The curious case of the inexpensive rail.

[Aylmer]

This time, I have done much research on the subject of ultralight rail ULR and have
caught wind of a most interesting thing:
The cost of the experimental technology (there is no permanent system for
now but it is used in Bristol and Kalamata) is, according to the sources which I cheked
between $2 and $4 million.

TDI
(new url: TDI)
LRTA
Sustraco

In the case of Kalamata, Grece, a city of 50 thousand, the system (5Km, a depot, 8 trains, and 23 stops)
only costed a mere 10 million dollars.
Which made me think; Could it be possible here?

Well I don't know.

But, based on the case of Kalamata, there could be a line from MakenzieKing to
Eardly/Front via Taché Blvd, Pont Alonzo via Freeman, Grébèr/Autoroute 50 and the new Plateau urban village via St Raymond for a grand total of just under
100 million dollars, Trains, Tracks and all!

LinkyMap

I might get serious about this so
I would like your input on this, either the technology or the plan.

[Richard Eade]

Curious indeed. Have you gotten serious?

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

First off, aside from the fact that this technology is still mostly unproven, the cities mentioned do not have the same climate as us, much less the population.

It's not just about the cost; it has to be effective for the money it's worth. That is where people get confused and lost.

[Aylmer]

Wow. Flash from the past.

Though the technology hasn't yet been proven, I find it an interesting concept that might show to be the perfect option, or prove to be completely infeasable.

[Ryersonian]

Originally Posted by AylmerOptimist

Wow. Flash from the past.

Though the technology hasn't yet been proven, I find it an interesting concept that might show to be the perfect option, or prove to be completely infeasable.

I believe...Keep us posted on what you discover.

[electricron]

Looking at those ultra-lights in the links, they're smaller sized streetcars.

[Richard Eade]

I find it curious (to continue the theme of this thread) that the rail infrastructure could be laid for 1/6th of the cost of Light Rail.

These are self contained vehicles, so they would not require external electrification (no overhead wires; no third rail). This, in turn, means no support structure for that external power (no power substations). So, basically, the cost is just installing rails.

Because the Ultra Light Rail Vehicles (ULRVs) are lighter than Light Rail Vehicles (LRVs), they can use lighter rails, and the rail bed can be reduced. This, in turn, means reduced sub-grade utilities disruption. (In fact, Light Rail is now being laid on thin slabs which already reduces underground work.)

OK, but how does this reduce the cost by 5/6th?

Perhaps the actual vehicle costs are also included. LRVs cost between $3M and $5M. The ULRVs must be significantly less expensive than that. Is this reasonable? Each vehicle would still have to have two 'trucks', a propulsion system, and a body. Just because the ULRVs are a bit shorter wouldn't account for a big difference. In fact, the larger ULRVs can't be too much shorter if they also carry about 200 people.

I'm confused as to where the big cost saving comes from.

I also wonder if these smaller trams could be automated if they were put in their own RoW. This would add fencing cost, but lower operating cost.

[Ryersonian]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I find it curious (to continue the theme of this thread) that the rail infrastructure could be laid for 1/6th of the cost of Light Rail.

These are self contained vehicles, so they would not require external electrification (no overhead wires; no third rail). This, in turn, means no support structure for that external power (no power substations). So, basically, the cost is just installing rails.

Because the Ultra Light Rail Vehicles (ULRVs) are lighter than Light Rail Vehicles (LRVs), they can use lighter rails, and the rail bed can be reduced. This, in turn, means reduced sub-grade utilities disruption. (In fact, Light Rail is now being laid on thin slabs which already reduces underground work.)

OK, but how does this reduce the cost by 5/6th?

Perhaps the actual vehicle costs are also included. LRVs cost between $3M and $5M. The ULRVs must be significantly less expensive than that. Is this reasonable? Each vehicle would still have to have two 'trucks', a propulsion system, and a body. Just because the ULRVs are a bit shorter wouldn't account for a big difference. In fact, the larger ULRVs can't be too much shorter if they also carry about 200 people.

I'm confused as to where the big cost saving comes from.

I also wonder if these smaller trams could be automated if they were put in their own RoW. This would add fencing cost, but lower operating cost.

It may be a climate thing; judging by the examples the engineers involved probably don't even know what frost heave is.

[MalcolmTucker]

I wouldn't be surprised if URL has a much lower max operating speed, at least on the cheap tracks.

Seems to be a good replacement for feeder routes, but definitely not a mainline solution. (max out at 5000 p/d/h). The only real reason to do this is to promote intensification and raise property values, as operating costs wouldn't be significantly lower than buses. Main benefit is from removing the stigma of bus use, and the feeling that buses are not permanent.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I find it curious (to continue the theme of this thread) that the rail infrastructure could be laid for 1/6th of the cost of Light Rail.

These are self contained vehicles, so they would not require external electrification (no overhead wires; no third rail). This, in turn, means no support structure for that external power (no power substations). So, basically, the cost is just installing rails.

Because the Ultra Light Rail Vehicles (ULRVs) are lighter than Light Rail Vehicles (LRVs), they can use lighter rails, and the rail bed can be reduced. This, in turn, means reduced sub-grade utilities disruption. (In fact, Light Rail is now being laid on thin slabs which already reduces underground work.)

OK, but how does this reduce the cost by 5/6th?

