Self-steering buses set the new course as trams are overtaken
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1967317,00.html

SPOTTING a bus driver accelerating down the street with both hands off the wheel should no longer be cause for alarm under plans to introduce Britain’s first self-steering bus.

The streets of Cambridge are to be the test ground for a system that will allow thousands of miles of new bus lanes to be installed on roads that are too narrow for ordinary buses.

The self-steering bus, which uses a camera mounted at the top of the windscreen to follow lines painted on the road, does not deviate more than a few millimetres from its course.

This allows the bus lane to be 1.5m (5ft) narrower than those used by driver-steered buses. Cyclists and pedestrians in city centres will be able pass close to the self-steering bus without fearing that the driver will suddenly veer off course.

The bus will also guide itself to within 4cm of the kerb at bus stops, allowing level boarding for disabled passengers and people with pushchairs.

The camera can look up to 100m ahead, recognising the parallel lines of dashes and sending a signal to a box on the steering mechanism. The steering wheel vibrates as soon as the system detects the lines, informing the driver that it is safe to remove his hands.

However, the driver continues to control acceleration and braking and can override the device at any time to steer the bus around obstacles. An alarm sounds if the optical guidance system cannot find the lines.

The system was developed by Siemens, the German technology company, and has already been introduced in Rouen in France and will soon be used on buses in Bologna in Italy. Both cities, like Cambridge, have networks of ancient streets that cannot comfortably accommodate conventional buses.

Stagecoach, the bus and train operator, is conducting trials in Britain in the summer and plans to fit the system on 22 buses in Cambridge by the end of the year.

Several cities, including Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and Portsmouth, are being forced to reconsider their plans for relieving congestion after the Government rejected their proposals for tram lines.

While a single tram line costs up to £400 million, buses can be fitted with optical guidance for £25,000 each plus a few thousand pounds for painting lines on the road.

Les Warneford, Stagecoach’s managing director of buses, said that the interior of the self-steering buses would also be upgraded to help to overcome the negative image of bus travel among car users. Leather seats and TV screens will be installed and longer distance services will offer a wireless broadband internet connection.

Mr Warneford said that the system’s only shortcoming was its inability to follow the lines when they were covered by snow or spillages. In those circumstances, the driver would revert to hand-steering.

Cambridge is also introducing the world’s longest guided busway on a disused 12-mile railway line between the city and St Ives.

The rail lines will be replaced with concrete channels. Buses fitted with small guidewheels will drive along the channels at up to 60mph.

The two systems are expected eventually to be integrated, with the optical guidance system taking over at the end of the busway.

hurrah! I like urban mass transport but its those over-head power cables of trams i just dont like, combine this development with hydrogen fuel cells and you have the ultimate over-ground transport!

Fantastic idea...very ingenious. When it snows couldn't they install heaters underneath the painted lines that can be switched on and off? Personally I will still prefer trams as in contrast to potto I really like the overhead cables, makes it seem busier and more "city- like" Hopefully the trial will be a success.

When they were boasting about Rouen having its metrobus, they didnt mention that Rouen also has its own tram system...

amazing. Trans are a bit O.O.D

Funny how every city anywhere in the world that has ever bought these things have never expanded their network.

Yet literally hunderds of cities globally that have tram networks are either expanding or planning to expand their tram network.

Most cities that have these 'super buses' soon run into technical difficulties, and the inital high hopes are replaced by the reality of a second rate system.

^Indeed. Edinburgh's closed within four months of opening :yes:

I cannot find the link, but I was reading a page last month about some of the probloms these systems have had in other cities. Wear on the paint on the road is one problem, as is snow, heavy rail etc.

Funny how every city anywhere in the world that has ever bought these things have never expanded their network.

Yet literally hunderds of cities globally that have tram networks are either expanding or planning to expand their tram network.

