Dans le systeme Waverail, le roulement se fait apparemment sur des rails normaux, il n’y a pas de dérivation, tout le convoi passe sur la voie où embarquent et débarquent les usagers. Il faudrait demander des précisions sur le systéme d’aiguillage.

reply by SCHILTEC:

Waverail uses the same track as conventional trams and that includes the points.

We are in a 3 dimensional world and it’s time that we looked at our overall environment, safety must be crucial to any system. Unfortunately for proponents of light rail I have just one question to ask. What will you say to the family who loses one of theirs on the light rail system? It is statistically proven to be at 3.49 deaths per 1,000,000km.

SCHILTEC:

An authority answer to this must rest with safety regulater. Of influence are (a) details of corridor segregation and (b) the traffic rules and enforcements applicable. All we can do is quote our values (speeds, kinetic energy and stopping distances) for appraisal.

As an indication only, a comparison with traditional trams shows:-

1. (Unsegregated) Waverail proposed top speed is 39km/h which is around 40% less than traditional tram. Kinetic Energy is thus only around 35% and stopping distance less than half. As with other tram systems, Waverail’s top speed is reduced in certain hot spots and in downhill sections.
2. The Waverail system demands that the absolute right of way is rigorously enforced by heavy fines on infringements. This helps accident prevention.
3. A Waverail car’s brake system is expected to be of an automotive ’instant response’ type, not a rail type air brake. This is expected to be possible because (a) Waverail cars are lighter and (b) the brakes are hardly ever used on a regular basis.

 So I supposing batman will be setting up base on your.. erm.. trams? train? what is it?

SCHILTEC:

A system that is 100% segregated is normally called Light Rail or S Rail in Europe.  A system that is completely not segregated is called a tram.  For partially segregated system the terminology is open.

Waverail is  mainly partially segregated but the fully segregated option exists as well. We thus often use the term tram to indicate that the particular Waverail system is road based, partially segregated. Partially segregated systems are slower than fully segregated systems.

 Though I do love they list “Villain-free” on their website. So I supposing batman will be setting up base on your.. erm.. trams? train? what is it?

SCHILTEC:

1  With the Waverail system boarding is supervised by the ‘Maitre de cabine’. He/she has the power to refuse boarding to a person deemed unruly or deemed to possibly become unruly. 

2  Some proposed Waverail systems feature private ownership of cars. This structure gives the Maitre de cabine the power to stop the wave and evict an unruly passenger on the spot. It is known that the looming shame of eviction reduces unruly behaviour substantially.  Overall order will be close to the one in an airplane and there are not too many ‘batsman’ there. But police will be at a fingertip for the Maitre de cabine.

SCHILTEC:

Trams are now around for 110 years and delivery speed has increased from 10km/h to around 20km/h; and that includes ‘partially segregated systems’. These are sometimes called light rail by people for whom the vernacular meaning of tram is unsettling. You can continue dreaming and limited incremental improvement can sometimes be achieved.  But it does not change the basics.

The convenient way out of this is: declare that this is grade segregated and not a tram! Call it Light Rail or boldly Rapid Transit. [ See Gold Coast Rapid Transit http://goldcoastrapidtrans.wordpress.com/].  This however, at 20km to 25km/h is plain deception. Even the Waverail version of trams may not qualify for ‘Rapid transport’; after all, all it’s doing is 40km/h.

Acceleration is another sore of ‘modern’ trams.  Fast acceleration, besides inconvenient, requires, over the whole cycle, more electric energy for the same amount of kinetic energy produced. Thus, fast acceleration is an energy waste and is diametrically opposed to the word of the day. And the wasted energy does not stop there but comes back to haunt as a major source of noise. So much that even metros have a problem. For noise sensitive urban road transport, acceleration simply must be kept as low.  On top, fast acceleration requires excessively strong and expensive electrical supply systems. All in all, to increase acceleration is a dead end strategy.

This really is the furthest out of the wacky PT concepts I’ve seen proposed. How are they going to pay for all of those extra drivers?

