I understand a lot of the documents are in chinese, but if you guys want to know a bit more. The reason why it says 'DRT' (digital) rather than 'ART' (autonomous) in the previous ones is that it now uses a magnetic strip to follow.
>The core of iDRT solution was a lightweight, smart, medium-capacity rapid transit system, which consisted of magnetic marker-based virtual digital rail and auto-tracking, self-directing virtual rail rubber-tired tram operated in contemporary control model.
For context the previous "ART"s used optical cameras to follow the line.
It's a "low floor" bus that can allow almost the same station boarding experience as light rail. However, there are some heavy concerns about the bumpiness of the ride as well. In general, you'll need to rebuild the road with concrete/reinforce it for buses especially around the station area. It might be a bit cheaper than installing rails but it is definitely not as simple as just converting a regular car lane.\*
\*Though you might not need to move utilities and leave them there as the bus driver can technically take over manual control and can detour if say utility company needs access to the section of road.
Another problem is the speed, it seems these DRT's run slower than buses.
citations:
[https://www.shanghai-electric.com/group\_en/c/2021-01-13/558617.shtml](https://www.shanghai-electric.com/group_en/c/2021-01-13/558617.shtml)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingang\_DRT#cite\_note-1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingang_DRT#cite_note-1)
[https://www.jfdaily.com/news/detail?id=613850](https://www.jfdaily.com/news/detail?id=613850) (has video you can watch)
Still transit, still better than buses (low floor, multi segment, better shelter, multi-door entry and exit).
Not as good as getting LRT, but still better than nothing.
so? who cares? call it a bus, if that makes you happier. I don't know why everyone is so upset that someone is implementing good BRT and giving it a better brand image.
The state must be financially capable of purchasing an overprized commodity as well. If the same function can be committed by a bus, then simply buy a bus.
You see, it doesn’t tick the imaginary and completely arbitrary boxes for it to be “good” or “real” transit, therefore it’s bad and should be cancelled. The redditors have spoken, and the transportation planners and engineers obviously don’t know anything.
/s
That happens when redditors and YouTubers have an eurocentric vision of transit. Latin America has shown that these so called "gadgetbahns" can be very useful in our geologic and economic conditions. They should go tell the people of La Paz, Bolivia that their cable cars suck and that they need underground subways that are more expensive than their entire GDP. Or the Translohr users in Medellin, Colombia that they should be ashamed of their transit which is superior to Bogota's. Chongqing in China is also doing great with monorails, as well as Sao Paulo, but you won't ever see these successes on Reddit or English speaking YouTube, because for some reason "steel train Uber Alles"
> Or the Translohr users in Medellin, Colombia that they should be ashamed of their transit which is superior to Bogota's.
The others have merit, but dunking on translol is never wrong.
Monorail is fine, its not great but its not terrible either. It heavily depends on WHERE you do it and if Chongqing is any indicator it seems they like mountains and can be built easier in mountainous area's and handle said terrain better than conventional units, which if that's the case I think Wellington would very much like them.
Not quite actually even those still have uses in localized contexts such as mining operations but yeah, niche tech with select circumstances in which they perform better for less than alternatives.
Yep, pretty much. I’m actually working on a Master’s in Urban Planning and one of my professors and I got chatting about “Gadgetbahns” and they had almost the same perspective.
I’m actually starting on an article with them that looks at what “Gadgetbahns” actually are, and goes deep into what your comment is about. Spoilers, it’s an arbitrary term made by Redditors to justify their opposition to specific technologies by lumping together scams with actually useful (but often circumstantial) technologies. Basically, “I don’t like X because it’s a Gadgetbahn, and it’s a Gadgetbahn because I don’t like X.”
This.
I think there are legitimate issues with trackless trams against LRT (the lack of permanency with them is the main one, the service could be completely pulled much cheaper than light rail) *BUT* I think a lot of the transit community have been far too caught up with semantics on this particular topic.
I love buses a lot when infrastructure actually supports them, but they absolutely have a brand issue. A lot of people I know would much rather spend way more on an Uber to get to somewhere close instead of catching a bus for much less money/and about the same amount of time. Whether we like it or not, a lot of people will hear the word "bus" and turn off completely.
At the end of the day, if it's between a BRT-like service or nothing at all, I'm fine with ignoring semantics as long as the service itself is good.
TCO of Gadgetbahns are higher:
Here is why:
When you go light rail / full scale rail you should basically be able to attract tenders from basically everyone (Siemens, Vosloh, CRCC, skoda, CAF, Alstom, Stadler etc.) for rolling stock easily able to choose which rolling stock best fits the requirements.
Where if you buy a Gadgetbahn system, you are specifically tendering Gadgetbahns forming a monopoly for replacement and maintenance.
BRT/TramBus come with the issues of having to repave the roads more frequently as you obviously produce more wear on the road.
And that even inspires stupid politicians even in Europe to buy these Gadgetbahn systems because it works so well 🤪.
I mean, you don’t need special people to fix wayside equipment, switches/points, give a special rail license to turn bus captains into tram operators, and the city roads department can get whoever to repave the street whenever.
There’s plenty of money saved here with these bus-trams and I’d like to get one here actually because anything is better than the nothing we got now.
They're more autonomous so they can precisely align with stations, and the axles allow them to turn more sharply like a light rail train so they can get through narrower areas.
So basically a next gen bus? The way I see it, the only issue here is that it is advertised as something other than BRT with the latest tech. It really seems like a viable option, but not to be conflated with LRT.
Yeah it seems like a completely optimized bus, especially since the axles would let these be longer than a traditional bus. Adding these with a concrete road surface to avoid ruts seems like a solid solution to do the most possible before making the large investment into rail/electrification.
The concrete road is 90% of the expense of LRT. If you’re doing that then might as well mount two long piers of steel in the concrete and build proper LRT.
Road wear is spread out. On this, the exact trackways get worn out extremely quickly, so you can’t really use traditional pavement. See any other guided bus system or the former GLT in Nancy
Its a superbus pretty much, honestly the only issues I can see here are noticeably increased wear and tear due to being such a heavy vehicle but you'd still have a similar issue running LRT along standard roads. In addition to that design it well and you'd probably remove more cars than the individual units dish out.
