The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
This is a small-capacity solution for low-frequented routes, in particular in rural areas; thus a replacement for a bus or a small branchline DMU (their webpage focuses on the latter comparison). It is not a replacement for high-capacity vehicles on busies routes and certainly doesn't eliminate the need for track construction, even if maximum axleload is just 5 t (they only claim that there is no need to dig below the road base).
I was merely thinking that there is a role for simple solutions which can be rapidly implemented without vast cost and complexity.
This can be implemented without vast cost and sensibly only on branchlines without passenger trains (or in threat of losing them) with track in relatively good shape. Due to its limited capacity, people mover sized ULR can only be complementary to normal trams, too (not just heavy rail). For such uses in cities and for uses on new lines in rural areas, the real question is then the (new) track, the construction of which will be neither cheap (compared to the cost of the vehicles) nor simple. While it will likely be cheaper than normal heavy or light rail, the ridership and ticket income will be lower, too. So the costs need to reduce to scale, and I am very sceptical about that, they need to prove it in practice.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 18 39 comments
by Luis de Sousa - Sep 13 30 comments
by ARGeezer - Sep 7 47 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 8 70 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 4 18 comments
by Bernard - Aug 27 5 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 30 14 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1839 comments
by Luis de Sousa - Sep 1330 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 870 comments
by ARGeezer - Sep 747 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 418 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 3014 comments
by Bernard - Aug 275 comments
by gmoke - Aug 27