Chicago: Minus one cyclist

On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 2:17:59 PM UTC-4, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 9/23/2018 8:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/23/2018 6:33 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 10:14:27 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

https://maggionews.com/1-man-killed-...ings-saturday/


But he probably wasn't wearing a helmet.
--
Cheers

John B.


Bring your 4" tires to ride in Milwaukee:
https://fox6now.com/2018/09/23/cycli...kee-streetcar/
And a helmet to keep your head out of the track.

Street cars puzzle me. They have much higher first cost than buses,
they have much less route flexibility than buses. Their tracks
introduce new hazards.

Sure, they're trendier, and fashion is ridiculously powerful, but
buses could be made just as fashionable.

https://humantransit.org/2009/07/str...ent-truth.html

There is a social status aspect to trams vs buses, at least in the US,
but there are also practical and political aspects. I just ran across
this comment on website, which addresses some of them.

From http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/02...comment-674523

-------------------%---------------------%---------------------
po8crg says:
October 3, 2018 at 4:19 am

The big advantage of first-generation trams over trolleybuses is that
they were invented first, so lots of cities built tram systems before
trolleybuses were invented.

Trams require less overhead wiring than trolleybuses (trams have one
pickup and do a neutral return through the rails; trolleybuses need two
wires, both a live and a neutral). This means that they can use the
(simpler and more reliable) pantograph rather than a trolley pole for
electrical pickup. Trolleybuses get dewired much more often than trams
do, and take longer to connect back up. A mechanical arm with a camera
and a bit of AI is probably capable of doing an auto-pickup while moving
these days, which makes that much less of a problem – until very
recently a dewired trolley had to stop and the driver had to hook the
poles back up manually.

The big advantage of second-generation trams (ie post-1970s) over
trolleybuses is that they can be much longer. Because of the rails, a
long, multiply-articulated tram will stay in lane when going around a
corner, which is a problem for buses/trolleybuses even with a single
articulation.

Trams are regularly over 50m long, which is far longer than any
trolleybus can be safely – which means that a single tram can carry far
more passengers, making them a useful intermediate-capacity system
between bus/trolleybus and metro.

The other advantage for trams is one that isn’t much talked about – Bus
rapid transit like Bogota or Brisbane, whether petrol buses or
trolleybuses, is a big improvement over normal buses. But BRT schemes
can be squeezed politically or financially – add a short section of
buslane that’s just paint and not physical segregation; add a section of
mixed traffic; cross a road through a signalled junction rather than
grade separation; take away signalling priority at a junction; etc. The
danger for a BRT scheme is that it gets cut down to a few improvements
for the existing buses. Trams, because you have to lay track, can’t be
cut back that much – either there is track somewhere or there isn’t. The
worst cases are the US cities that have unarticulated trams in mixed
traffic; those are completely pointless. But tram schemes work out much
better on average because it’s harder to chip away at a tram scheme
without cancelling large bits of it (the worst is generally taking
dedicated lanes and letting buses in, or replacing grade separated
junctions with at-grade ones with signal priority for the trams). This
is not something that politicians talk about, because it involves an
admission of how crap politicians are, but when politics turns against
trams, they tend to get cancelled; when politics turns against BRT, they
tend to get cut back to pointlessness, which results in lots of really
bad BRT schemes which then gives BRT a bad name.
-------------------%---------------------%---------------------
--

The advantage of a non-wire bus ie. diesel powered is that it can be routed around accidents etcetera. You can also add a new route or modify an existing route very easily.

Cheers

Sir Ridesalot writes:

On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 2:17:59 PM UTC-4, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 9/23/2018 8:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/23/2018 6:33 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 10:14:27 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

https://maggionews.com/1-man-killed-...ings-saturday/


But he probably wasn't wearing a helmet.
--
Cheers

John B.


Bring your 4" tires to ride in Milwaukee:
https://fox6now.com/2018/09/23/cycli...kee-streetcar/
And a helmet to keep your head out of the track.

Street cars puzzle me. They have much higher first cost than buses,
they have much less route flexibility than buses. Their tracks
introduce new hazards.

Sure, they're trendier, and fashion is ridiculously powerful, but
buses could be made just as fashionable.

https://humantransit.org/2009/07/str...ent-truth.html

There is a social status aspect to trams vs buses, at least in the US,
but there are also practical and political aspects. I just ran across
this comment on website, which addresses some of them.

