Talk:Guided bus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

mergewith BRT[edit]

Merging with BRT has been suggested, but I do not find any discussion on it here....

Against merging. Guided bus or Guided busway is a technology, Bus rapid transit is a systematic approach for a faster (bus-based) public transport system. -- Klaus with K 14:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but some cross-reference is required. guided buses are always part of a BRT system?
[part of BRT]? Yes and No. As a consequence of the BRT definition, first answer yes, as a guided bus lane cannot be sensibly used by unguided vehicles and thus provides an exclusive right-of-way. Second answer is no, as at least here in Edinburgh the FASTLINK GUIDED BUSWAY is considered to be part of a transport system that does not limit itself to buses only. Then I feel that BRT is US-speak

== as here in the UK I still have to come across the expression Bus Rapid Transit despite my interest in Public Transport.

  • The articles already contain cross-references
  • in Mannheim (Germany) guided bus and tram share ROW de:Image:Spurbus Mannheim1.jpg
  • is there an expression Rail Rapid Transit?
-- Klaus with K 11:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has written in support, I'm removing the move tag; bus rapid transit is not inherently guided, nor are guided buses inherently part of the bus rapid transit philosophy. The two should certainly reference each other, but are distinct topics. (Klaus with K: 'rapid transit' usually implies railways unless otherwise stated; it's more or less a U.S. equivalent of 'metro' and the like.) David Arthur 01:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with reference link[edit]

"Further problems in Nancy". LRTA. November 20, 2002.[dead link]

For some reason or another, the above reference does not open up at all. Peter Horn 00:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

 Done website had moved to http://www.lrta.org/news/02/news0244.html Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

rubber wheeled trams[edit]

Should the rubber wheeled trams resided at tram/streetcar/light rail? Rubber-wheeled metro/subway resides at subway/metro.

Advantages?[edit]

This Article doesn't really address what advantages (if any) that a guided bus system has over a normal "busses only" lane. Is it faster? Safer? Cheaper?

Valid questions, but please sign your writing here with ~~~~ --Klaus with K 17:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have only traveled on the Edinburgh System. It travels at 30mph (compaired with 40mph the busses travel at on a non-guided section). The main advantage is the ability to restrict users of the guideway (a bus only road could be used by any bus, while the guideway is resticted to approved busses). The other advantage is the track can be narrower than an equivelant road (since the vehicles do not move off the set path).Msmh 16:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion there is no significant advantage, that's why they are rare. A normal bus road can be quite narrow according to my experience, and bus and tram can be combined by having normal street tram rails. The ability to restrict non-approved buses, small advantage. To restrict private cars, have a device that makes it impossible to pass if the distance between left and right wheels is too small, relatively common. The normal advantage of trams over buses is that trams can be longer since they are guided, but then they have to be guided all the route. Another big advantage is that tram have electric propulsion, but also, they have to be guided all the route. The disadvantage of guided bus routes is that it is expensive to build and requires special buses, which costs more money to buy. This is my assessment, please comment. -- BIL 09:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to "traditional buses" that operate on roads in traffic congestion, guided buses provide a clearly superior service as they have the advantages of Bus Rapid Transit (as they are a form of BRT). It is my observation that guided busways are rare because they are more expensive than unguided dedicated busways but do not give many special advantages (as you have outlined). Therefore they are only implemented in special circumstances, the main one being a restricted route corridor. I am not familiar with French Guided Busway Systems like Bombardier or Translohr that appear to be more focussed on provided "rubber tire trams", but most English based systems like the Fastway, the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway (currently being built) and the O-Bahn use guided buses as some or all of the corridor is too narrow for an unguided busway. Your comments about the trams are correct, but all three of the previous guided busway systems do have significant advantages over trams to provide the equivelant service being: mixing unguided and guided busway such as Fastway (cheaper while still able to use a 1.5Km narrow corridor section); mixed road and railway corridor routes as at Cambridgeshire and a route that is too steep for light rail as in the O-Bahn. Also, all the guided busways have the BRT advantage of seamless service because the buses can enter and leave the busway at both ends and, if required, the middle . . . a benefit used in all three systems. Bigglesjames 00:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like to hear about the advantages/disadvantages of the "guided bus" system. It seems halfway between bus and tram although I don't clearly see why you wouldn't simply install a tram service if you needed some dedicated line to be built...? Some of the comments above (e.g. by Bigglesjames) are helpful, but it'd be great to get some nicely-sourced information in the article please. --mcld (talk) 10:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The principal argument for a guided bus over a regular busway is that like a tram, it doesn't need to be steered. It can pass closer to an obstacle, or to an oncoming vehicle, than a steered bus could safely do, and so the right-of-way needn't be as wide. It also has the feeling of greater permanence, though that gets very subjective.
In many cases, construction costs are very similar to a tram, so the main argument for guided buses is their ability to leave the guideway and operate independently. In some cases, guideway is installed for only part of the route (as in Nancy); in others, they leave the guideway only when travelling to/from a bus depot (as in Caen) or when the regular route is blocked. Their rubber tyres also give them greater hill-climbing ability than trams. David Arthur (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would doubt construction costs are similar, a guided bus doesn't need overhead wires for a start. MickMacNee (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more of the GLT/Translohr -style vehicles used in France, which do use overhead wires as well as a central guide rail, and cost about the same as a tramway. The kind that use guidewheels on a regular bus, as has been popular in Britain, is naturally less expensive, though the busways are still substantially more complicated than an ordinary bus-only road. David Arthur (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A section about alleged advantages (with references) is still needed.--Pere prlpz (talk) 10:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the section on kerb-guided systems already states " Both the Cambridgeshire and Leigh-Salford-Manchester schemes have reported greatly increased levels of patronage (both on the buses themselves and the adjacent paths), high levels of modal transfer of travellers from private car use, and high levels of passenger satisfaction". Plus references. Isn't that enough? TomHennell (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The 2006 BRT report (External links) discusses advantages. I don't have time at the moment to distil it - perhaps one of you could? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A bit old though; and does not pick up on the more recent schemes - Cambridgeshire, Luton-Dunstable, Leigh-Manchester. TomHennell (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add Essen Bus Tunnel Info ?[edit]