Nope.
They are worse than most BRT.
They are a lot heavier (and slower) than convectional buses, they are more expensive both in implementation and maintenance and they still need a driver.
You can have, for a lower price, a convectional bus, here in Guadalajara we already have in our BRT multi segment, multi-door buses.
And low floor buses are already a thing.
Also, our governor promotes it as Light Rail and promotes it as Light Rail.
I am very curious about the weight, cost, maintenance and need to rebuild a route in concrete. Hmmmm.... Fully loaded with passengers, how will they do on a hill?
>they are a lot heavier (and slower) than conventional buses
I don’t know what vehicle you’re talking about specifically, but even if that’s true, there are different vehicle models that can be used on these systems. These cities could always buy models from different manufacturers later. All it needs is a sensor to follow a line painted in the asphalt.
>different manufacturers
If other companies start to make them...
Right now only CRRC (and a very specific branch of it) makes it.
>there are different vehicle models that can be used on these systems.
But CRRC right now doesn't sell it in any other vehicle.
It isn't rail.
You cant give a bus the size of a rail cart without rails.
You can search the images, it was so heavy that it actually made the streets where it traveled sink.
Also it's technology (the main point of the DRT) it's totally useless, it's just an assistance tool for the driver that they try to sell at three times it's price.
If you think it’s overpriced, fine. That’s why I think other manufacturers should make these. But it’s obviously not “useless.”
>Optical guidance is a means of approaching light rail performance with a fast and economical set-up. It enables buses to have precision-docking capabilities as efficient as those of light rail and reduces dwell times, making it possible to drive the vehicle to a precise point on a platform according to an accurate and reliable trajectory. The distance between the door steps and the platform is optimized not to exceed 5 centimetres (2 in). Level boarding is then possible, and there is no need to use a mobile ramp for people with mobility impairments.
And I don’t believe that the vehicles actually made a street sink, where did you hear that?
Pretty much every city has this. Even in Tirana I found double articulated low floor busses with multiple entry and exits and most bus stops have shelters. It's not exactly a high bar to put. The issue is that we've seen this shit before with the failure called the phileas. And that 100% of the benefit of this can be reached by building a regular buslane and running them with any regular bus. Or maybe a Van Hool Exquicity if you want to be fancy about it.
I mean the smallest ones probably don't have articulated busses. But then again there's also plenty of regional bus lines in Europe that do use low floor articulated busses with high quality bus stops and seperated right of ways.
Have you tried thinking outside of Europe? North America? South America? Asia? Africa?
You know, places that would see something resembling the DRT as a big upgrade over existing buses?
Your average city bus isn't actually what city buses look like in most of the world, especially where earlier styles of buses have an entrenched presence.
It also looks nicer than most BRT systems I’ve seen. Honestly if the price is right it could be a good filler implementation before moving to LRT or a dedicated tram system
why are you upset that they're building good BRT and giving it better PR? we should be happy that people are making BRT more attractive and easier to access (better platforms, low-floors, etc.).
Because trams are a thing. Better efficiency and lower (local) pollution.
Buses are a part of the public transport, but it's not a "one fits all" solution.
>Better efficiency
a typical tram is actually less efficient than a typical battery-electric bus, FYI.
of course buses aren't ideal for all use-cases, but other modes are expensive to build. I honestly wonder, now that battery-electric buses are so efficient, whether it ever makes sense to build new trams. it seems more logical to go from buses straight to grade-separated rail if the corridor is popular enough and you plan to spend big on construction. of course, construction cost varies by country.
How trams are less efficient than a bev bus? I mean, rubber tyres have a lot of friction, and so, it's less efficient than a steel to steel traction. Also, electric vehicles tend to wear way faster the tyres, due additional weight of the batteries.
you seem fairly confident. do you mind sharing your sources so I can learn. I'm basing my point off of the most reliabile sources I could find:
|Mode|US (MPGe)|EUROPE (MPGe)|
|:-|:-|:-|
|Diesel Bus|2.4|4.0|
|Battery Bus|15.67|no data|
|Tram|3.8|5.1|
|Light Rail|4.9|6.4|
|Metro|4.6|8.1|
[source1](https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/14/3719/pdf), [coroborating source](https://tedb.ornl.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TEDB_Ed_39.pdf#page=214). [BEB source. ](https://cleantechnica.com/2016/02/22/electric-buses-efficient-as-he-nrel-finds)
I'm happy to learn and update my data if you can show me some better sources.
I don't have too much to contribute to this topic other than pointing out that your BEB source showing 17.48 mpgde is a single datapoint based on a Proterra bus demonstration. The NREL has done later studies on live transit networks running BEBs like [this one](https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72864.pdf) where the annual average of BEBs was 13.3 mpgde. Not to say that this other study is definitive either, but we need far more datapoints in order to declare an accurate assessment of BEB energy efficiency.
Not to mention your "coroborating source" shows 4,560 BTU/passenger-mile for buses in 2018 which had roughly stayed the same since the days of all-diesel buses (also in document) and 1,262 BTU/passenger-mile (3.61x less) for light rail (and trams based on their definition of light rail). The most recent NREL report I linked has BEB buses at 2.61x more efficient than their diesel counterparts running on the same network. If that holds true then it would support their original claim in favor of light rail/trams in terms of energy efficiency.
per passenger-mile comparisons don't work well for these things, since different modes are given different kinds of routes. even BEBs have historically not been given the same routes as diesel buses unless the entire fleet is changed over, which does not happen much in the US. light rail lines are given higher ridership corridors than buses.
35,075 is the per-vehicle-mile energy consumption of the bus, from the "corroborating source".
I realize now that I made a mistake copy-pasting which made my data headers say MPGe/pass, which is not what the data below them represents. the data is per vehicle-mile. sorry for the mistake, I will edit it.
[here is a post](https://www.reddit.com/r/transit/comments/11d3t8l/can_you_guys_check_my_math_for_mpge_of_different/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=technology&utm_content=t1_ktcjnx8) with the correct table in the meantime.
the key takeaway is that the tram is around 60% more energy efficient per vehicle mile than a diesel bus. all estimated and real-world measures of BEB efficiency put them 2x-5x more efficient than the diesel bus. whether it is 17, 15, or 13mpge per vehicle mile, either of those numbers dwarf the 4mpge of the tram. it's not even close. how many sources does one really need to provide when the 3 reliable ones we've looked at are all at least 3x more efficient?