Most cities that have these 'super buses' soon run into technical difficulties, and the inital high hopes are replaced by the reality of a second rate system.


because trams are based on 150 year old technology?! Technology constantly improves and this system is an improvement on what went before it. Lets face it a tram is just an old fashioned version of this system and if the forefathers had access to this technology they wouldn't have bothered spending all their efforts laying all that steel rail down

Load of bollocks it wont last and also it will take about 10 years to decide if they want it or not.
The rail lines will be replaced with concrete channels. Buses fitted with small guidewheels will drive along the channels at up to 60mph.
Ye more govenment concrete which will turn to crap. Has anyone ever seen a bus ever go 60mph? I havent, I'd prefer to stick with the old trams thanks.

Quote:
The rail lines will be replaced with concrete channels. Buses fitted with small guidewheels will drive along the channels at up to 60mph.

Ye more govenment concrete which will turn to crap. Has anyone ever seen a bus ever go 60mph? I havent, I'd prefer to stick with the old trams thanks.

Thats a different system though, I agree that these concrete cheapo solutions will turn out to be eyesores in 10 years a bit like the DLR but more intrusive

You'll find the ride quality of steel wheel on steel track is miles better than rubber tyre on tarmac.

The breaking and accelerating is much more comfortable on trams than buses.

Given that a large percentage of public transport users in this country tend to be older - some of which are a bit less stable on their feet than the rest of us ride quality is a huge thing.

With regards the costs involved here - talk about distorted facts.

The costs often quoted for a tram line is for that tram line to be constructed, trams purchased, utilities diverted (and replaced), maintenance of the system for up to 40 years and any risk involved in any of the above.

Lets compare to what we are getting for with the buses.

How long does an average bus last - how many buses would you need to buy for the entire 40 years that the comparison is being made over?

How often do the rubber tyres on the buses need replacing over the 40 years? How much is that going to cost - not just in tyres, but the added labour of the staff due to the higher 'wear and tear' you experience with buses compared to trams that have a life expectancy of about 40 years?

Are you building a new road for these buses, or are you using an existing road?

If you are creating a new road - resumably there will be need for building to be demolished when the road gets to pinch points, otherwise - if you are using existing roads, and just taking a lane off that road - are you planning on moving all the utilities that are under those lanes or leaving them in place?
Moving them costs a fortune - when you build a tram line the DfT insist you move them all, if you decide to leave them in place, what happens to your bus network when North West Water decide that they need to do some work on the sewage system under the part of the road where your bus lane goes?

A huge, and I mean huge, proportion of the quoted cost for the trams (probably around 50%) is actually risk - the risk that the operator of the system will not recoupe sufficient money through fares to pay for the system, effectively leaving the operators with a white elephant, that no one uses and is costing them money - and worse, they have signed up to run the thing for 40 years.

With this in mind, and given that just about every study ever done has shown that trams would carry more passengers under the same circumstances on a busy route, would you imagine that the risks involved in opening a bus system or a tram system would be higher - as far as not recouping your initial costs? Personally I'd imagine that the buses would be far more risky, and as such the costs - over the 40 years - would be miles higher.

For those that don't believe the costs involved in a bus solution, have a look at the Transport Select Committees report into light rail last year, specifically point 27 on

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmtran/378/37805.htm#a7


The problems that beset light rail are not the actual expense of building the things, the problem is how the government insists that procurement process is followed, the allocation of risk and the huge delays that the DfT add to these schemes that are inflationary.

Finally, as we have seen recently government is unwilling to fund increases in costs of tram systems, however, when it comes to roads the average increase in costs (that is approved) is 53% for trunk roads and 42% of local roads (source Hansard 30th Nov 2005).

For example, this road project has gone over by 64% in 3 years... http://tinyurl.com/7rw5s and yet has still got the go ahead - double standards???

Remeber Liverpool went up by 40% - less than the average cost increase for roads in this country, yet was cancelled since the DfT refused to pay for rising prices - that they helped contribute to.

Anyway, rant over, best get on and do some work.

P.S. You'll notice from the link I provided to the Select Committee's report that the tram system would not need long term subsidy - the fare revenue would cover the operating costs, however, the bus proposal does not take enough money to cover maintenance costs, and as such that proposal requires long term subsidy.

