FA?hrerstandsmitfahrt (Cab Ride) Karlsruhe – Freudenstadt (Tram-Train Murgtalbahn / Auschnitte)
For those who would like to dispel the notion that TramTrain is not viable in the Fraser Valley, this video should dispel the notion. Lots of single track operation on a sparsely populated route.
Compared to the go-go panic and nausea of crawling over druggies with needles sticking out of them at the DIRT stations in Vancouver, taking the tram-train looks very idyllic. I came across the 24 metre dual-articulate trolleybus by Van Hool in Belgium. It looks like a nifty trolleybus which could be used effectively between Commercial Drive and UBC to replace the existing articulated diesel buses (which don’t meet code and drive in two lanes).
http://www.vanhool.be/ENG/openbaar%20vervoer/hybride-trolley/exquicity24.html
Haveacow or Zwei, do you know whether the 24 metre dual-articulate trolleybus by Van Hool is currently used anywhere in Canada or the USA? If so, does it require dedicated lanes or can it run in mixed traffic?
Seeing as TransLink is already breaking the law with its 99 B-Lines, I don’t see how breaking the law with 24 metre trolleybuses makes any difference. If the 25 articulated diesel buses in express service on the No. 99 route (round trip time of 76 minutes at 8:30 AM on weekdays) and nine standard trolleybuses in regular service on the No. 9 route (round trip time of 88 minutes at 8:30 AM on weekdays) along Broadway are replaced with 34 dual articulated trolleybuses in regular service on the No. 9 route (round trip time of 88 minutes at 8:30 AM on weekdays) along Broadway, the passenger capacity remains unchanged but the service frequency drops to every 2.6 minutes from every 3 minutes (No. 99) to 10 minutes (No. 9). Basically, service with Van Hool dual articulated trolleybuses is less rushed (no forced transfers to express service) and faster with just regular service doing away with the 10 minute delay to transfer to express buses saving only six minutes over regular service!
I believe a three section articulated bus must operate in a dedicated lane.
I have been told by European transit types that 3 section artics are used on local routes that would not supprt a tram, that need extra capacity at peak times. I understand they are very expensive to maintain.
The out right ban on these vehicles seems to be softening. According to the PTB’s here in North America Bi- Articulated buses of any power source require special permission (they are not necessarily illegal) by Transport Canada and the FTA & DOT in the US. The special permission usually means that a segregated right of way has to be provided as well as the complete separation of these vehicle types in operations and especially on curves, from any of the standard transit vehicles. This due to the erratic behavior of these vehicles on curves with slopes, or roads that are wet or even have moderate levels of snow coverage. They have historically also performed poorly on hills over a certain slope unless they are fully loaded by passengers. Engine design and horse power issues were also identified in older European designs. The design of the operating right of way requires that these large vehicles have a very large turning facility that is segregated from more standard bus turning facilities on BRT systems. This includes not just 24-26 metre long Bi-articulated buses but the very large 28-30 metre long Tri-Articulated buses as well.
Currently, there are no Bi-Articulated type of any power type operating right now in Canada. There are rumors that several American operators are willing now to test run several prototypes with the cooperation of the FTA, of American 24-28 metre Bi- Articulated Buses designed and built by Alexander Dennis and Gillig Industries. I can’t confirm this however!
The large size and mass weight means that standard bus engines that can be used on all 12 metre vehicles and most 18 metre single articulated buses can’t be used and a more expensive, non standard power plant is necessary. Which mean more cost. Odd transmission arrangements, non standard parts also increases cost. Most large Bi and Tri Articulated buses have doors on both side to allow for central island station platforms that are not possible with standard door arrangements. This also increases maintenance complexity and cost. The storage and maintenance facilities are also more expensive and have to be specially built for these larger designs. There are still currently no North American based companies are building production versions of these vehicles. However, Nova Bus Canada is partly owned by Volvo, which does make a BI-Articulated diesel design, I’m not sure about a Trolley Bus version.
@Haveacow and Zwei, thanks for the feedback. I hadn’t considered tri-articulated buses which I’m supposing only require some inexpensive concrete yellow barriers at corners to make them street legal in mixed traffic – similar to the ones used for separated bike lanes in Vancouver and for trams in Myanmar.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35340529
Up to ~30 metre long tri-articulate trolleybuses (carrying about 200 passengers, wow) would work fine along Broadway where the road is straight and almost perfectly flat from Commercial Drive to Alma Street (for two-thirds of the way between Commercial Drive and UBC). At Alma Street there is a steep grade which could be tricky in bad weather for two kilometres, but it hasn’t snowed in Vancouver for over five years, so it probably isn’t a big operational issue with global warming and sub-tropical weather coming soon to Vancouver.
No Eric, the entire right of way has to be segregated not just at intersections. If you use these buses you have to build a physically segregated busway over there entire route as well as the turning facility. Even on flat rainy streets, the ends of the buses, both bi and tri articulated models, have a tendency to become unstable and fish tail for no apparent reason.
Then there is the cost to buy almost $1.2-1.5 per unit, minimum (there are no north American bus manufacturers that make them) and they still will only last 10-12 years or so in our climate. Never mind the special bus garages and the cost of the spare parts. People forget that, nearly all bus manufacturers operating in North America, even the ones like Nova Bus that, have non North American overlords, still use GM parts as a way to keep costs down. Those Bi and Tri articulated buses have to use parts shipped from South America or Europe. Presently no manufacturer in North American has plans to make anything more than a prototype vehicle.
I also heard that for any production line for any company to make sense they will have to produced no less than 100 of these vehicles a year to make a profit with them. This is on the basis that the entire Canada and US market produces the need for presently an average of 5500-6000 standard sized transit buses a year (40 foot or 12 metre buses) and about 300-400 single (60 foot or 18 metre) articulated buses per year. This based on the historical orders from the largest 200 transit operations in North America for the last 3 decades.
The current North American transit vehicle market does not lend itself well for new products and experiments with new ideas unless, there is big and I mean a really big level of support from all levels of society (the public), industry and government. The kicker being, no one wants to pay for it. Keep in mind, the comments from even this website whenever Translink tries anything new, good or bad. Imagine that 1000 times over, anytime anyone makes a decision at Translink. That’s what it is like working in this industry, it is so hard to even try and innovate because no one wants to take a chance someone might get a wrong answer and face the public and or senior politicians whom might cut their budget. Even if the idea works most people will still find a reason to complain. That’s why private industry has no incentive to run transit services because they know it doesn’t make enough money for stock holders unless a P3 or similar type of agreement guarantees income over a certain time. Even they don’t want to take a risk. Whenever they make those type of agreements the public always, always get hosed, every time because it is based that the company getting paid before the public.
This is the quality of right of way Transport Canada or the MTA and DOT in the US wants for Bi-or Tri articulated buses.
http://www.transdevplc.co.uk/cmsUploads/expertise/images/brt%5B1%5D.jpg
This is the type of specialized and completely segregated turning facility for Bi-articulated buses Transport Canada is really talking about.
http://transportblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/curitiba-brt.jpg
@Haveacow, thanks for the insight. Good call.
I’d say scrap the tri-section trolleybuses having limited capacity and stick with tram or LRT service which can move up to 700 people per train without the jack-knifing. Ottawa made the right choice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xnIbutbaqM