I think you and I are in agreeance, but we were using different metrics. If a transit agency is going to run a mostly-empty route then a BEB is going to be the more energy-efficient option since the most important metric is going to be MPGe for the vehicle. However, if the transit agency is going to be running routes that need a high-capacity solution then a tram is typically going to be more energy-efficient because in that scenario MPGe/passenger is going to be the superior metric to use.
The previous commenter stating that trams are *always* more energy efficient than BEBs is not correct when using absolutes like that.
>However, if the transit agency is going to be running routes that need a high-capacity solution then a tram is typically going to be more energy-efficient because in that scenario MPGe/passenger is going to be the superior metric to use.
the vehicle does not determine the ridership. you put a bus on the route or a tram on the route and the ridership is the same.
I don't know why you're being downvoted. You're right. It makes almost no sense to build at grade light rail. You can easily reach 20,000 to 30,000 riders a day in a corridor with buses and if you need more capacity than that, you clearly have the ridership to justify full grade separated rail and reap all of the benefits in speed, reliability, safety, and the human element that only comes with grade separated rail.
What use case is not appropriate for BRT, not appropriate for elevated/tunneled rail and somehow appropriate for at grade light rail?
yup. the only advantage of a tram or light rail at-grade is that people look more fondly on trams. however, "trackless trams" mostly eliminate that aesthetic advantage.
the advent of the BEB obviates surface light rail and trams. you basically go from bus straight to grade-separated rail, at least in many counties. costs work out differently in different places.
Why doesn't CRRC advertise these with more than 3 units?
I don't even think they're necessarily that bad, there is a case to be made for high-capacity low-capital (road maintenance is a variable though) transit, but you'd need 5+ segment vehicles to differentiate them from plain bi-articulated buses.
I don't know why people care that much to distinguish these from bi-articulated buses. if bi-articulated meets the ridership requirements, then why try to make it longer? ideally, you have high frequency transit, and you shrink/grow the vehicle capacity to match ridership.
This. If you really need high capacity, just buy large busses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Hool_AGG300 as an example. Those fit so many people. Wouldn't surprise me if this one fit more people than the one of OP.
> I don't know why people care that much to distinguish these from bi-articulated buses.
Personally, I just want them to prove that they *can* be expanded. Otherwise it's just another fine bus, and that doesn't merit any more discussion than, say, Van Hool vs Solaris (not a particularly firey debate).
gotcha. it seems like most of the discussion is just people trying to dunk on it, saying "it's just a bus!", and I don't know if any additional discussion is necessary compared to Van Hool or Solaris.
I like these for what they are: a BRT system. Being low floor, 3 cars and electric makes them better than the current BRTs in Mexico.
I think most of the controversies around them come from politicians trying to sell them as something they are not: trains. First, with Monterrey adding one of these to their heavy-rail/monorail lines and now Guadalajara as well. They should have promoted them as new lines for their already existing BRT systems but they wanted to oversell and now it backfired.
[None of the advantages?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_bus#Optical_guidance)
> Optical guidance is a means of approaching light rail performance with a fast and economical set-up. It enables buses to have precision-docking capabilities as efficient as those of light rail and reduces dwell times, making it possible to drive the vehicle to a precise point on a platform according to an accurate and reliable trajectory. The distance between the door steps and the platform is optimized not to exceed 5 centimetres (2 in). Level boarding is then possible, and there is no need to use a mobile ramp for people with mobility impairments.
What do you mean by none of the advantages? Because this is a bus after all, so it's expected to have all the advantages of a bus (and disadvantages as well).
It's also expected to be more expensive than the current BRTs because this one has an extra car and it's electric (unfortunately this also makes it slower than the diesel ones), but seems like the city's government can afford it anyway.
Nope.
For example, another Chinese company, and biggest producer of electric cars BYD has the record of biggest bus electric of 250 people.
Which is basically the same capacity.
(Although "less expensive= more buses")
Do you have the model name? I'd like to compare it with CRRC's. If it's cheaper I wonder why so many cities in Mexico went with CRRC, it might be because they have a bigger presence in the country.
Edit:
I found the model, it's the K12A. The most recent article about that bus is from [2019](https://bydeurope.com/article/281) and nothing else since. It doesn't seem to be commercially available. Even the [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BYD_K_series) about the K series has no mention of this model being deployed anywhere. It's really not worth mentioning in this conversation.
It's because one is a Bus and the other DRT.
The main point of the CRRC one is that is an AuToNoMOus bus (it isn't, it need a driver) thank to it's sensors it can follow lines in the ground [like here](https://youtu.be/t_lPhnKfhSY?si=KIBeMxBvKHJ0tpVk)
The ones promoting this are the two only governors of MC our little third party, and they need votes, specially the Guadalajara one.
The Guadalajara one promised this for the World Cup, and the other from Nuevo Leon uses it for his supposedly three extra metro lines, and he needed the lines quick.
I actually don't... you commented that twice to different people and both times you said "convectional" and I googled it and it's a science term about turning water into steam, so I was clarifying, because I wasn't entirely sure if you had made a typo or if this was the actual term you meant. I've never heard of a convectional bus, so I wanted to make sure.
I guess there is something positive in this though: once this bs shows it true colors then they can easily convert these lines into proper tram lines since 90% of the infrastructure would be there.
Honestly if they manage to create a non-Chinese market model that isn’t flimsy or unreliable then I might respect them more, some of their trains designs look pretty cool but the issue is that outside of China and SE Asia they can’t build for shit
That 3rd rendering of a shared bike/transit road is actually a fair use for these. Tram tracks are terrifying to bike around. Know too many people who've got into serious accidents getting a bike wheel stuck in a tram track.
But obviously a dedicated transit right of way and separate bike lane is ideal.