From
http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/02...comment-674523

-------------------%---------------------%---------------------
po8crg says:
October 3, 2018 at 4:19 am

The big advantage of first-generation trams over trolleybuses is that
they were invented first, so lots of cities built tram systems before
trolleybuses were invented.

Trams require less overhead wiring than trolleybuses (trams have one
pickup and do a neutral return through the rails; trolleybuses need two
wires, both a live and a neutral). This means that they can use the
(simpler and more reliable) pantograph rather than a trolley pole for
electrical pickup. Trolleybuses get dewired much more often than trams
do, and take longer to connect back up. A mechanical arm with a camera
and a bit of AI is probably capable of doing an auto-pickup while moving
these days, which makes that much less of a problem – until very
recently a dewired trolley had to stop and the driver had to hook the
poles back up manually.

The big advantage of second-generation trams (ie post-1970s) over
trolleybuses is that they can be much longer. Because of the rails, a
long, multiply-articulated tram will stay in lane when going around a
corner, which is a problem for buses/trolleybuses even with a single
articulation.

Trams are regularly over 50m long, which is far longer than any
trolleybus can be safely – which means that a single tram can carry far
more passengers, making them a useful intermediate-capacity system
between bus/trolleybus and metro.

The other advantage for trams is one that isn’t much talked about – Bus
rapid transit like Bogota or Brisbane, whether petrol buses or
trolleybuses, is a big improvement over normal buses. But BRT schemes
can be squeezed politically or financially – add a short section of
buslane that’s just paint and not physical segregation; add a section of
mixed traffic; cross a road through a signalled junction rather than
grade separation; take away signalling priority at a junction; etc. The
danger for a BRT scheme is that it gets cut down to a few improvements
for the existing buses. Trams, because you have to lay track, can’t be
cut back that much – either there is track somewhere or there isn’t. The
worst cases are the US cities that have unarticulated trams in mixed
traffic; those are completely pointless. But tram schemes work out much
better on average because it’s harder to chip away at a tram scheme
without cancelling large bits of it (the worst is generally taking
dedicated lanes and letting buses in, or replacing grade separated
junctions with at-grade ones with signal priority for the trams). This
is not something that politicians talk about, because it involves an
admission of how crap politicians are, but when politics turns against
trams, they tend to get cancelled; when politics turns against BRT, they
tend to get cut back to pointlessness, which results in lots of really
bad BRT schemes which then gives BRT a bad name.
-------------------%---------------------%---------------------
--

The advantage of a non-wire bus ie. diesel powered is that it can be
routed around accidents etcetera. You can also add a new route or
modify an existing route very easily.

While true, that second reason is why I generally avoid the local buses
when I travel -- they're just too hard to figure out. The schedules and
routes are frequently not as documented, and can be changed on a whim or
a momentary budget problem. Last winter I rode the bus into work a bit,
and was taken by surprise when the schedule suddenly changed for some
holiday that I was not observing.

Transport with rails seems a bit more stable.

--

On 10/3/2018 2:17 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 9/23/2018 8:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/23/2018 6:33 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 10:14:27 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

https://maggionews.com/1-man-killed-...ings-saturday/


But he probably wasn't wearing a helmet.
--
Cheers

John B.


Bring your 4" tires to ride in Milwaukee:
https://fox6now.com/2018/09/23/cycli...kee-streetcar/
And a helmet to keep your head out of the track.

Street cars puzzle me. They have much higher first cost than buses,
they have much less route flexibility than buses. Their tracks
introduce new hazards.

Sure, they're trendier, and fashion is ridiculously powerful, but
buses could be made just as fashionable.

https://humantransit.org/2009/07/str...ent-truth.html

There is a social status aspect to trams vs buses, at least in the US,
but there are also practical and political aspects. I just ran across
this comment on website, which addresses some of them.

From http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/02...comment-674523

-------------------%---------------------%---------------------
po8crg says:
October 3, 2018 at 4:19 am

The big advantage of first-generation trams over trolleybuses is that
they were invented first, so lots of cities built tram systems before
trolleybuses were invented.

