Home Light Rail Trams without rails

Trams without rails

The world’s cities are getting bigger. Between 2016 and 2030, the planet’s urban population is forecast to grow from 54 to 60 per cent of the world’s total. Over these years, the number of cities with one million inhabitants is expected to increase from 512 to 662.

As a result, there is an increasing demand for urban metro systems, particularly in the Middle East, India and China where, in 2015, and at an estimated total cost of £15 billion, around forty metro systems opened or were under construction.

Although this would seem to be good news for the rail supply industry, developments in autonomous vehicle technology indicate that urban transit systems without rails may be more cost effective.

Zhuzhou’s ART

In October, Zhuzhou in central China’s Hunan province saw the first test run of an Autonomous Rapid Transit (ART) system developed by the CRRC Zhuzhou Locomotive Company. The ART has been described as a cross between a bus, tram and train.

It is an autonomous vehicle that runs on rubber tyres on the road network with a dual redundant multi-axle steering system. Its route is marked by double-dashed white lines that are followed by sensors which also detect any obstructions. However, at its early prototype stage, the ART has a driver who is given warnings if it deviates from its route.

The ART is a modular unit of three, four or five cars. The three-car unit is 32 metres long, has a maximum speed of 70km/h and can carry up to 300 passengers. It is powered by lithium-titanate batteries that can run for 25 kilometres on a 10-minute charge and 40 kilometres on a full charge.

It has successfully undertaken 24 hours of non-stop tests and is to start passenger service next year on a three-kilometre route with four stations. A further nine-kilometre route is planned. CRRC claims that the system costs a fifth of a traditional tram system and so will save 120 million yuan (£14 million) per route-kilometre.

The ART has been nominated for an award in the “Beazley designs of the year”, which is the subject of an exhibition at London’s Design Museum.

Cambridge’s AVRT

In Cambridge, a university study has developed the concept of an affordable very rapid transit (AVRT) system for the city.

Current metro systems cost around £20 million per kilometre, or around a billion pounds for a 50-kilometre network. Only large cities can generate the 5-10,000 passengers per hour needed to justify such schemes. Moreover, such projects are highly disruptive and may be unacceptable in a city such as Cambridge, with its multitude of ancient buildings.

The study considers that a 55-km Cambridge mass transit network would generate around 2,500 passengers per hour and so, to be viable, would need to be provided at half the cost of a conventional metro. To do so, the AVRT proposal reduces infrastructure costs by eliminating overhead power supplies and rails, decreasing vehicle cross-section to minimise tunnelling costs and replacing conventional signalling with a simplified concept of operations.

The proposed AVRT vehicle would operate in both directions at 120km/h, weigh 16 tonnes and have eight 150kW electric motors powered by a 200kWh hour battery. With 2+1 seating, it would seat 40 passengers and be 16 metres long, 2.2 metres wide and 2.5 metres high. In a 3.7-metre diameter tunnel, this is 43 per cent of the cross section, which enables the vehicle to achieve the required running speed.

The operational concept is for each leg of the system to have a shuttle service on its single trackway. To provide a service frequency of three to four minutes, each leg would require four vehicles, one running on the trackway, one waiting to depart with the other two charging their batteries whilst loading or unloading.

This arrangement gives each vehicle 12 minutes to charge its batteries whilst stopped at the interchange. An electric token system would ensure that only one vehicle was on the trackway at any one time.

Each leg of the system would be a simple tarmac-surfaced trackway without any intermediate stations. The outer extra-urban legs would be around ten kilometres long and, as far as possible, be at surface level. Urban legs of around five kilometres would run in 3.7-metre diameter tunnels. Interchanges would be up to four-way, with a footprint designed for optimum footfall to ensure passengers could move easily between each leg’s docking area. Except for the city centre station, interchanges would be built on the surface.

One disadvantage of this concept is that it does not provide through journeys. However, the experience of systems such as London Transport is that passengers are willing to change if there is a frequent service and easy interchange.

For such a system to be viable, it must attract a substantial percentage of the estimated 40,000 drivers, who commute into Cambridge by car, to the park and ride stations at the end of its outer-urban legs for the last ten kilometres or so of their journey. To do so, the system has to offer a substantial reduction in journey time over this distance and a service frequency that does not require drivers to worry about a timetable.

The AVRT concept both satisfies this requirement and, with its use of autonomous vehicles, is likely to cover its running costs without public subsidy.

Will it catch on?

Whether the ART or AVRT concepts will be widely adopted remains to be seen. However, it is certainly true that they offer urban mobility at substantially less cost than conventional metros.

The United Nations predicts that, between now and 2030, the number of medium size cities (500,000 to one million) will increase from 551 to 731. It is these cities that need the affordable public transport systems offered by new and future technologies.


Read more: Crossrail 1.5?