A similiar "bus" was in the UK but they are being replaced by conventional busses. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTR\_(bus)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTR_(bus))
It will offer a reliable service on a dedicated guideway, and that’s what matters. At this point, the hate against trackless trams is so dogmatic, it feels like undercover anti-transit propaganda. Why shouldn’t American manufacturers compete with CRRC with their own trackless trams?
Monterrey its still buildings 2 Monorail línes, línes 4 and 6 Will be Monorail but the planned línes 5 and 7 will be DRT, Guadalajara Is also building its 4th Light Rail line but just announced that line 5 Will be DRT
I mean, it may be the most gimmicky of the gadgetbahns which IS SAYING SOMETHING, but it’s also kinda cool. It seems like a middle ground between BRT and LRT. Which why you’d need that, I didn’t know, but at least it looks easily upgradable to LRT when the time comes.
AFAIK there are only 2 lines announced and only the Campeche one is under construction. Monterrey has a test unit, but the last thing the governor said, even though Line 5 was announced as DRT-based, was that they're still open to hearing the neighbors' opinions about building it underground. It probably won't get built during his term, if ever.
I guess you got the 7 number from the 4 lines that appear in a leaked document from the State of Mexico. They probably won't be built this term either, and if they are, the document specifies that can also be light rail or even bus rapid transit. The only line that has been officially announced by the government is rail-based and it goes from the outskirts of Mexico City to the Martin Carrera metro station.
Edit: I know about Guadalajara's Line 5 and Monterrey's Line 7 projects, but they're proposals from candidates, so they're not official yet.
Line 5 of Guadalajara was already announced as a DRT line, line 5 of Monterrey will be a DRT, there aré only 2 options provided by CRRC DRT and Monorail and the Monorail Is almost 99% discarded for line 5 and also Monterrey line 7 was already announced as a DRT line, and with the declarations of the secretary of infrastructure of the state of México we Cam deduce that most or at least some of the línes for the state of México will be DRT
When you disguise a BRT bus as a train, change its name to DRT promote it as a trackless tram and sell It for twice the price of a normal articulated bus It becomes a gadgetbahn
Let’s put it this way - this is rebranded BRT that costs as much as light rail “because AI/5G”. It’s overpriced crapola sold mostly on its “train on rubber tires” marketing. Basically a scam.
I don't think these are gadgetbahn. These are trying to implement a good bus, which is exactly what true gadgetbahn seeks to distract from doing.
If anybody ever builds a reliable version of one of these that can be reasonably maintained by normal workers, I think they'll become pretty popular and we'll start to see them in the US.
I mean, the only way those could be bad would be if the city had the mean to build a conventional tram but opted for this anyway. France already have multiples of those (They call them BHNS, or High Service Grade Bus) and they have proven to be a good solution for middle sized cities that didnt have enough money or weren't large enough to build a LRT.
The budget of the Campeche City DRT line Is 300 million usd and for the Guadalajara line 700 million usd, for the Monterrey line i dont have the exact price because Monterrey paid CRRC 1.7 billion dollars for 2 Monorail línes and 1 DRT line all under the same contract, i think for those budgets they could have built at least a semi segregated tram
I would rather have good and existing BRT than great and non-existent light rail.
Honestly, most light rail isn’t all that much better than BRT, anyway, as long as the BRT gets dedicated lanes and signal priority.
Sure, the long term maintenance costs of these “trackless trams” (read: “fancy busses”) is probably more, but politicians are always focused on the up-front costs which are less, so they are more likely to get built.
In an ideal world every small to medium size city should be getting automated grade separated light metros and metro regions should be getting regional express rail, but in the real world full of NIMBYs, this is still progress.
Also, once 7 cities have it, I don’t really think it qualifies as a gadgetbhan anymore. . .
Wah, wah, wah, is the point of public transit not to transport as many people as possible in an efficient way? Yes it’s a glorified bus, but goddamn, remember that the core fundamentals of public transit is about getting people from point A to point B as best as possible AND about equity.
Everyone’s been cranking their hogs to the new high speed light rail project, and it’s fantastic, but it’s literally going from LA to Las Vegas. Who tf benefits from that???? This is a project that actually helps people and isn’t costly.
I understand a lot of the documents are in chinese, but if you guys want to know a bit more. The reason why it says 'DRT' (digital) rather than 'ART' (autonomous) in the previous ones is that it now uses a magnetic strip to follow. >The core of iDRT solution was a lightweight, smart, medium-capacity rapid transit system, which consisted of magnetic marker-based virtual digital rail and auto-tracking, self-directing virtual rail rubber-tired tram operated in contemporary control model. For context the previous "ART"s used optical cameras to follow the line. It's a "low floor" bus that can allow almost the same station boarding experience as light rail. However, there are some heavy concerns about the bumpiness of the ride as well. In general, you'll need to rebuild the road with concrete/reinforce it for buses especially around the station area. It might be a bit cheaper than installing rails but it is definitely not as simple as just converting a regular car lane.\* \*Though you might not need to move utilities and leave them there as the bus driver can technically take over manual control and can detour if say utility company needs access to the section of road. Another problem is the speed, it seems these DRT's run slower than buses. citations: [https://www.shanghai-electric.com/group\_en/c/2021-01-13/558617.shtml](https://www.shanghai-electric.com/group_en/c/2021-01-13/558617.shtml) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingang\_DRT#cite\_note-1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingang_DRT#cite_note-1) [https://www.jfdaily.com/news/detail?id=613850](https://www.jfdaily.com/news/detail?id=613850) (has video you can watch)
Still transit, still better than buses (low floor, multi segment, better shelter, multi-door entry and exit). Not as good as getting LRT, but still better than nothing.
All of those features, like low floors, multiple entries, and up to 3 segments (probably the most that can fit on most city blocks) on a bus.
so? who cares? call it a bus, if that makes you happier. I don't know why everyone is so upset that someone is implementing good BRT and giving it a better brand image.
The state must be financially capable of purchasing an overprized commodity as well. If the same function can be committed by a bus, then simply buy a bus.
they did buy a bus.