Trams require less overhead wiring than trolleybuses (trams have one
pickup and do a neutral return through the rails; trolleybuses need two
wires, both a live and a neutral). This means that they can use the
(simpler and more reliable) pantograph rather than a trolley pole for
electrical pickup. Trolleybuses get dewired much more often than trams
do, and take longer to connect back up. A mechanical arm with a camera
and a bit of AI is probably capable of doing an auto-pickup while moving
these days, which makes that much less of a problem – until very
recently a dewired trolley had to stop and the driver had to hook the
poles back up manually.

The big advantage of second-generation trams (ie post-1970s) over
trolleybuses is that they can be much longer. Because of the rails, a
long, multiply-articulated tram will stay in lane when going around a
corner, which is a problem for buses/trolleybuses even with a single
articulation.

Trams are regularly over 50m long, which is far longer than any
trolleybus can be safely – which means that a single tram can carry far
more passengers, making them a useful intermediate-capacity system
between bus/trolleybus and metro.

The other advantage for trams is one that isn’t much talked about – Bus
rapid transit like Bogota or Brisbane, whether petrol buses or
trolleybuses, is a big improvement over normal buses. But BRT schemes
can be squeezed politically or financially – add a short section of
buslane that’s just paint and not physical segregation; add a section of
mixed traffic; cross a road through a signalled junction rather than
grade separation; take away signalling priority at a junction; etc. The
danger for a BRT scheme is that it gets cut down to a few improvements
for the existing buses. Trams, because you have to lay track, can’t be
cut back that much – either there is track somewhere or there isn’t. The
worst cases are the US cities that have unarticulated trams in mixed
traffic; those are completely pointless. But tram schemes work out much
better on average because it’s harder to chip away at a tram scheme
without cancelling large bits of it (the worst is generally taking
dedicated lanes and letting buses in, or replacing grade separated
junctions with at-grade ones with signal priority for the trams). This
is not something that politicians talk about, because it involves an
admission of how crap politicians are, but when politics turns against
trams, they tend to get cancelled; when politics turns against BRT, they
tend to get cut back to pointlessness, which results in lots of really
bad BRT schemes which then gives BRT a bad name.
-------------------%---------------------%---------------------

I agree, that's pretty interesting.

OTOH, the detail electrical advantages should become moot in a fairly
short time due to battery technology. Vehicles like these that
frequently return to home bases seem ideal for recharging, so that
should wipe out the need for power en route.

I hadn't thought about the articulated turns. But technology to equalize
that advantage should be possible. We're on the cusp of totally
driverless vehicles. It must be much easier to have steerable wheels of
the second and third (etc.) attached cars precisely follow the track of
the first car.

About the permanence of routes governed by rails: I read about that long
ago in some document touting streetcars and the like. As I recall, the
author claimed it as an advantage in that developers could buy and build
property knowing that the tracks would always be there. I'm not
convinced that it's a great advantage, though. Disrupting technology
might cause more powerful changes at any time. And if desired, I'd think
route stability could be achieved in less expensive ways, and in ways
that caused fewer problems for two wheeled road users.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/3/2018 7:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/3/2018 2:17 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 9/23/2018 8:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/23/2018 6:33 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 10:14:27 -0500, AMuzi
wrote:

https://maggionews.com/1-man-killed-...ings-saturday/



But he probably wasn't wearing a helmet.
--
Cheers

John B.


Bring your 4" tires to ride in Milwaukee:
https://fox6now.com/2018/09/23/cycli...kee-streetcar/

And a helmet to keep your head out of the track.

Street cars puzzle me. They have much higher first cost
than buses,
they have much less route flexibility than buses. Their
tracks
introduce new hazards.

Sure, they're trendier, and fashion is ridiculously
powerful, but
buses could be made just as fashionable.

https://humantransit.org/2009/07/str...ent-truth.html


There is a social status aspect to trams vs buses, at
least in the US,
but there are also practical and political aspects. I
just ran across
this comment on website, which addresses some of them.

From
http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/02...comment-674523


-------------------%---------------------%---------------------

po8crg says:
October 3, 2018 at 4:19 am

The big advantage of first-generation trams over
trolleybuses is that
they were invented first, so lots of cities built tram
systems before
trolleybuses were invented.

Trams require less overhead wiring than trolleybuses
(trams have one
pickup and do a neutral return through the rails;
trolleybuses need two
wires, both a live and a neutral). This means that they
can use the
(simpler and more reliable) pantograph rather than a
trolley pole for
electrical pickup. Trolleybuses get dewired much more
often than trams
do, and take longer to connect back up. A mechanical arm
with a camera
and a bit of AI is probably capable of doing an
auto-pickup while moving
these days, which makes that much less of a problem –
until very
recently a dewired trolley had to stop and the driver had
to hook the
poles back up manually.