 

8 COMMENTS

  1. When the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson was the Mayor of London he cancelled the Cross River Tram from Peckham South East London to Camden North London due to the £1.3 billion cost. The new Mayor Sadiq Khan dosen`t want to revive it. The distance between Peckham and Camden is 10 miles and the ART Trackless Tram range is 15 miles (I think it could reach Lewisham,about 4 miles from Peckham which is a better place to terminate as passengers can interchange with the Mainline Rail and The Overground at New Cross and the Mainline Rail, DLR and a lot of Buses at Lewisham). The WMG (Warwick Manufacturing Group) at the University of Warwick claims Trams can cost £3 million each and I think even a London Double Decker Bus costs only £200,000, so as the Trackless Tram which I prefer to call a Trambus is basically a CRRC Tram on rubber wheels but is more complex due to the sensors and the all wheel steering, I expect it will cost more than a Tram. The three car ART and the new Volvo Gran Artic 300 Bi-articulated Bendy Bus (which I couldn`t find out how much it costs but should be nearer other Buses than Trams) developed for the Brazilian BRT Systems, both carry 300 passengers but I expect the latter to be much cheaper. It should be possible to convert a Bi-articulated Bendy Bus into a Trackless Tram by adding sensors and updating software. The ART shouldn`t need painted lines, which adds to the cost and leads to problems with guidance when the white lines are not visible such as after it snows ect, it should use cameras, perhaps lidar ,GPS (Broadcom has just released a much more accurate GPS chip) even the mobile phone signal for location,whatever self driving cars use. By not needing a change to the road layout like painted lines means a Trambus has a big advantage over a Tram, like a Bus it can be easily diverted due to roadworks and accidents. Citymapper developers had the idea that a Bus should be diverted because of congestion,I once was carrying a very heavy desktop PC so I couldn`t walk, and the Bus was stuck in a traffic jam for 2 hours because one lane was closed due to roadworks, I didn`t understand why the Bus wasn`t diverted but a Tram can`t be. I think the Trackless Tram is a great idea and hope it leads to the Cross River Tram,West London Tram and other proposed/cancelled Tramways being built due to it being 20% of the cost of a Tram. However unless the 4-5 car versions are needed, then I think a Trambus should be based on a cheaper Bendy Bus rather than a more expensive Tram.The No.18 Bus Route is perfect for a Transport for London pilot for a very long Bus/Tram/Trambus as its the 2nd busiest and it`s the straightest route I`v been on,few bends and very few sharp ones. WMG is developing a much cheaper VLR (Very Light Rail) battery powered One Car Tram on cheap to lay light rails thatI`VE read could cost 10x cheaper per mile than the Birmingham Trams, running from Coventry City Centre to the University of Warwick or Jaguar Land Rover`s HQ at Whitley`s or University Hospital Coventry in Walsgrave and beyond that at a later stage to the HS2 Terminal at the NEC and the Birmingham Airport. I was thinking that the WMG VLR Tram won`t be useful in London as it`s only One Car, however the Branchline Grove Park to Bromley North is only One Train made of Two Cars stopping at Grove Park,Sundridge Park and Bromley North Station which only takes 5 minutes before returning to Grove Park,passengers have to take a Bus to Bromley South Station a couple of hundred yards away,so the Train could be replaced by a cheap as chips VLR Tram that could connect Bromley South Station via the high street to Bromley North,Sundridge Park and Grove Park. WMG is also developing a half price VLT (Very Light Train) hybrid that costs £500,000 instead of £1 million.
    WMG also does research into batteries for Jaguar Land Rover and Nissan.

  2. Other cities in the UK could rely on having trams that doesn’t need rails. And are operated by using lasers that follows the dotted lines on the road surface and even in pedestrianised areas.

  3. Snow, leaves, garbage, flooding would all leave the white lines obscured, and halt the tram. France had a couple ‘trackless trams’ in the 90s, they failed miserably as their electronic guidance driving system failed to work in adverse conditions. This seems to me to be a novelty, like the giant lane straddling Chinese bus.

    • I am sure that there could be other guidance hints beyond the painted lines, which may also be a hint to car drivers that there is another use for this part of the road. For example next generation GPS is accurate to cm, not m.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Must Read

New train protection system for Irish Rail

Above - CPC commercial manager John Mogridge and Egis systems integration lead François Pignard looking at the in-cab display for the...

Geophysical consultancy Zetica expands with help from HSBC UK

Zetica, the engineering and environmental geophysics consultancy, has renovated a 21,500 sq.ft. building to accommodate up to 80 staff, as well as provide additional...

Birmingham: Washwood Heath train factory demolished

The former Alstom factory at Washwood Heath, Birmingham, where Virgin’s Pendolinos were built, has been demolished to make way for an HS2 maintenance depot.

Barnehurst cutting reopened after landslip closes the Bexleyheath line for a week

The cutting at Barnehurst, on the Bexleyheath line between Lewisham and Dartford, Kent, reopened on Monday 18 February after being closed for a week.

West Coast main line reopens after lorry strikes bridge

Network Rail has reopened the West Coast main line through the Stafford area after more than 24 hours of disruption caused by a...