Here in bucolic Victoria BC we are engaged in an ongoing debate about what kind of rapid transit system we need for this city of 350,000. One of our enormous assets, and already in place though dreadfully under-used, is an existing railway track that runs from our Western communities (where most of our rush hour traffic originates) right into the heart of downtown Victoria. This line is now (and almost unbelievedly so) used only to allow one self propelled passenger rail car to leave from downtown Victoria in the a.m., and make its way up Vancouver Island to Comox/Courtenay, a small city a couple of hundred kilometers north of us, before returning to Victoria in the afternoon. This is just for tourists, since it runs contrary to rush hour motor vehicle traffic, and in any case has no significant capacity.
At one point early on in this debate, a letter to the editor talked about the possibility of using transit buses which are also able to drive onto railway tracks, by lowering their steel wheels (or raising their rubber ones) depending on whether they were riding the rails or a paved roadway.
This system would operate as follows: For the morning rush hour, these buses would start out in the western communities by getting onto the railway line (before or after loading up with passengers) and then riding the rails directly into the city, thereby reducing what is now an hour’s drive by highway into probably a 20 or 25 minute railroad trip. Upon arriving in downtown Victoria, they would disgorge their passengers, and then drive OFF the rails and onto the regular road system, where they would then drive back out to the western communities via the regular highway system, before re-mounting the rails and taking another load of commuters into downtown Victoria again.
The beauty of this process is that because our rush hour traffic is overwhelmingly west-to-east in the morning (
Why reinvent the wheel? I would just run a couple commuter trains in from Langford in the am, out in the pm. Could be the typical locomotive with a couple of bi-level coaches, or something of the self-propelled variety.
Thanks for responding… my idea for using buses instead of the more traditional locomotives (even including double deckers) is based on a feeling (which I will try to back up with facts) that doing as you suggest (just run a couple commuter trains in from Langford in the am, out in the pm…) would only carry a few hundred people at most, and these trains would sit idle much of the time. Using buses allows you to make multiple trips with the same vehicle. I don’t know the exact number of commuters now driving into town from the Langford/Colwood area, but I would guess it is several thousand people at least, so we have to be able to move more than a few hundred people in those rush hour periods than a conventional rail setup could do, especially on a single track (if we are to make the service attractive to commuters). Thanks
Looks doable to me–but only IF you can get it through the government rail safety regulators. In the US that would be a big deal but I have no idea how Canada works. (And if there were no other type of rail vehicles using the tracks at all during the same time, it would go a long way towards simplifying things safety-wise.) I assume these buses would be equiped to trigger any crossing lights and gates, right? One thing you didn’t mention was what would be needed, and how expensive, to upgrade the track to do this.
I agree with your logic that the buses would generate many more passengers and be more cost efficient than just the standard commuter trains for the reasons you mention. However, there could be a union battle over which union would represent the drivers.
Let’s put it this way–your idea sounds more reasonable than many of the others you see posted on these various Trains forums. I wish you good luck with your efforts to get politicians to think outside of the box.
Alphas, thanks for your encouraging response… I think you hit the nail on the head with your closing comment: “I wish you good luck with your efforts to get politicians to think outside of the box.” I am convinced that this is a viable alternative/soluution to our particular and unique situation here in Vicgtoria, but it needs politicians/special interest groups, etc etc to support it or the prevailing (and traditional) mindsets will have their way. (Boy, this is getting complicated ;o)
The points you raise (about regulations and regulatory authorities, and about unions competing for the jobs) are valid, but none that cannot be overcome by a government (whether municipal, regional, provincial, or even national) that is willing to put common sense and practicality over local turf wars. As for the controls and upgrading on the current railbed, I think the former would be very easy to incorporate, and the latter is not even needed, since the railbed/railway line already is up to snuff for the (I believe) much heavier rail car(s) that are currently in use.
Your solution sounds complicated and maint intensive. The maint of those retractable wheels can’t be cheap.
Charlotte, NC is a city of aprox 700,000 with a surrounding metro area that brings it well over a million. We are in the process of building a multifaceted mass transit system.
Currently in service are standard busses, the first light rail line,
and 3 replica trolleys.
Also planned, but not yet in service are 2 more light rail lines, a trolley line through city center, one commuter rail line, and bus rapid transit. BRT are double busses that run on paved roads that are dedicated to the BRT only and run like the light rail, with boarding only at stations.
Each light rail station is the hub of a bus route system, and about half of them have park and ride lots. The light rail runs single cars every 15 minutes most of the day, and double cars every 7 1/2 minutes during rush hour. The light rail is averaging about 1/3 more riders a day than the consultants predicted.
BRT might be the most cost effective solution to your problem. CATS (Charlotte Area Transit) has discovered that many people happily ride the light rail who wouldn’t be caught dead on a bus. Opponents predicted that the light rail would be inhabited by “those bus people”, and the neighborhoods bordering the line would lose property value. Just the opposite is happening. Most of the weekday riders are people who work in city center, where 2 of the largest banks in the US are headquartered, and high end condos and mixed use office/residence condos are sprouting like weeds al
Thanks for your comments Phoebe… a few responses spring to mind…
your overall population in Charlotte is three times the size of Victoria, so I am inclined to think that the economics of light rail don’t make as much sense for us as for you. I can see the day when we will have light rail in Victoria, when the population warrants it, but my sense is the cost is out of our league right now.
I was interested to read about what you call “bus rapid transit or BRT – double buses that run on paved roads that are dedicated to the BRT only and run like the light rail, with boarding only at stations.” I presume these double buses are like two buses hitched together? In Victoria, we already have quite a few double decker (over/under) buses on our main routes and they certainly help, but the bottom line here (and the main problem) is that all our commuter buses have to share the same highway as the commuters in their automobiles, so that even if you do elect to take a bus into town during rush hour, you’re still stuck in rush hour traffic along with all the (mostly single passenger) commuter cars. Meantime, we have this unused but perfectly serviceable single line railway track that goes along virtually the same route as our rush hour traffic flow, and if it were in use (by a bus that also runs on rails, as per the post below) this would cut the travel time for buses using this route in half.
