Agreed. I actually see this more of a tram replacement/evolution than for bus or train.
News on China's scientific and technological development.
- Thread starter Quickie
- Start date
This is no different (save for the driverless, autonomous component) from,
and
and many other similar examples.
It's a reskin of an articulated bus.
I thought the ultimate solution for EDSA is to bomb it all to hell and start from scratch?
In any case I think we are all talking different things here. If you have a dedicated lane for a bus on EDSA (and you can enforce that exclusivity) then it's going to speed up through time down that infernal stretch. You could install a 24km long hop-on-off travellator and it'll still be faster than vehicular traffic on that stretch of hell-on-earth.
As the various post following mine shows, the issue of public transport solutions are complex and that different solutions work for different cities due to varied issues such as pop density, topography, land acquisition, budget, etc, etc.
My original post that was merely in reference to the tweet that the vehicle in question has the qualities of a train without the hassle of a track ... it doesn't. It's a reskinned articulated bus with all the pro/cons of an articulated bus.
The only advantage I understand with this new system, ignoring the potential autonomous aspect, is that it would avoid monopolizing a lane with a dedicated track, like trams do. Otherwise, it works exactly like a bus with the added advantage of increased capacity. So, the main infrastructure required would basically be the right of ways needed, BRT style, along with improvements to road structure, similar to what you use on freeways that use thicker layers of gravel and asphalt. That's all good, but it's still just a bigger bus imo. I see the point of the capacity increase. In that sense, it's not just a BRT improvement, but I still think they shouldn't be calling it a trackless train like it's some new invention.
I read this article around 5 years ago about a plan for China to eventually develop low-medium speed maglevs as alternatives to more expensive subways.
link: China's maglev transit initiative picks up steam
"According to CRMT, future low-speed maglev projects will primarily aim to link large cities with their satellite cities, as well as suburbs to downtown areas. They will also be used in second- and third-tier Chinese cities as a substitute for subways."
This article was from 2016 when the low speed Changsha airport maglev was still being developed. Since then, the low speed maglev train has reduced power requirements while increasing speed from 100km/h to 160km/h (operational speed is capped at 120km/h). A new medium speed maglev train has also been announced that can go 200km/h.
link:
To date, I am aware of 11 municipal or intercity maglev projects going on that are NOT related to their 620km/h high speed maglev project. From all indications, China is going forward with this plan and I would not be surprised that it expands to well over 50 cities in the next 15 years.
From current information, these low-medium speed maglevs China has developed are less expensive than subway systems, can accelerate-decelerate faster and are able to traverse higher incline topography vs tracked transit. In other words, they are a cheaper and better alternative for smaller cities whose economic size do not warrant subway networks. The cost issue shows up more once you start ramping up the speed because the power requirements go up dramatically.
Last edited:
@krautmeister bro the BYD monorail is also an attractive proposition cost wise and easy to construct. An ideal solution for densely populated cities like Metro Manila.
Turkey has metrobuses which are basically huge buses. They were useful so far in Turkey. They are worse than metros for sure but they are better than normal buses.
To think that 10 years ago MagLev was seen as a wunder technology with over expensive investment.
Also tinfoil hat mode on : Strong investment and technological development of MagLev allows PLA Navy to develop EMALS in short time.
The trackless train has significant advantages in terms of safety and comfort over articulated buses of similar capacity.
Articulated buses with more than 2 segments are difficult to drive due to the driver only directly steering and controlling the front segment. The wrong sequence of steering inputs at even moderate speeds can cause the back segments to whip around and back and forth, which is very dangerous on crowded roads. London got rid of all of their articulated buses (which had only two-segments) after finding them many times more likely to be involved in deadly accidents than regular buses. This is why you mostly see articulated buses with more than 2 segments on roads with minimal other traffic.
Articulated buses are also generally less comfortable than even regular buses, let alone trams and light rail. You have the side to side swaying due to over/under steer as well as up and down bobbing at the articulation points due to later segments each having only one pair of wheels (or multiple pairs of wheels that are placed close together).
The trackless train has multiple pairs of steerable wheels on each segment, where the steering is controlled by computers to prevent over/under steer, greatly improving safety as well as maneuverability. The large number of wheels also make the ride much smoother, potentially even better than trams and light rail as the wheels are air filled rubber instead of hard metal.
Last edited:
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Trackless trains been around for three years in China. I believe they actually follow a virtual track and not just someone behind a steering wheel driving it.
Last edited:
@AssassinsMace Sir, Picture yourself riding one here in Manila especially in EDSA, a dedicated lane for this impressive machine hauling in 180 passenger per unit. A very short time to construct (need to build loading and unloading terminals) with minimal expenses. No right of way issue using existing roads and if electrify helps the environment especially with ordinary buses who are diesel powered clogging the lane causing traffic and pollution. For traversing the whole 24 kilometers length of EDSA highway should takes 1 hours from end to end in a normal no traffic scenario, but in reality stuck in traffic it takes nearly 12 hours (causing huge expense in fuel, productivity cost, valuable personal time and mental stress) . When travelling abroad I have to leave my house in Manila 6 hours before my schedule flight if not will never arrive in time. This is the answer for our horrendous traffic problem, with a dedicated lane and designated loading and unloading stops it will displaced a lot of unruly polluting buses therefore easing traffic. A win win solution.