The big advantage of second-generation trams (ie
post-1970s) over
trolleybuses is that they can be much longer. Because of
the rails, a
long, multiply-articulated tram will stay in lane when
going around a
corner, which is a problem for buses/trolleybuses even
with a single
articulation.

Trams are regularly over 50m long, which is far longer
than any
trolleybus can be safely – which means that a single
tram can carry far
more passengers, making them a useful
intermediate-capacity system
between bus/trolleybus and metro.

The other advantage for trams is one that isn’t much
talked about – Bus
rapid transit like Bogota or Brisbane, whether petrol
buses or
trolleybuses, is a big improvement over normal buses. But
BRT schemes
can be squeezed politically or financially – add a short
section of
buslane that’s just paint and not physical segregation;
add a section of
mixed traffic; cross a road through a signalled junction
rather than
grade separation; take away signalling priority at a
junction; etc. The
danger for a BRT scheme is that it gets cut down to a few
improvements
for the existing buses. Trams, because you have to lay
track, can’t be
cut back that much – either there is track somewhere or
there isn’t. The
worst cases are the US cities that have unarticulated
trams in mixed
traffic; those are completely pointless. But tram schemes
work out much
better on average because it’s harder to chip away at a
tram scheme
without cancelling large bits of it (the worst is
generally taking
dedicated lanes and letting buses in, or replacing grade
separated
junctions with at-grade ones with signal priority for the
trams). This
is not something that politicians talk about, because it
involves an
admission of how crap politicians are, but when politics
turns against
trams, they tend to get cancelled; when politics turns
against BRT, they
tend to get cut back to pointlessness, which results in
lots of really
bad BRT schemes which then gives BRT a bad name.
-------------------%---------------------%---------------------


I agree, that's pretty interesting.

OTOH, the detail electrical advantages should become moot in
a fairly short time due to battery technology. Vehicles like
these that frequently return to home bases seem ideal for
recharging, so that should wipe out the need for power en
route.

I hadn't thought about the articulated turns. But technology
to equalize that advantage should be possible. We're on the
cusp of totally driverless vehicles. It must be much easier
to have steerable wheels of the second and third (etc.)
attached cars precisely follow the track of the first car.

About the permanence of routes governed by rails: I read
about that long ago in some document touting streetcars and
the like. As I recall, the author claimed it as an advantage
in that developers could buy and build property knowing that
the tracks would always be there. I'm not convinced that
it's a great advantage, though. Disrupting technology might
cause more powerful changes at any time. And if desired, I'd
think route stability could be achieved in less expensive
ways, and in ways that caused fewer problems for two wheeled
road users.



Certainty like the Second Avenue subway in NYC? Only a
scant 98 years start to finish! Or as they say in real
estate, 'location location location'. Property owners are
probably happy they held on.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/3/2018 2:17 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 9/23/2018 8:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/23/2018 6:33 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 10:14:27 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

https://maggionews.com/1-man-killed-...ings-saturday/


But he probably wasn't wearing a helmet.
--
Cheers

John B.


Bring your 4" tires to ride in Milwaukee:
https://fox6now.com/2018/09/23/cycli...kee-streetcar/
And a helmet to keep your head out of the track.

Street cars puzzle me. They have much higher first cost than buses,
they have much less route flexibility than buses. Their tracks
introduce new hazards.

Sure, they're trendier, and fashion is ridiculously powerful, but
buses could be made just as fashionable.

https://humantransit.org/2009/07/str...ent-truth.html

There is a social status aspect to trams vs buses, at least in the US,
but there are also practical and political aspects. I just ran across
this comment on website, which addresses some of them.

From http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/02...comment-674523

-------------------%---------------------%---------------------
po8crg says:
October 3, 2018 at 4:19 am

The big advantage of first-generation trams over trolleybuses is that
they were invented first, so lots of cities built tram systems before
trolleybuses were invented.