The self-steering bus, which uses a camera mounted at the top of the windscreen to follow lines painted on the road, does not deviate more than a few millimetres from its course.

In Sydney, a couple of days before the Olympic marathon, some wags thought it would be great fun to divert the yellow line marking the route through their pub. I can imagine something similar happing with the bus line!

It is a cheap shite gimick that tries to make out that is some way the middle class can be attracted out of their cars into buses if only they had a, b or c different from today.

The reality of the situation is the ONLY mode of public transport that gets people out of their cars are trams, and whilst buses may be cheaper in the short term, they are nothing like as good, and in the long term the economies are very false.

From what I've heard about this I believe Metrolink is right about the overall costs of guided buses being higher than trams.

Before the Merseytram proposals, Liverpool proposed a system called MRT (Mersey Rapid Transit). This was a version of the same idea but used a cable buried in the road surface instead of a painted line. (A system like this is used in the Channel Tunnel's service tunnel). In the end it was rejected at public inquiry and I think one reason was that the system proposed had insufficient advantages over the existing buses.

As Metrolink says, steel wheel on steel rail does provide a smoother ride and it is more energy efficient. Away from areas where the tram runs down the centre of a road, track can be laid on conventional rail sleepers, which is cheaper and does not permit unauthorised vehicles to use the line. The main disadvantages of tram track is its initial cost and the need to divert services away from the swept path of the vehicle. (Guided buses can normally be diverted around roadworks by disengaging the guidance mechanism).

There is also a safety hazard to cyclists who can get their wheels trapped in the slot of the tram track.

Whilst buses (and trams) can use diesel engines, or other fuels, the pollution and traction advantages of electricity means that some form of overhead electrification system is provided. In the case of trams, only one overhead wire is needed, whilst buses need two as the current cannot return through the rails.

Trams have higher capacity as they can have more and longer trailers.

I think that on balance, trams have the edge over buses.

This is what happened on the 4th. day the ParkShuttle buses (Rotterdam) drove without drivers, steered by computers :D

http://tweakers.net/ext/i.dsp/1133878146.jpg

You can't hack into a busdriver's brain, so let's keep the drivers.

But the drivers would still be there, and could take control when neccessary still some convincing arguments on here as to why they might not work and I've always thought trams are far superior

I like trams. Are these self-steering buses a lot cheaper/mile compared to trams?

ok is there no way to combine say a hydrogen fuel cell with a light rail system? Or would the weight prove too much?

Probably could, however, as Bordeaux are finding out, introducing brand new technology is exceedingly expensive.
Bordeaux decided that they didn't want to have over head cables in the city centre.

In the suburbs the trams ran off electric from the cables through the patograph. However, in the city centre, they wanted the trams to draw electric from a central rail under the tram.

However, to ensure that the track was not electrofied when people touched them, the 'third rail' was broken into lots of small sections, about 10m long.

The idea was the only live 10m section was that bit under the tram at any one point in time, as such the section of 'live track' moves with the tram.

It is working, just, but they have had all sorts of problems with the techology.

The first people to develop a new technology often pay a lot more for it, and tend to have problems.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Trambordeauxhotelville.png/300px-Trambordeauxhotelville.png

Is a picyure of aBordeaux tram without overhead cables.

Another one, can see the 3rd rail on this one...

http://www.irtsociety.com/2006%20images/High%20Speed/bordeaux-tram1.jpg

http://www.transportfotos.com/Trams/Countries/France/Bordeaux/Bordeaux0002.jpg

Interesting! I amazed the public didnt stop this going ahead. Im sure there would be a big reaction to having an electrified rail running through the streets of the UK! I would be a bit unnerved too

potto - the only bit that is electrified is the part under the tram.

The '3rd rail' is broken into hundreds of 10m sections, of which only one is ever live.

The central bogey draws the electric off the rail, however, there is never a live rail that isn't under the tram.

Getting this right is what has caused them all the problems.

yeah i understand that I can just imagine the psycological issues of the potentially electrified line as people will not trust/understand the technology behind keeping it safe

The French have a very difficult attitude towards risk.