The BRT you mention requires paved roads that are dedicated to the BRT only, and I assume they operate like railway lines except they are paved instead of using railway tracks. I suppose one option for us could be to just pave over the current railway line and then run regular buses (one way, depending or morning or evening rush hour) on that route (again, using our regular road system to get them back to their starting point for another load of commuters). The problem wi
Paul, thanks for finding this photo - this is exactly what I was talking about…
You say that this was an experiment that never took hold for lack of traction… pardon my naivety, but do you mean that the rear wheels didn’t have enough traction on the rails to brake (or accelerate) effectively, or just that the idea never gained any “traction” with traffic planners.
By the way, can you, or any other reader, direct me to more information about this so-called experiment? I would love to read about it, since judging by the apparent age of the bus in the photo this was probably tried several decades ago. A lot of time has passed since then, and what might have been experimental technology then may well be completely do-able and practical today.
Check out this image. The area in the middle of the road separated by concrete barriers is called a busway. At this time, standard buses run in it, but it will be the path for the BRT when it is completed. BRT are double LENGTH buses. The people along the route are fighting it. They want light rail instead of BRT. The city says if they can get the financing to go that route they will run the light rail in the busway.
If you are going to use the existing track, you might as well buy rail vehicles. The cost of adding high rail equipment to buses has got to be high. To make it bidirectional may only need passing sidings.
Another thought. You can pave the rail ROW without removing or interfering with the tracks. That might be more cost effective than converting your buses. Then you could use existing buses.
In addition to heavy commuter rail for some of its suburban communities, i.e. those served by existing rail lines, Adelaide, South Australia, built a unique guided bus transit way.
The transit way consists of two concrete rights-of-way that look a bit like troughs. They abut each other, so they require less space than a normal two lane highway. Each right of way, which has a wall that appears to be a couple of feet high, if I remember correctly, is just wide enough to accommodate a bus. Once in the trough the bus is guided by a set of wheels that jute out from the front of the bus and touch the sidewalls. They steer the bus while it is in the trough. All the driver has to do is keep the bus rolling and look out for any buses ahead of him or her. The system does not require any signals, since the buses only go about 55 mph, and there are no blind curves on the system. It is like driving in traffic without having to steer or change lanes. It appears that the system was built on a former rail line.
Buses enter the transit way from downtown or one of the suburban communities served via a dedicated approach ramp. There are several exit points along the way (the driver must take control of the bus when exiting the system or passing through the exit point). Upon exiting the transit way, the driver runs a street route through the neighborhood that is served by the bus.
The beauty of the system is that for the run to or from the suburbs, the bus has an unimpeded right of way, which means that it can clip along nearly as fast as most light rail trains. The Charlotte trains, as an example, are restricted to 55 mph, while the Dallas trains are restricted to 60 mph. Moreover, because the bus can exit the system and travel along neighborhood or downtown routes, passengers don’t need to change from a train to a local bus or downtown circulatory.
I suspect people favor the train over the bus because it i
Once, while I was riding the Texas Eagle on UP territory, I saw a white school bus which had UP writing on it. I’m guessing it’s for hauling MOW crews. That would be cool if it had wheels like hyrailers do. Imagine, stopping at a crossing to wait for an oncoming bus. LOL
One of the drawbacks to all highrail vehicles is slippery in the rain and as I remember my many visits to Victoria as a young lad there is an abundance of rain. I traveled with my granfather to Victoria on many occasions as he was a shoemaker that made special shoes for children with foot problems to help correct those problems.
You might want to check with the New Haven historical Society as that road had some buses that operated on branch lines that had the ability to turn just the body around so they would be facing forward for the return trip.
The MP operated city type buses on rails somewhere around Houston I believe but don’t know what they did for the return trip or if they were bi-directional.
Similar designs - bus-styled motor-cars - existed on French narrow-gauge-railroads. They carried a small turntable with them. The turntable was lowered until the wheels did not touch the rails anymore. Then, the engineer and conductor (and helpers?) turned the motor-car by 180 degrees.
Sorry, but I was employing a pun to accomplish both thoughts – literally the traction of the rear wheels was very low, especially on rainy days (no sanding system, etc. to increase traction), AND the idea simply didn’t have a lot of support since congestion wasn’t as bad as it is today, and the system that tested it in the area where I grew up (Philadelphia Suburban Transit) did ultimately rip out existing tracks and re-use the right of way as a paved, bus only route (Ardmore line).
FYI If I remember correctly, both Pittsburg & Seattle both use mixed light rail/busways.
Crazy idea(thought about this whilst writing this) what about putting the busses on a flat car, a variation of TOFC(BOFC) & running a group of busses by rail.
Around October or November 1950, another MIT undergraduate railfan, Frank Fairbanks (passed on), and I rode from Kingston on the NE Corridor (then New Haven) to Naragansett Pier and back on the Naragansett Pier’s converted blue schoolbus which simply had flanged wheels replacing the usual hub and tire – and part of the time we rode backwards, without any rear-end controls, because the NPRR track at the Kingston Station was sub-end.
Your idea is technically feasible, and the same type of equipment as used on railway inspection “hi-railers” can be beefed up to handle buses. Whether it makes sense operationally or economically is another question. Despite the limitations and expenses, an all rail solution might be found that would be better.
The BRT proponents almost always claim that it’s the best of both light rail and bus. The problem is that they never really define what BRT is. Is it primarily bus “trains” running al most exclusively