The following information has been removed from Bus Rapid Transit as it is too specific to be relevent. However, I think this information should remain inside Wikipedia. Essen buses do not have their own article. They are still an important early example of both Guided buses and Dual-mode buses and so I suggest adding this information to this article.

Between 1988 and 1995 dual mode buses provided a shared service with the steel wheel streetcars / trams through part of the light rail tunnel system in the German city of Essen. Whilst underground the buses fully interacted with the railway-style signalling system. Initially they called at just one underground station but after the 1991 opening of a tunnel extension they started calling at an additional two subterranean stations. The new stations featured island platforms for which the buses were equipped with two sets of passenger doors on their otherside. For safety the buses in Essen also used the guided bus system so that whilst travelling through the narrow tunnels the bus driver did not need to steer the vehicle. Although the bus driver will normally sell tickets to boarding passengers who need them, when calling at the underground stations the off-vehicle ticketing system was enforced, with passengers needing to purchase their tickets before descending to the platforms.

Comments Please Bigglesjames (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like as a rather unusual set-up it could sustain its own article. It could then just be mentioned in a sentence in here, and linked from Essen too. There are plenty of German users who could probably help with that, and there might be more info on the German wikipedia. Without a standalone article, I would say the detailed info belongs in a section in Essen, again just linked in a sentence or two from here using #section linking. MickMacNee (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Essen would be an appropriate place for a short section about the city's guided bus system. I suggest placing it as a subsection of Infrastructure just below the Public Transport subsection. With more material, the Essen guided bus system would make a suitable standalone article, with links to Guided bus and Essen. You can, of course, add a subsection to Essen now, then move it to a standalone article later. Folklore1 (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why would someone build this?[edit]

I don't get it. If it needs a driver to enter and exit the system, then why not just have a driver the whole time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.132.92.8 (talk • contribs)

Why try to steer throughout a curb system when you can simply have guide wheels to do the steering for you? That's the point-- it's a track. Swarm u | t 18:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance systems[edit]

If you move the optical and magnetic guidance systems down to L2 under "Guidance systems", should not GLT and Translohr also be there, as indeed should KGB. Perhaps moving the specific implementations out of the guidance systems into the examples section would help, something like:

  • History
  • Guidance systems Restrict to technical details
    • KGB
    • GLT
    • Translohr
    • Optical
    • Magnetic
  • Examples Include existing examples in the appropriate sub-heading
    • KGB Cambridge and Nagoya
    • GLT Nancy and Caen
    • Translohr Padua, L'Aquila, Venice
    • Optical Seimens
    • Magnetic Eindhoven etc
  • See Also
  • References
  • External links

Moving the detailed examples out of the technical description and merging with the existing list might make it easier for a reader to understand the core concepts. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in principle with the above. Guided Buses are really a special subset of BRT where the differentiating factor is the use of a guidance system. I would suggest that the examples be a sub-heading of the main Guidance Systems section. You could also separately describe mechanical systems (i.e. kerb and rail) from non-mechanical. There are some general differences in the cost, impact on road use, maturity and operational risk profile between the use of mechanical vs non-mechanical systems Bigglesjames (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly put general details in a section between History and Guidance systems? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence to prove the superiority of a defunct and a thriving guidance system? PC maxxed out?[edit]

> There is no evidence to prove the superiority of either guidance system. Both Bombardier and Translohr have had derailments during operation.

Huh? The Bombardier system is now abandoned, because its single roller just couldn't keep constant grab of the guidance rail. Furthermore, the weight of Bombardier guided buses is supported to a large percentage by the rail roller, in a futile effort to forcibly keep it in constant contact with the monorail. This makes the causeway foundations crack prematurely. Existing lines will be converted back to traditonal articulated busses when major overhaul period of the rolling stock arrives, Bombardier itself has stated that. It's game over[1].

In constrast, the Alstom Translohr LTE system is now celebrating carnival, most literally. Its Tranvia di Mestre system has reached Venezia (Venice) proper as of 15 Sep 2015, offering direct transfer to water buses or black gondolas, depending on the rider's wallet and romantic inclinations. The Veneto LTE monorail network is now 20km long (laid out in the shape of an anchor) and one day may be connected with nearby Padua's similiar system. (The venetian LTE "torpedos" are painted deep red, while the patavian ones are sky blue.) Although an extension to Marco Polo int'l airport is the mid-term aim of venetian Translohr expansion. 82.131.153.119 (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article shows that Translohr is on a roll. Peter Horn User talk 16:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Continue on Talk:Rubber-tyred trams#Discussion. Peter Horn User talk 15:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Guided bus to tram plan confirmed". Railway Gazette International. 5 February 2016.

Split of the section Rubber-tired "trams"[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For it is a specific class of guided "bus" that is not technically designed to be a "guided" bus. See fr:Tramway sur pneumatiques. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The "rubber tyred" trams presented here are not trams, they are guided buses. Both the Bombardier and the Translohr use a guide rail, not a running rail so are not trams. They are not trolley buses either, since trolley buses are not guided and many modern ones are not even tied permanently to the overhead. I might support a renaming of the section to "Rail guided buses" or similar. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming this section would be OK as long as the redirect Rubber-tyred tram in Trolleybus#see also is adjusted accordingly. Peter Horn User talk 16:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And the redirect page Rubber-tyred trams would also need to be adjusted. Peter Horn User talk 17:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6 pages now link to the redirect page Rubber-tyred trams and none, except this talk page, to Rubber-tyred tram. Peter Horn User talk 18:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found anothe redirect page Rubber tired tram with links. Peter Horn User talk 19:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, are you in agreement or opposed to user:Some Gadget Geek's suggestion about a split? The naming is a minor side issue. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You will notice that I have copied and pasted the entire text of the section to rubber-tyred trams thereby effectively causing the split. Fait accompli. Peter Horn User talk 14:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merci beaucoup! <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Crawley Fastway[edit]

I have removed references to Crawley Fastway, and put Leigh-Salford-Manchester Bus Rapid Transit references in their place. In my view, the LSM busway provides a better illustration of the potential advantages of kerb-guided busway features; and it allows us to use more informative pictures. TomHennell (talk) 11:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Guided bus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guided_bus&oldid=1199828879"