In the UK we build in a 'fail safe system', i.e. if something fails, then this cannot cause a problem.

In France, they build things that work - they build things that won't fail, i.e. they make sure that only the one section will be live at any one time.

It is hard to explan properly, but there is a great documentary on Discovery about the project management that was required for the Channel Tunnel - and how the approach taken by the French was totally different from the British, the French insisted the system was built to a standard that would not fail, but were confused when the UK insisted in fail safe systems, as far as the French were concerned it wasn't going to fail so why bother.

I think the French trust these type of projects to be done properly, and as such are probably not affraid of any potential dangers.

Remember, when the French build trains / trams etc they don't do it on the ultra cheap as we do, they do things properly, and the general public expect things to be done properly and well. We have slightly lower expectations, for good reasons, in this country.

We have a stuck up, centralised goverment, who neither give two squirts of piss to any region but their own...

Metty' we all know, If this was 'London' and a 'tram network was propsed', they'd get the best trams, the best stations, bareable ticket machines, the lot...I sometimes envy foreign countries...

Spain - Barcalona, Italy - Millan, France - etc etc...

We have Manchester, Birmingham...Our 2nd cities...Neither could match any of the 2nd cities i just mentioned...Were not even close to being on the same level as far a status/attractions...I hate with a passion the way London gets everything, an i hate the way Londerners laugh at that fact...Londerners take pride in their city, but as a country, they shit on every other cities chips...

I find it funny when i see Londerners supporting england in a football match (to take the piss even further at Old Trafford). I heard one southern tit on the Metrolink while back, complaining what a bumpy ride it was and just taking the piss out of the standard the met provided...Its hardly our fault...when you got greedy ****s like darling running the show...HicuP :barf:*

Manc Guy - as I've been saying on the Liverpool tram thread, this country is in desperate need of city (region) government. Along the line of the lande in Germany, however, as a whole the public at large are against the idea.

I guess the country gets wants it deserves.

We have a stuck up, centralised goverment, who neither give two squirts of piss to any region but their own...

Metty' we all know, If this was 'London' and a 'tram network was propsed', they'd get the best trams, the best stations, bareable ticket machines, the lot...I sometimes envy foreign countries...

Spain - Barcalona, Italy - Millan, France - etc etc...

We have Manchester, Birmingham...Our 2nd cities...Neither could match any of the 2nd cities i just mentioned...Were not even close to being on the same level as far a status/attractions...I hate with a passion the way London gets everything, an i hate the way Londerners laugh at that fact...Londerners take pride in their city, but as a country, they shit on every other cities chips...

I find it funny when i see Londerners supporting england in a football match (to take the piss even further at Old Trafford). I heard one southern tit on the Metrolink while back, complaining what a bumpy ride it was and just taking the piss out of the standard the met provided...Its hardly our fault...when you got greedy ****s like darling running the show...HicuP :barf:*


What an almighty chip you have on your shoulder. Londoners get everything do they?? Is that why Crossrail isn't being built? Is this why the Chelsea/hackney line is no nearer being built 30 years after it was initially planned? Paris managed to build 4 in this time if you'e looking for some kind of comparison about what should have happened.

Please all show me at these Londoners who are paying increased council tax year on year that are laughing about how great the transport system is. After all there is no overcrowding at all is there?

Go into greater detail how Londoners 'shit on your chips' please.

I think he gets London and Whitehall mixed up.

Whitehall and it's centralised idealogy of everything gets in the way off ALL our cities.

Manchester, Leeds Brum , Liverpool etc all need autonomy to make decisions for them selves, as London has with the GLA i.e. we all need independence from Whitehall.

An exmaple, GMPTE raised 80k LOCALLY to improve a tram station, however, Whitehall said it was not value for money, as such they could not spend the money.

Local authorities need to be able to spend the money as they like, and democratically stand by their decisions.

At present, our democratically elected representatives have no power, but the civil servants in Whitehall make all the decisions for us - with no idea what implications their decisions will have.