Trams require less overhead wiring than trolleybuses (trams have one
pickup and do a neutral return through the rails; trolleybuses need two
wires, both a live and a neutral). This means that they can use the
(simpler and more reliable) pantograph rather than a trolley pole for
electrical pickup. Trolleybuses get dewired much more often than trams
do, and take longer to connect back up. A mechanical arm with a camera
and a bit of AI is probably capable of doing an auto-pickup while moving
these days, which makes that much less of a problem – until very
recently a dewired trolley had to stop and the driver had to hook the
poles back up manually.

The big advantage of second-generation trams (ie post-1970s) over
trolleybuses is that they can be much longer. Because of the rails, a
long, multiply-articulated tram will stay in lane when going around a
corner, which is a problem for buses/trolleybuses even with a single
articulation.

Trams are regularly over 50m long, which is far longer than any
trolleybus can be safely – which means that a single tram can carry far
more passengers, making them a useful intermediate-capacity system
between bus/trolleybus and metro.

The other advantage for trams is one that isn’t much talked about – Bus
rapid transit like Bogota or Brisbane, whether petrol buses or
trolleybuses, is a big improvement over normal buses. But BRT schemes
can be squeezed politically or financially – add a short section of
buslane that’s just paint and not physical segregation; add a section of
mixed traffic; cross a road through a signalled junction rather than
grade separation; take away signalling priority at a junction; etc. The
danger for a BRT scheme is that it gets cut down to a few improvements
for the existing buses. Trams, because you have to lay track, can’t be
cut back that much – either there is track somewhere or there isn’t. The
worst cases are the US cities that have unarticulated trams in mixed
traffic; those are completely pointless. But tram schemes work out much
better on average because it’s harder to chip away at a tram scheme
without cancelling large bits of it (the worst is generally taking
dedicated lanes and letting buses in, or replacing grade separated
junctions with at-grade ones with signal priority for the trams). This
is not something that politicians talk about, because it involves an
admission of how crap politicians are, but when politics turns against
trams, they tend to get cancelled; when politics turns against BRT, they
tend to get cut back to pointlessness, which results in lots of really
bad BRT schemes which then gives BRT a bad name.
-------------------%---------------------%---------------------

I agree, that's pretty interesting.

OTOH, the detail electrical advantages should become moot in a fairly
short time due to battery technology. Vehicles like these that
frequently return to home bases seem ideal for recharging, so that
should wipe out the need for power en route.

Batteries and charging systems have improved a lot in recent years, but
I think they will remain expensive in raw materials, heavy, and
time-consuming to charge for the foreseeable future. Buses and trams
may frequently return to a station, but having to wait a while for
charging would still cramp their style. Batteries are a good solution
for the occasional gap in the power feed, and for absorbing regeneration
power. It would not surprise me to see practical wireless (inductive)
power transfer over that last foot between the roadway and the vehicle
before battery powered buses become truly practical.

I hadn't thought about the articulated turns. But technology to
equalize that advantage should be possible. We're on the cusp of
totally driverless vehicles. It must be much easier to have steerable
wheels of the second and third (etc.) attached cars precisely follow
the track of the first car.

That does sound possible, although I'm not that sure about imminence of
driverless vehicles.

About the permanence of routes governed by rails: I read about that
long ago in some document touting streetcars and the like. As I
recall, the author claimed it as an advantage in that developers could
buy and build property knowing that the tracks would always be
there. I'm not convinced that it's a great advantage,
though. Disrupting technology might cause more powerful changes at any
time. And if desired, I'd think route stability could be achieved in
less expensive ways, and in ways that caused fewer problems for two
wheeled road users.

It's a political or social question, not a technical one. The greater
permanence of rail travel seems like a real thing in my experience. Bus
stops move all the time, frequently before the signs move. Trains stop
at the station, always. Cutting bus routes, especially when buses are
seen as a safety net for the down and out, is not too politically
painful. Abandoning rail routes is a big step, not taken lightly.


--

On 10/4/2018 1:16 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

About the permanence of routes governed by rails: I read about that
long ago in some document touting streetcars and the like. As I
recall, the author claimed it as an advantage in that developers could
buy and build property knowing that the tracks would always be
there. I'm not convinced that it's a great advantage,
though. Disrupting technology might cause more powerful changes at any
time. And if desired, I'd think route stability could be achieved in
less expensive ways, and in ways that caused fewer problems for two
wheeled road users.