Perhaps the actual vehicle costs are also included. LRVs cost between $3M and $5M. The ULRVs must be significantly less expensive than that. Is this reasonable? Each vehicle would still have to have two 'trucks', a propulsion system, and a body. Just because the ULRVs are a bit shorter wouldn't account for a big difference. In fact, the larger ULRVs can't be too much shorter if they also carry about 200 people.

I'm confused as to where the big cost saving comes from.

I also wonder if these smaller trams could be automated if they were put in their own RoW. This would add fencing cost, but lower operating cost.

Probably all of the above, but you must take into account that the trams are very small, so the $/passenger is probably a little more that 1/6 of the cost of LRT.

I'm glad my thread has created such interest!

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

I wouldn't be surprised if URL has a much lower max operating speed, at least on the cheap tracks.

Seems to be a good replacement for feeder routes, but definitely not a mainline solution. (max out at 5000 p/d/h). The only real reason to do this is to promote intensification and raise property values, as operating costs wouldn't be significantly lower than buses. Main benefit is from removing the stigma of bus use, and the feeling that buses are not permanent.

What if you could start with a system like this and upgrade it later? I am thinking of Riverside South (RS), and environs. If $25M were put into an ULR line between the river and South Keys, I think the original (denser) RS development plan could be started. And this wouldn't be much more than the cost of bus lanes, or expanded roads.

For RS, it would be quite some time before anything with a capacity greater than 5,000 p/d/h was needed. The ULR could do what the O-Train does and simply go back and forth on a single track. BUT, there would be a rail system to build around.

The next track laid would be a LRT track parallel to the ULR track. The LRT would run back and forth on its track while the ULR track was upgraded. Then there would, ultimately, be a twin-track system through the community. And the BUS scenario would have been skipped.

Although AylmerOptimist suggested the system for the Gatineau side, I see possibilities in other places too.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

What if you could start with a system like this and upgrade it later? I am thinking of Riverside South (RS), and environs. If $25M were put into an ULR line between the river and South Keys, I think the original (denser) RS development plan could be started. And this wouldn't be much more than the cost of bus lanes, or expanded roads.

For RS, it would be quite some time before anything with a capacity greater than 5,000 p/d/h was needed. The ULR could do what the O-Train does and simply go back and forth on a single track. BUT, there would be a rail system to build around.

The next track laid would be a LRT track parallel to the ULR track. The LRT would run back and forth on its track while the ULR track was upgraded. Then there would, ultimately, be a twin-track system through the community. And the BUS scenario would have been skipped.

Although AylmerOptimist suggested the system for the Gatineau side, I see possibilities in other places too.

That's actually not too bad an idea, although the feasibility of such a system with unproven technology(with regards to our climate) still makes me wary...

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

What if you could start with a system like this and upgrade it later? I am thinking of Riverside South (RS), and environs. If $25M were put into an ULR line between the river and South Keys, I think the original (denser) RS development plan could be started. And this wouldn't be much more than the cost of bus lanes, or expanded roads.

For RS, it would be quite some time before anything with a capacity greater than 5,000 p/d/h was needed. The ULR could do what the O-Train does and simply go back and forth on a single track. BUT, there would be a rail system to build around.

The next track laid would be a LRT track parallel to the ULR track. The LRT would run back and forth on its track while the ULR track was upgraded. Then there would, ultimately, be a twin-track system through the community. And the BUS scenario would have been skipped.

Although AylmerOptimist suggested the system for the Gatineau side, I see possibilities in other places too.

I suggest it for the Gatineau side because of the smaller population. All the regions where ULR is currently in use have a population > 500 000. It coulid be used for Ottawa, but, as said before, as feeder routes.

But a great thing about ULR is that, because of it's shallow tracks, you can actually place temporairy tracks (like toy train sets).
A small pilot project could be put into place in, say, Aylmer, to see weather it would be used.

As for our climate, I have no clue why it would, or wouldn't work here.

[Aylmer]

Edit on links in first post:

TDI

(go to MINITRAM; Technology; Ultra Light Rail)

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

As for our climate, I have no clue why it would, or wouldn't work here.

Do you honestly believe those things could tackle a typical Canadian winter?

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Do you honestly believe those things could tackle a typical Canadian winter?

As I said, I don't see how they could nor why they couldn't.

It's a relatively new technology and hasn't been survived nor succombed to a canadian winter.

[Mister F]

Why specifically wouldn't this survive Canadian winters? Does anyone know what kind of railbed is required for frost or is this all speculation? Bristol is warmer than most of Canada in winter but it's still a temperate climate - it does snow there. Cold winters aren't unique to Canada.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Why specifically wouldn't this survive Canadian winters? Does anyone know what kind of railbed is required for frost or is this all speculation? Bristol is warmer than most of Canada in winter but it's still a temperate climate - it does snow there. Cold winters aren't unique to Canada.

I sent an email to TDI conserning winter and here was the reply:

Hi [I rather not disclose]



Thanks for your interest in our technology. In effect our ultra light trams will behave exactly like their larger cousins [LRT] – so there will need to be some measure of track clearing in times of very bad snow. For the electronically guided version, the guideway will need to be fully cleared of ice and snow to operate effectively, otherwise it will need to be manually driven during particularly icy conditions.



Average cost of the system is around £1m Sterling/track km. All other parameters can be tailored precisely to suite the operating requirements of a specific application as the vehicles are designed in a modular fashion and are built to order. Generally speaking, top speed is around 50kph and headways can be as short as 2 minutes in peak periods (depending upon how many vehicle are operating in the system).



Best regards

Martin

[MalcolmTucker]

yeah, basically trading $ for speed. makes sense.