P.S. Essex it is a fact that 3 times as much money gets spent on London transport per person than the national avergage, but then again, I suspect three times as much gets spent on Manc than on people from Carlisle.

We have a stuck up, centralised goverment, who neither give two squirts of piss to any region but their own...

Metty' we all know, If this was 'London' and a 'tram network was propsed', they'd get the best trams, the best stations, bareable ticket machines, the lot...I sometimes envy foreign countries...

Spain - Barcalona, Italy - Millan, France - etc etc...

We have Manchester, Birmingham...Our 2nd cities...Neither could match any of the 2nd cities i just mentioned...Were not even close to being on the same level as far a status/attractions...I hate with a passion the way London gets everything, an i hate the way Londerners laugh at that fact...Londerners take pride in their city, but as a country, they shit on every other cities chips...

I find it funny when i see Londerners supporting england in a football match (to take the piss even further at Old Trafford). I heard one southern tit on the Metrolink while back, complaining what a bumpy ride it was and just taking the piss out of the standard the met provided...Its hardly our fault...when you got greedy ****s like darling running the show...HicuP :barf:*


Oh please.....stop your whinning

London creates a vast ammount of wealth, most of which is then taken out of the region and spent elsewhere in the country.

Londoners pay the highest council tax

London had something like 3 of the poorest areas in the UK.


oh....and the tube isnt exactly renouned for its smooth ride.

I'll repost from a thread in the skybar.

I think it is more non-London England is getting screwed....



Quite. The UK - and particularly England is one of the most centralised nations in the the developed world. Politically... and ergo economically. The tide is turing though. Once great industrial cities previously seen as economic basket cases have seen a resurgence in recent years. Unfortunately government thinking is taking its time to catch up. There is a contradiction in government policy - on one hand they wish to close the economic gap between the South East and the rest of the country yet on the other hand deprive these resurgent cities of the sort of infrastructure funding needed to grow their economies - instead chanelling it into grand schemes such as Thames Gateway which will continue to mean that the capital is the sole economic powerhouse for the nation. This a city which already has by far and away the most sophisticated and extensive public transport system in Eurpoe with some of the cheapest and most heavily subsidised busses in the country for instance.

City regions are on their way though. Bristol, Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle, Sheffield and so on are clamouring for the sort of administrative set up that London enjoys that will enable them to operate as they are beginning to - in other words the economic engine for themselves and their hinterlands - and better able to argue their case for the sort of economy-growing infrastructure funding that London presently enjoys.

Fuck the English Parliament - here's to real city-region empowerment!

I think he gets London and Whitehall mixed up.

Whitehall and it's centralised idealogy of everything gets in the way off ALL our cities.

Manchester, Leeds Brum , Liverpool etc all need autonomy to make decisions for them selves, as London has with the GLA i.e. we all need independence from Whitehall.

An exmaple, GMPTE raised 80k LOCALLY to improve a tram station, however, Whitehall said it was not value for money, as such they could not spend the money.

Local authorities need to be able to spend the money as they like, and democratically stand by their decisions.

At present, our democratically elected representatives have no power, but the civil servants in Whitehall make all the decisions for us - with no idea what implications their decisions will have.

People have been offered te chance of local Govt and decided not to take it - as someone who lives in London I can tell you 2 tiers of local Govt isn't always ideal. Ken doesn't even control of the overground railways. You regularly hear people in Scotland and Wales moan about their local assemblies being nothing more than talking shops.

The GLA aren't the ones that decide whether major rail projects are built or not - Alistair Darling does so don't think London has complete autonomy. All major projects are paid for by the public purse.

Maybe if TfL, Centro, GMPTE should be allowed to seek funding for their own projects on the London bonds market.

Oh please.....stop your whinning

London creates a vast ammount of wealth, most of which is then taken out of the region and spent elsewhere in the country.