It's a political or social question, not a technical one. The greater
permanence of rail travel seems like a real thing in my experience. Bus
stops move all the time, frequently before the signs move. Trains stop
at the station, always. Cutting bus routes, especially when buses are
seen as a safety net for the down and out, is not too politically
painful. Abandoning rail routes is a big step, not taken lightly.

I agree with your analysis, but I wonder if technology will take away
the disadvantages associated with the flexibility of non-rail transit.

The local transit authority allows a person to see a map of the route a
bus would use between any two points served, and to track the position
of a bus en route.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/4/2018 1:16 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

About the permanence of routes governed by rails: I read about that
long ago in some document touting streetcars and the like. As I
recall, the author claimed it as an advantage in that developers could
buy and build property knowing that the tracks would always be
there. I'm not convinced that it's a great advantage,
though. Disrupting technology might cause more powerful changes at any
time. And if desired, I'd think route stability could be achieved in
less expensive ways, and in ways that caused fewer problems for two
wheeled road users.

It's a political or social question, not a technical one. The greater
permanence of rail travel seems like a real thing in my experience. Bus
stops move all the time, frequently before the signs move. Trains stop
at the station, always. Cutting bus routes, especially when buses are
seen as a safety net for the down and out, is not too politically
painful. Abandoning rail routes is a big step, not taken lightly.

I agree with your analysis, but I wonder if technology will take away
the disadvantages associated with the flexibility of non-rail transit.

The local transit authority allows a person to see a map of the route
a bus would use between any two points served, and to track the
position of a bus en route.

I guess I'm just behind the times -- I hate carrying and using my own
portable self-surveillance device. I can imagine that new technology
will be used as a justification for allowing physical signs to fall into
disrepair, and am not looking forward to it.

--

On Thu, 04 Oct 2018 14:48:37 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

I can imagine that new technology
will be used as a justification for allowing physical signs to fall into
disrepair, and am not looking forward to it.

It's already happening. Several years ago I got lost because an
intersection sign had rotated ninety degrees and the county hadn't
bothered to rotate it back.

Sometimes I can't find the sign at all.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 20:06:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:



OTOH, the detail electrical advantages should become moot in a fairly
short time due to battery technology. Vehicles like these that
frequently return to home bases seem ideal for recharging, so that
should wipe out the need for power en route.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/why-trac...dy-to-replace-
light-rail-59201/

I hadn't thought about the articulated turns. But technology to equalize
that advantage should be possible. We're on the cusp of totally
driverless vehicles. It must be much easier to have steerable wheels of
the second and third (etc.) attached cars precisely follow the track of
the first car.

The picture in the above doesn't give an indication that this is the case
in the photograph as the middle car isn't over the white route marking,
but the need would depend on the route and curves.

On Thu, 04 Oct 2018 13:16:47 -0400, Radey Shouman wrote:

Batteries and charging systems have improved a lot in recent years, but
I think they will remain expensive in raw materials, heavy, and
time-consuming to charge for the foreseeable future.

I suspect you arer not up to date in the advances. Easy to do.

I fitted deep-cycle lead acid batteries for the four solar panels on our
camper. Although they are twice to three times the weight, the reason was
price and simpler more reliable/robust electronics. Their cycle time is
roughly once per day and it suits the C/10 maxium charge/discharge rate
recommended for deep-cycle lead acid.

When we get the solar PV roof installation with batteries, the preference
will be for lithium-whatever they are at the time. The reason for that is
the charge/discharge rate is ~C, i.e. when your panels are producing to
max, you can store the maximum you can get. You no longer face limiting
your recharge rate due to the capacity of your battery back. So in home/
industry, there is no reason why you can not cycle the power pack three
times a day. Your only interest would be in keepng a reserve for over
night needs.

Weight wise, i looked at building a electric power assisted trike to
carry 1000kg. with lead acid, it was going to take 250kg of battery, with
LiPb(?) it was ~100kg and that was a decade ago.

My experience with publc transport is that it operates to a time table
and like all machinery, it has duty cycles and thus will spend time
waiting at set locations. It should be elementary to establish a charging
station that a battery powered transport could automaticly plug in and
recharge whilst waiting for return jourtney, etc.

The real problem for modern batteries is availability. They just get
sucked up as soon as they are available, e.g Tesla cars and Power
batteries are building their own factory. Asking some one here as to
where they obtained theirs and it is all special case. I can not wander
down the road and pick one up to my specs.