Advanced

Regionala gummihjulståg - En studie av möjligheten att införa högkvalitativ kollektivtrafik i mindre starka stråktill lägre kostnad än för järnväg

Thorsén, Mikael (2015)
Programmes in Helesingborg
Abstract
This report investigates the possibility of implementing a high-quality, regional, rubber-wheled based public transport system with train-like features to a lower cost than that of a traditional raliway. In order to be regarded as fulfilling this goal, the system, hereafter called rubber-wheel trains, must both be similar enough to railways to be regarded as trains by the passengers – and also be considerably cheaper than the conventional railway. In order to achieve these goals, the following main criteria are used: speed, comfort, security/reliability, long term stability and image/status. The maximum velocity is, initially, proposed to be 140 km/h (87 mph), comfort levels will be equivalent as those of a smaller regional train, onboard... (More)
This report investigates the possibility of implementing a high-quality, regional, rubber-wheled based public transport system with train-like features to a lower cost than that of a traditional raliway. In order to be regarded as fulfilling this goal, the system, hereafter called rubber-wheel trains, must both be similar enough to railways to be regarded as trains by the passengers – and also be considerably cheaper than the conventional railway. In order to achieve these goals, the following main criteria are used: speed, comfort, security/reliability, long term stability and image/status. The maximum velocity is, initially, proposed to be 140 km/h (87 mph), comfort levels will be equivalent as those of a smaller regional train, onboard security is guaranteed by train staff, while reliability is enhanced by the fact that the rubber-wheel trains cannot leave the track. Long term stability will be almost as high as that of a railway due to the dedicated track. Also the image/status of the system will be considerably higher than that of bus-based public transport. However, it will most probably not reach all the way to the image/status of traditional railways. The system is based upon approx. 40-45 m long train looking vehicles on a separate track (guided busway). Automatic steering is used through steering wheels running towards kerbs/curbs in the same manner as that of the O-Bahn system. Inside the vehicles, space and service is equivalent to that in regional/local trains. The rubber wheeled trains are elecrically powered with a double catenary and are to run on completely dedicated tracks, preferably on old railway banks. They are to have large curve radii and superelevated curves. The stops are to be designed as small railway stations, usually one per village or town. Larger towns could, however, have more than one stop. The system is also proposed to have a simple signalling system in order to prevent collision while driving on single track.
In Sweden, the system will most likely be regarded as a kind of tramway, and will follow the laws concerning trams and subways. The report draws the conclusion that the rubber wheel train system will cost about half of what an equivalent conventional railway would. By guiding the rubber wheel trains to the same platform as conventional trains (by straddling the track) swift connections to railway trains can be ensured. Thereby passengers can benefit from the short travelling times of railways. The system considerably shortens travelling times between towns and villages along the track/busway. It can also compete with car travel; with about the same travelling times, in some cases it’s even faster than travelling by car. Compared to a railway, the decrease in travelling time will be smaller, about half. Hence it is hard to give a general statement concerning which system would be most beneficial with regards to a Cost Benefit Analysis. However, in a case in which both conventional rail and rubber-wheel trains would be considered non-economical, the rubber wheel train system would demand less government subsidies through taxes, and therefore speaking for the implemention of rubber wheel trains in such a case. At the same time the system demands relatively high passenger numbers to be motivated. The conclusion therefore is that, even if the system meets the demands of railway-likedness and lower cost than that of a railway, it isn’t sure that it automatically will be more beneficial to society. It’s possible to reach very far in the pursuit of emulating the benefits of railway; however this also increases the cost. Hence, there are no easy ”shortcuts” to the ”railway magic” without paying the price for it. In the case of rubber wheel trains, this is however still half of the cost of a railway, which also means that it gives you much ”railway” in comparison to the investment. Keywords:
? Accesablity
? BRT
? Comfort
? Image
? Infrastructure
? Kerb guidance
? O-Bahn
? Public transport
? Railway
? Regional traffic
? Rubber wheel train
? Structurizing effects
? Superbusses
? Tramway
? Trolley buses (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
@misc{7451419,
  abstract     = {This report investigates the possibility of implementing a high-quality, regional, rubber-wheled based public transport system with train-like features to a lower cost than that of a traditional raliway. In order to be regarded as fulfilling this goal, the system, hereafter called rubber-wheel trains, must both be similar enough to railways to be regarded as trains by the passengers – and also be considerably cheaper than the conventional railway. In order to achieve these goals, the following main criteria are used: speed, comfort, security/reliability, long term stability and image/status. The maximum velocity is, initially, proposed to be 140 km/h (87 mph), comfort levels will be equivalent as those of a smaller regional train, onboard security is guaranteed by train staff, while reliability is enhanced by the fact that the rubber-wheel trains cannot leave the track. Long term stability will be almost as high as that of a railway due to the dedicated track. Also the image/status of the system will be considerably higher than that of bus-based public transport. However, it will most probably not reach all the way to the image/status of traditional railways. The system is based upon approx. 40-45 m long train looking vehicles on a separate track (guided busway). Automatic steering is used through steering wheels running towards kerbs/curbs in the same manner as that of the O-Bahn system. Inside the vehicles, space and service is equivalent to that in regional/local trains. The rubber wheeled trains are elecrically powered with a double catenary and are to run on completely dedicated tracks, preferably on old railway banks. They are to have large curve radii and superelevated curves. The stops are to be designed as small railway stations, usually one per village or town. Larger towns could, however, have more than one stop. The system is also proposed to have a simple signalling system in order to prevent collision while driving on single track.
In Sweden, the system will most likely be regarded as a kind of tramway, and will follow the laws concerning trams and subways. The report draws the conclusion that the rubber wheel train system will cost about half of what an equivalent conventional railway would. By guiding the rubber wheel trains to the same platform as conventional trains (by straddling the track) swift connections to railway trains can be ensured. Thereby passengers can benefit from the short travelling times of railways. The system considerably shortens travelling times between towns and villages along the track/busway. It can also compete with car travel; with about the same travelling times, in some cases it’s even faster than travelling by car. Compared to a railway, the decrease in travelling time will be smaller, about half. Hence it is hard to give a general statement concerning which system would be most beneficial with regards to a Cost Benefit Analysis. However, in a case in which both conventional rail and rubber-wheel trains would be considered non-economical, the rubber wheel train system would demand less government subsidies through taxes, and therefore speaking for the implemention of rubber wheel trains in such a case. At the same time the system demands relatively high passenger numbers to be motivated. The conclusion therefore is that, even if the system meets the demands of railway-likedness and lower cost than that of a railway, it isn’t sure that it automatically will be more beneficial to society. It’s possible to reach very far in the pursuit of emulating the benefits of railway; however this also increases the cost. Hence, there are no easy ”shortcuts” to the ”railway magic” without paying the price for it. In the case of rubber wheel trains, this is however still half of the cost of a railway, which also means that it gives you much ”railway” in comparison to the investment. Keywords:
? Accesablity
? BRT
? Comfort
? Image
? Infrastructure
? Kerb guidance
? O-Bahn
? Public transport
? Railway
? Regional traffic
? Rubber wheel train
? Structurizing effects
? Superbusses
? Tramway
? Trolley buses},
  author       = {Thorsén, Mikael},
  keyword      = {brt; framkomlighet; gummihjulståg; image; infrastruktur; järnväg; kollektivtrafik; komfort; o-bahn; regional trafik; spårstyrning; spårväg; strukturerande effekter; superbussar; trådbussar},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Regionala gummihjulståg - En studie av möjligheten att införa högkvalitativ kollektivtrafik i mindre starka stråktill lägre kostnad än för järnväg},
  year         = {2015},
}