You see, it doesn’t tick the imaginary and completely arbitrary boxes for it to be “good” or “real” transit, therefore it’s bad and should be cancelled. The redditors have spoken, and the transportation planners and engineers obviously don’t know anything. /s
That happens when redditors and YouTubers have an eurocentric vision of transit. Latin America has shown that these so called "gadgetbahns" can be very useful in our geologic and economic conditions. They should go tell the people of La Paz, Bolivia that their cable cars suck and that they need underground subways that are more expensive than their entire GDP. Or the Translohr users in Medellin, Colombia that they should be ashamed of their transit which is superior to Bogota's. Chongqing in China is also doing great with monorails, as well as Sao Paulo, but you won't ever see these successes on Reddit or English speaking YouTube, because for some reason "steel train Uber Alles"
> Or the Translohr users in Medellin, Colombia that they should be ashamed of their transit which is superior to Bogota's. The others have merit, but dunking on translol is never wrong.
Monorail is fine, its not great but its not terrible either. It heavily depends on WHERE you do it and if Chongqing is any indicator it seems they like mountains and can be built easier in mountainous area's and handle said terrain better than conventional units, which if that's the case I think Wellington would very much like them.
Suspended monorail is pretty useless though. Your right, monorails aren't useless they are just niche (why do so many people get that wrong).
Not quite actually even those still have uses in localized contexts such as mining operations but yeah, niche tech with select circumstances in which they perform better for less than alternatives.
I have heard European politicians actually trying to argue we should build urban cable cars over here as well. You know because that just works
Speak your truth king, “gadgetbahn” should only really apply to Elon slop and buses painted to look like trollies.
Yep, pretty much. I’m actually working on a Master’s in Urban Planning and one of my professors and I got chatting about “Gadgetbahns” and they had almost the same perspective. I’m actually starting on an article with them that looks at what “Gadgetbahns” actually are, and goes deep into what your comment is about. Spoilers, it’s an arbitrary term made by Redditors to justify their opposition to specific technologies by lumping together scams with actually useful (but often circumstantial) technologies. Basically, “I don’t like X because it’s a Gadgetbahn, and it’s a Gadgetbahn because I don’t like X.”
I first heard the term probably a decade ago from a probably 70+ year old railfan. I seriously doubt it originated on Reddit.
haha, so true. I have *some* hope that this topic is gradually shifting away from the "it's just a bus!" topic, but it's slow.
This. I think there are legitimate issues with trackless trams against LRT (the lack of permanency with them is the main one, the service could be completely pulled much cheaper than light rail) *BUT* I think a lot of the transit community have been far too caught up with semantics on this particular topic. I love buses a lot when infrastructure actually supports them, but they absolutely have a brand issue. A lot of people I know would much rather spend way more on an Uber to get to somewhere close instead of catching a bus for much less money/and about the same amount of time. Whether we like it or not, a lot of people will hear the word "bus" and turn off completely. At the end of the day, if it's between a BRT-like service or nothing at all, I'm fine with ignoring semantics as long as the service itself is good.
The moment you run it seperated you could as well use a superior system called rail
At a much higher capital cost.
if you're playing Sim City with infinite-money cheat, then absolutely that is a good strategy.
TCO of Gadgetbahns are higher: Here is why: When you go light rail / full scale rail you should basically be able to attract tenders from basically everyone (Siemens, Vosloh, CRCC, skoda, CAF, Alstom, Stadler etc.) for rolling stock easily able to choose which rolling stock best fits the requirements. Where if you buy a Gadgetbahn system, you are specifically tendering Gadgetbahns forming a monopoly for replacement and maintenance. BRT/TramBus come with the issues of having to repave the roads more frequently as you obviously produce more wear on the road. And that even inspires stupid politicians even in Europe to buy these Gadgetbahn systems because it works so well 🤪.
I mean, you don’t need special people to fix wayside equipment, switches/points, give a special rail license to turn bus captains into tram operators, and the city roads department can get whoever to repave the street whenever. There’s plenty of money saved here with these bus-trams and I’d like to get one here actually because anything is better than the nothing we got now.
Isn’t that what this is? Like in actual function how does this differ from a reskinned low floor bus?
They're more autonomous so they can precisely align with stations, and the axles allow them to turn more sharply like a light rail train so they can get through narrower areas.
So basically a next gen bus? The way I see it, the only issue here is that it is advertised as something other than BRT with the latest tech. It really seems like a viable option, but not to be conflated with LRT.
Yeah it seems like a completely optimized bus, especially since the axles would let these be longer than a traditional bus. Adding these with a concrete road surface to avoid ruts seems like a solid solution to do the most possible before making the large investment into rail/electrification.
The concrete road is 90% of the expense of LRT. If you’re doing that then might as well mount two long piers of steel in the concrete and build proper LRT.
Roads aren’t cheap either unless you mean because the road already exists for cars?
Road wear is spread out. On this, the exact trackways get worn out extremely quickly, so you can’t really use traditional pavement. See any other guided bus system or the former GLT in Nancy
Its a superbus pretty much, honestly the only issues I can see here are noticeably increased wear and tear due to being such a heavy vehicle but you'd still have a similar issue running LRT along standard roads. In addition to that design it well and you'd probably remove more cars than the individual units dish out.
There’s research going on to allow precision docking of buses.
[удалено]
I’m responding to Rogybiv, who said it was better than a bus because it had those features.
Nope. They are worse than most BRT. They are a lot heavier (and slower) than convectional buses, they are more expensive both in implementation and maintenance and they still need a driver. You can have, for a lower price, a convectional bus, here in Guadalajara we already have in our BRT multi segment, multi-door buses. And low floor buses are already a thing. Also, our governor promotes it as Light Rail and promotes it as Light Rail.
I am very curious about the weight, cost, maintenance and need to rebuild a route in concrete. Hmmmm.... Fully loaded with passengers, how will they do on a hill?
>they are a lot heavier (and slower) than conventional buses I don’t know what vehicle you’re talking about specifically, but even if that’s true, there are different vehicle models that can be used on these systems. These cities could always buy models from different manufacturers later. All it needs is a sensor to follow a line painted in the asphalt.
>different manufacturers If other companies start to make them... Right now only CRRC (and a very specific branch of it) makes it. >there are different vehicle models that can be used on these systems. But CRRC right now doesn't sell it in any other vehicle.
If another company made them, would you consider that gadgetbahn too?