SCHILTEC:

A Waverail ’drivers’ drives only around 5% of his/her time, that is around two start stop cycles per h. During 95% of the time she/he is ’Maitre de cabine’, that means responsible for (a) the safety & wellbeing of the passengers and (b) the integrity of the vehicle.

b) includes to keep the vehicle 100% spotless and inviting, inside and outside; keep internet and background music going; keep the refreshment bar and add-on in-car store stocked. It also includes keeping open the emergency call line to the police.  A traditional driver does not get involved in such things and thus ”to as well triple the service frequency” does not achieve the level of user-friendliness Waverail offers.  It is thus not a useful comparison.

The left red bar represents the 2.6 average hourly start/stop cycle a Waverail 'driver' does

For how to pay extra drivers, see http://waverail.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/justification-of-high-driver-costs/

SCHILTEC:

I am unsure about those styles.

Waverail is an independent development but there is a similarity to the Slip Coach system used in UK long ago

 I can’t see passengers wanting to change cars to the correct one for their destination when in motion either.

SCHILTEC:

Waverail depends on and will require a certain change in habits and an effort. This is a downside, but is it that bad, compared to what you get? Compared to what the environment gets?

If you do not move you are most likely under carried with a chance to end up right. A supplementary minibus service along the same route will transport undercarried passengers to the desired station. Note that to be under carried just means that you are travelling slower; you can stay seated in the car until it takes off again with the next wave.

This seems a ridiculous concept to me. I can’t see how it could compete against conventional light rail….For it to work at all there probably isn’t any airconditioning either.  Cheers  John Wayman

SCHILTEC:

Waverail’s standard way of electricity supply is through overhead wire.  Battery is only an option in certain favourable circumstances.  It is thus not correct to say that Waverail relies on batteries.

Waverail was not conceived with battery operation in mind. The battery option only came when it was discovered just how low Waverail’s energy needs were. We find battery operation suitable on the flat or slightly undulating courses. The limit of battery operation is not exactly known at present.

Battery Waverail will work very smooth for a suitable course, because:-
1 (acceleration) Energy needed is only 10% (average, compared to conventional tram); send an email to team@waverail.ch if you want kW figures
2 recharge time at station is around 15 minutes on average followed by a less or similar drive time
3 During drive only the fan of the air-conditioning works but not the compressor (‘high inertia’ air-conditioning)
4 Deceleration is 95% of the constant power type, allowing perfect energy regeneration

Direct comparison of battery suitability between Waverail and traditional light rail does not make sense because the two system are too dissimilar with respect to energy use. One has to look at it case by case.

If, and sooner or later it would happen, that the batteries of a car fail, then that car would just be pushed along. If then, at the station charger, the batteries still refuse to fire up, the car is obviously faulty and cannot accelerate when it should. The following wave then would have to slow down, connect, and push it out to the shed siding.

SO  I may have a few options of ROUTES from Sydney CBD to PARRAMATTA using LIGHT RAIL / BRT ….. that include
street level, and skytrain/tram/electric bus integration solutions. If needed it can include ” mini- carriages”  for low demand areas…. or  twisting roads not suitable for  LONG CARRIAGES

SCHILTEC:

To put a proud 21st century public transport system onto back roads has no appeal; consider:

1

Public transport is No 1 in priority and must refuse to be side-tracked.  With Waverail Sydney will have a world-class public transport system and this certainly has no place on back roads.  Have you seen a French TGV on a curvy  goat track?

2

Rail is notoriously bad in bends. Motorcars can do bends better.

3

Travel time is compromised on back roads and will render even Waverail uncompetitive.  Competitiveness time comparisons are not done on travelling time but on door to door times.

4

Most passengers stand in Waverail.  It would be an insult to force on passengers the slow, jerky agony of a back road at the same time when motorists sit on the direct main roads.

5

For various reasons Waverail cars smaller than  ~65passengers are unsuitable .  (This number however need further research)

6

Waverail makes 21 times better use of real estate than motor traffic (15,000 Passengers/h  against 700 for one typical Sydney road lane).  Thus Waverail increases the capacity of one direction of Parramatta road from currently 2,100 to 16,400 persons/h; or a stunning 680%!  A news blog is being prepared on this subject.

7

Traffic area from the current main road bus lanes becomes available.