its way up Vancouver Island to Comox/Courtenay, a small city a couple of hundred kilometers north of us, before returning to Victoria in the afternoon. This is just for tourists, since it runs contrary to rush hour motor vehicle traffic, and in any case has no significant capacity.
This system would operate as follows: For the morning rush hour, these buses would start out in the western communities by getting onto the railway line (before or after loading up with passengers) and then riding the rails directly into the city, thereby reducing what is now an hour's drive by highway into probably a 20 or 25 minute railroad trip. Upon arriving in downtown Victoria, they would disgorge their passengers, and then drive OFF the rails and onto the regular road system, where they would then drive back out to the western communities via the regular highway system, before re-mounting the rails and taking another load of commuters into downtown Victoria again.
The beauty of this process is that because our rush hour traffic is overwhelmingly west-to-east in the morning (and vice versa in the afternoon) these buses would be able to ride back out to the western communities against the rush hour traffic (meaning with no east-west rush traffic to slow them down) so they could make the outbound (return) trip on the regular road/highway in about half an hour. This removes the need to build a second railway line parallel to the existing line (to accomodate a normal light rail system), since none of these outgoing buses would have to pass ingoing buses in order to get back out to the suburbs for another inbound ride.
The cost implications of building a second railway line are huge. The existing line's right of way is fairly narrow, not to mention that if a second line were built it would also require building new, duplicate overhead crossings at several points. As noted above, just using a single rail line to get commuter traffic into the city, and then using the existing road system to get them back out for another run, eliminates the need for this second (and highly expensive) railbed.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.