Londoners pay the highest council tax

London had something like 3 of the poorest areas in the UK.


oh....and the tube isnt exactly renouned for its smooth ride


Right fair enough...Look at 'France'...I bet 'Paris' creates the majority of the countries wealth also, being the capital right?...Look at Bordeuax for just one exmaple, look at it! visit the dam place...Their goverment manages to spread the capitals wealth more than sufficiently...Name one city in the whole fucking suposed great fair country of ours, that could pull funding like bordeux did with its tram network? You cant :lol: ...Spain - Barcalona! Look at it, again not the capital, yet look at it! Your telling me just because London residents pay higher council taxes, people accorss the world in other capital cities dont either? Whos moaning now? Yet look at the difference between our country and those on the continent, govt wise...

No the tube isnt atall a smooth ride, but for something built years and years ago, its a great system...The metrolink is nakered after 10 years and is desperatley in need of funding, and pulling it is like taking teeth from a new born baby...Im sick of waiting at alty met stop, to see the states its in...If cash were needed for a London scheme it would get the go-ahead...Crossrail...So what...Another billion wasted on that too ey...Like that dome-y thingy...

I love london and i have family down their...But our goverment structure is plainly past it...Whitehall bla bla its all London to everyone else i know...

It is a cheap shite gimick that tries to make out that is some way the middle class can be attracted out of their cars into buses if only they had a, b or c different from today.

The reality of the situation is the ONLY mode of public transport that gets people out of their cars are trams, and whilst buses may be cheaper in the short term, they are nothing like as good, and in the long term the economies are very false.

:applause:

It is an economic short cut and like all economic short cut will be more expensive in the long run than investing in Light Rail now.

The French have a very difficult attitude towards risk.

In the UK we build in a 'fail safe system', i.e. if something fails, then this cannot cause a problem.

In France, they build things that work - they build things that won't fail, i.e. they make sure that only the one section will be live at any one time.

It is hard to explan properly, but there is a great documentary on Discovery about the project management that was required for the Channel Tunnel - and how the approach taken by the French was totally different from the British, the French insisted the system was built to a standard that would not fail, but were confused when the UK insisted in fail safe systems, as far as the French were concerned it wasn't going to fail so why bother.

I think the French trust these type of projects to be done properly, and as such are probably not affraid of any potential dangers.

Remember, when the French build trains / trams etc they don't do it on the ultra cheap as we do, they do things properly, and the general public expect things to be done properly and well. We have slightly lower expectations, for good reasons, in this country.

The French invested heavily in a tram system in Nantes that was an absolute disaster. It was supposed to be a cheap solution - single line - but the trams crashed and drivers refused to use them.

Right fair enough...Look at 'France'...I bet 'Paris' creates the majority of the countries wealth also, being the capital right?...Look at Bordeuax for just one exmaple, look at it! visit the dam place...Their goverment manages to spread the capitals wealth more than sufficiently...Name one city in the whole fucking suposed great fair country of ours, that could pull funding like bordeux did with its tram network? You cant :lol: ...Spain - Barcalona! Look at it, again not the capital, yet look at it! Your telling me just because London residents pay higher council taxes, people accorss the world in other capital cities dont either? Whos moaning now? Yet look at the difference between our country and those on the continent, govt wise...

No the tube isnt atall a smooth ride, but for something built years and years ago, its a great system...The metrolink is nakered after 10 years and is desperatley in need of funding, and pulling it is like taking teeth from a new born baby...Im sick of waiting at alty met stop, to see the states its in...If cash were needed for a London scheme it would get the go-ahead...Crossrail...So what...Another billion wasted on that too ey...Like that dome-y thingy...

I love london and i have family down their...But our goverment structure is plainly past it...Whitehall bla bla its all London to everyone else i know...

And as "Essex" pointed out, Paris has had 4 lines built in the past 30 years. London has had nothing comparable to 4 lines built in this time.

If you want to blame someone blame the government for a generally crappy transport policy in London and the Uk as whole.

It's the fact the largest cities after London are still quite near, while the French cities after Paris are miles and miles apart. I can only recall Amiens playing up about not getting a TGV traject within its borders.

Opportunities for i.e. LIV and MANC to bicker over funds are plenty.