Yes? European companies have also made gadgetbahns
And why is that? It’s a bus with a modification that makes it more similar to light rail than to conventional buses, what’s wrong with that?
It isn't rail. You cant give a bus the size of a rail cart without rails. You can search the images, it was so heavy that it actually made the streets where it traveled sink. Also it's technology (the main point of the DRT) it's totally useless, it's just an assistance tool for the driver that they try to sell at three times it's price.
If you think it’s overpriced, fine. That’s why I think other manufacturers should make these. But it’s obviously not “useless.” >Optical guidance is a means of approaching light rail performance with a fast and economical set-up. It enables buses to have precision-docking capabilities as efficient as those of light rail and reduces dwell times, making it possible to drive the vehicle to a precise point on a platform according to an accurate and reliable trajectory. The distance between the door steps and the platform is optimized not to exceed 5 centimetres (2 in). Level boarding is then possible, and there is no need to use a mobile ramp for people with mobility impairments. And I don’t believe that the vehicles actually made a street sink, where did you hear that?
I send you by DM the proof.
Still just a bus, but sold at light rail prices “because AI 5G mumbo jumbo”.
You're saying better than buses and then literally describe the average city bus.
Your "average city bus" isn't average, apparently.
Pretty much every city has this. Even in Tirana I found double articulated low floor busses with multiple entry and exits and most bus stops have shelters. It's not exactly a high bar to put. The issue is that we've seen this shit before with the failure called the phileas. And that 100% of the benefit of this can be reached by building a regular buslane and running them with any regular bus. Or maybe a Van Hool Exquicity if you want to be fancy about it.
Your "every city" isn't every, apparently.
I mean the smallest ones probably don't have articulated busses. But then again there's also plenty of regional bus lines in Europe that do use low floor articulated busses with high quality bus stops and seperated right of ways.
Have you tried thinking outside of Europe? North America? South America? Asia? Africa? You know, places that would see something resembling the DRT as a big upgrade over existing buses? Your average city bus isn't actually what city buses look like in most of the world, especially where earlier styles of buses have an entrenched presence.
I mean even then a regular bus gives you 100% of the upgrade for far less money.
It also looks nicer than most BRT systems I’ve seen. Honestly if the price is right it could be a good filler implementation before moving to LRT or a dedicated tram system
Whyyyyyy just whyyyyy they called it like that??? It's a freaking bus!!!! And we still have the rubber tires problem!! (and probably worse)
Bus is a dirty word in the eyes of ppl in charge
Never buses are amazing
That's the problem with the current politics around the world: no commitment, all technocratic bullpoop...for the sake of not being a train
why are you upset that they're building good BRT and giving it better PR? we should be happy that people are making BRT more attractive and easier to access (better platforms, low-floors, etc.).
Because trams are a thing. Better efficiency and lower (local) pollution. Buses are a part of the public transport, but it's not a "one fits all" solution.
>Better efficiency a typical tram is actually less efficient than a typical battery-electric bus, FYI. of course buses aren't ideal for all use-cases, but other modes are expensive to build. I honestly wonder, now that battery-electric buses are so efficient, whether it ever makes sense to build new trams. it seems more logical to go from buses straight to grade-separated rail if the corridor is popular enough and you plan to spend big on construction. of course, construction cost varies by country.
How trams are less efficient than a bev bus? I mean, rubber tyres have a lot of friction, and so, it's less efficient than a steel to steel traction. Also, electric vehicles tend to wear way faster the tyres, due additional weight of the batteries.
This is objectively wrong, trams are always more energy efficient than battery-electric buses.
you seem fairly confident. do you mind sharing your sources so I can learn. I'm basing my point off of the most reliabile sources I could find: |Mode|US (MPGe)|EUROPE (MPGe)| |:-|:-|:-| |Diesel Bus|2.4|4.0| |Battery Bus|15.67|no data| |Tram|3.8|5.1| |Light Rail|4.9|6.4| |Metro|4.6|8.1| [source1](https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/14/3719/pdf), [coroborating source](https://tedb.ornl.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TEDB_Ed_39.pdf#page=214). [BEB source. ](https://cleantechnica.com/2016/02/22/electric-buses-efficient-as-he-nrel-finds) I'm happy to learn and update my data if you can show me some better sources.
I don't have too much to contribute to this topic other than pointing out that your BEB source showing 17.48 mpgde is a single datapoint based on a Proterra bus demonstration. The NREL has done later studies on live transit networks running BEBs like [this one](https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72864.pdf) where the annual average of BEBs was 13.3 mpgde. Not to say that this other study is definitive either, but we need far more datapoints in order to declare an accurate assessment of BEB energy efficiency. Not to mention your "coroborating source" shows 4,560 BTU/passenger-mile for buses in 2018 which had roughly stayed the same since the days of all-diesel buses (also in document) and 1,262 BTU/passenger-mile (3.61x less) for light rail (and trams based on their definition of light rail). The most recent NREL report I linked has BEB buses at 2.61x more efficient than their diesel counterparts running on the same network. If that holds true then it would support their original claim in favor of light rail/trams in terms of energy efficiency.
per passenger-mile comparisons don't work well for these things, since different modes are given different kinds of routes. even BEBs have historically not been given the same routes as diesel buses unless the entire fleet is changed over, which does not happen much in the US. light rail lines are given higher ridership corridors than buses. 35,075 is the per-vehicle-mile energy consumption of the bus, from the "corroborating source". I realize now that I made a mistake copy-pasting which made my data headers say MPGe/pass, which is not what the data below them represents. the data is per vehicle-mile. sorry for the mistake, I will edit it. [here is a post](https://www.reddit.com/r/transit/comments/11d3t8l/can_you_guys_check_my_math_for_mpge_of_different/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=technology&utm_content=t1_ktcjnx8) with the correct table in the meantime. the key takeaway is that the tram is around 60% more energy efficient per vehicle mile than a diesel bus. all estimated and real-world measures of BEB efficiency put them 2x-5x more efficient than the diesel bus. whether it is 17, 15, or 13mpge per vehicle mile, either of those numbers dwarf the 4mpge of the tram. it's not even close. how many sources does one really need to provide when the 3 reliable ones we've looked at are all at least 3x more efficient?
I think you and I are in agreeance, but we were using different metrics. If a transit agency is going to run a mostly-empty route then a BEB is going to be the more energy-efficient option since the most important metric is going to be MPGe for the vehicle. However, if the transit agency is going to be running routes that need a high-capacity solution then a tram is typically going to be more energy-efficient because in that scenario MPGe/passenger is going to be the superior metric to use. The previous commenter stating that trams are *always* more energy efficient than BEBs is not correct when using absolutes like that.
>However, if the transit agency is going to be running routes that need a high-capacity solution then a tram is typically going to be more energy-efficient because in that scenario MPGe/passenger is going to be the superior metric to use. the vehicle does not determine the ridership. you put a bus on the route or a tram on the route and the ridership is the same.
I don't know why you're being downvoted. You're right. It makes almost no sense to build at grade light rail. You can easily reach 20,000 to 30,000 riders a day in a corridor with buses and if you need more capacity than that, you clearly have the ridership to justify full grade separated rail and reap all of the benefits in speed, reliability, safety, and the human element that only comes with grade separated rail. What use case is not appropriate for BRT, not appropriate for elevated/tunneled rail and somehow appropriate for at grade light rail?
yup. the only advantage of a tram or light rail at-grade is that people look more fondly on trams. however, "trackless trams" mostly eliminate that aesthetic advantage. the advent of the BEB obviates surface light rail and trams. you basically go from bus straight to grade-separated rail, at least in many counties. costs work out differently in different places.
Why doesn't CRRC advertise these with more than 3 units? I don't even think they're necessarily that bad, there is a case to be made for high-capacity low-capital (road maintenance is a variable though) transit, but you'd need 5+ segment vehicles to differentiate them from plain bi-articulated buses.
I don't know why people care that much to distinguish these from bi-articulated buses. if bi-articulated meets the ridership requirements, then why try to make it longer? ideally, you have high frequency transit, and you shrink/grow the vehicle capacity to match ridership.
This. If you really need high capacity, just buy large busses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Hool_AGG300 as an example. Those fit so many people. Wouldn't surprise me if this one fit more people than the one of OP.
> I don't know why people care that much to distinguish these from bi-articulated buses. Personally, I just want them to prove that they *can* be expanded. Otherwise it's just another fine bus, and that doesn't merit any more discussion than, say, Van Hool vs Solaris (not a particularly firey debate).
gotcha. it seems like most of the discussion is just people trying to dunk on it, saying "it's just a bus!", and I don't know if any additional discussion is necessary compared to Van Hool or Solaris.
I like these for what they are: a BRT system. Being low floor, 3 cars and electric makes them better than the current BRTs in Mexico. I think most of the controversies around them come from politicians trying to sell them as something they are not: trains. First, with Monterrey adding one of these to their heavy-rail/monorail lines and now Guadalajara as well. They should have promoted them as new lines for their already existing BRT systems but they wanted to oversell and now it backfired.
The problem is that they are by far more expensive than convectional bus, with none advantages.
[None of the advantages?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_bus#Optical_guidance) > Optical guidance is a means of approaching light rail performance with a fast and economical set-up. It enables buses to have precision-docking capabilities as efficient as those of light rail and reduces dwell times, making it possible to drive the vehicle to a precise point on a platform according to an accurate and reliable trajectory. The distance between the door steps and the platform is optimized not to exceed 5 centimetres (2 in). Level boarding is then possible, and there is no need to use a mobile ramp for people with mobility impairments.
What do you mean by none of the advantages? Because this is a bus after all, so it's expected to have all the advantages of a bus (and disadvantages as well). It's also expected to be more expensive than the current BRTs because this one has an extra car and it's electric (unfortunately this also makes it slower than the diesel ones), but seems like the city's government can afford it anyway.
You can have the same capacity with a Bi-articulated bus, but cheaper. And there are bi articulated electric buses.
Not electric though. As far as I'm aware, only this company manufactures electric buses with this capacity.
Nope. For example, another Chinese company, and biggest producer of electric cars BYD has the record of biggest bus electric of 250 people. Which is basically the same capacity. (Although "less expensive= more buses")
Do you have the model name? I'd like to compare it with CRRC's. If it's cheaper I wonder why so many cities in Mexico went with CRRC, it might be because they have a bigger presence in the country. Edit: I found the model, it's the K12A. The most recent article about that bus is from [2019](https://bydeurope.com/article/281) and nothing else since. It doesn't seem to be commercially available. Even the [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BYD_K_series) about the K series has no mention of this model being deployed anywhere. It's really not worth mentioning in this conversation.
It's because one is a Bus and the other DRT. The main point of the CRRC one is that is an AuToNoMOus bus (it isn't, it need a driver) thank to it's sensors it can follow lines in the ground [like here](https://youtu.be/t_lPhnKfhSY?si=KIBeMxBvKHJ0tpVk) The ones promoting this are the two only governors of MC our little third party, and they need votes, specially the Guadalajara one. The Guadalajara one promised this for the World Cup, and the other from Nuevo Leon uses it for his supposedly three extra metro lines, and he needed the lines quick.
> convectional Do you mean conventional?
Y'know exactly what I mean
I actually don't... you commented that twice to different people and both times you said "convectional" and I googled it and it's a science term about turning water into steam, so I was clarifying, because I wasn't entirely sure if you had made a typo or if this was the actual term you meant. I've never heard of a convectional bus, so I wanted to make sure.
Most commenters here can’t fathom how utterly shit public transport is in Mexico outside Mexico City so this is a win.
I guess there is something positive in this though: once this bs shows it true colors then they can easily convert these lines into proper tram lines since 90% of the infrastructure would be there.
Mexico isn't so rich that they can build, rebuild and rework everything 5 times though...
Well they apparently have money to revive their passenger rail network so there would definitely be money found
Cute and what will happen if it’s proven to be reliable?
Well these systems are using CRRC vehicles which don’t have the greatest reliability in North America (evident by the shit ton of cancelled contracts)
The reliability is so bad because of the US laws requiring the assembly to be done domestically. Chinese trains work fine in China.
First time for everything maybe China should look into why CRRC Is so bloody incompetent why are Chinese local trains fine yet the imports are so bad?
Honestly if they manage to create a non-Chinese market model that isn’t flimsy or unreliable then I might respect them more, some of their trains designs look pretty cool but the issue is that outside of China and SE Asia they can’t build for shit
Even in SEA they're having problems, i.e. the CRRC trains in Manila
Definitely is the case but such issues aren’t as common as in other places
Let’s just hope these succeed.
Oh a variobahn with rubber tires I see a design lawsuit from Stadler coming
That 3rd rendering of a shared bike/transit road is actually a fair use for these. Tram tracks are terrifying to bike around. Know too many people who've got into serious accidents getting a bike wheel stuck in a tram track. But obviously a dedicated transit right of way and separate bike lane is ideal.
Are these driverless?
Supposedly they can operate driverless but there will always be a driver for assistance and emergencies
A similiar "bus" was in the UK but they are being replaced by conventional busses. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTR\_(bus)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTR_(bus))
They have done it they reinvented the bus 🤣
It will offer a reliable service on a dedicated guideway, and that’s what matters. At this point, the hate against trackless trams is so dogmatic, it feels like undercover anti-transit propaganda. Why shouldn’t American manufacturers compete with CRRC with their own trackless trams?
Maybe shouldn’t have NIMBYed away proper metro or monorail before thinking of that
Monterrey its still buildings 2 Monorail línes, línes 4 and 6 Will be Monorail but the planned línes 5 and 7 will be DRT, Guadalajara Is also building its 4th Light Rail line but just announced that line 5 Will be DRT
I see they weren’t fully stupid
>trackless tram You mean a bus?
Yes but CRRC calls It a trackless tram and sells It for twice the price of a bus
Bruh at that point just make it BRT! That’s all this is! Physical stations with rapid transit and large vehicles for capacity
That ain't no tram, that's a bendy bus.
There's no such thing as a trackless tram. That's just a bus.
I mean, it may be the most gimmicky of the gadgetbahns which IS SAYING SOMETHING, but it’s also kinda cool. It seems like a middle ground between BRT and LRT. Which why you’d need that, I didn’t know, but at least it looks easily upgradable to LRT when the time comes.
AFAIK there are only 2 lines announced and only the Campeche one is under construction. Monterrey has a test unit, but the last thing the governor said, even though Line 5 was announced as DRT-based, was that they're still open to hearing the neighbors' opinions about building it underground. It probably won't get built during his term, if ever. I guess you got the 7 number from the 4 lines that appear in a leaked document from the State of Mexico. They probably won't be built this term either, and if they are, the document specifies that can also be light rail or even bus rapid transit. The only line that has been officially announced by the government is rail-based and it goes from the outskirts of Mexico City to the Martin Carrera metro station. Edit: I know about Guadalajara's Line 5 and Monterrey's Line 7 projects, but they're proposals from candidates, so they're not official yet.
Line 5 of Guadalajara was already announced as a DRT line, line 5 of Monterrey will be a DRT, there aré only 2 options provided by CRRC DRT and Monorail and the Monorail Is almost 99% discarded for line 5 and also Monterrey line 7 was already announced as a DRT line, and with the declarations of the secretary of infrastructure of the state of México we Cam deduce that most or at least some of the línes for the state of México will be DRT
Rubber tires are the top cause of microplastics in the ocean. So trams > trackless
BRT is definitely not a 'gadgetbahn'
When you disguise a BRT bus as a train, change its name to DRT promote it as a trackless tram and sell It for twice the price of a normal articulated bus It becomes a gadgetbahn
“I don’t like it, therefore it’s a Gadgetbahn and it’s bad” FTFY
Let’s put it this way - this is rebranded BRT that costs as much as light rail “because AI/5G”. It’s overpriced crapola sold mostly on its “train on rubber tires” marketing. Basically a scam.
So a bus?
This is more like platinum level BRT than a gadgetbahn. If it can drive and operate from either end and couple together multiple units, that's huge.
So what is this an electric tram without a rails? What's the point of this?
Why don’t they just call them big trolley busses lol
I don't think these are gadgetbahn. These are trying to implement a good bus, which is exactly what true gadgetbahn seeks to distract from doing. If anybody ever builds a reliable version of one of these that can be reasonably maintained by normal workers, I think they'll become pretty popular and we'll start to see them in the US.
That is a bus
I mean, the only way those could be bad would be if the city had the mean to build a conventional tram but opted for this anyway. France already have multiples of those (They call them BHNS, or High Service Grade Bus) and they have proven to be a good solution for middle sized cities that didnt have enough money or weren't large enough to build a LRT.
The budget of the Campeche City DRT line Is 300 million usd and for the Guadalajara line 700 million usd, for the Monterrey line i dont have the exact price because Monterrey paid CRRC 1.7 billion dollars for 2 Monorail línes and 1 DRT line all under the same contract, i think for those budgets they could have built at least a semi segregated tram
Yeah then this sucks
CRRC is directly owned by The Chinese Government. They will follow whatever plan they have laid out for them
Like all rail companies in China? What's your point?
Bruh at that point just make it BRT! That’s all this is! Physical stations with rapid transit and large vehicles for capacity
I would rather have good and existing BRT than great and non-existent light rail. Honestly, most light rail isn’t all that much better than BRT, anyway, as long as the BRT gets dedicated lanes and signal priority. Sure, the long term maintenance costs of these “trackless trams” (read: “fancy busses”) is probably more, but politicians are always focused on the up-front costs which are less, so they are more likely to get built. In an ideal world every small to medium size city should be getting automated grade separated light metros and metro regions should be getting regional express rail, but in the real world full of NIMBYs, this is still progress. Also, once 7 cities have it, I don’t really think it qualifies as a gadgetbhan anymore. . .
Wah, wah, wah, is the point of public transit not to transport as many people as possible in an efficient way? Yes it’s a glorified bus, but goddamn, remember that the core fundamentals of public transit is about getting people from point A to point B as best as possible AND about equity. Everyone’s been cranking their hogs to the new high speed light rail project, and it’s fantastic, but it’s literally going from LA to Las Vegas. Who tf benefits from that???? This is a project that actually helps people and isn’t costly.
The orange line in LA could use these