I’m not the original commentator. Rail has very low maintenance. The electric motors are robust AF and last a long, long time. Steel wheels on steel track have very little wear. Rail is common so maintenance is not exactly specialized. There are plenty of companies that make rail cars when eventual replacement (again a long time) is needed. I have no idea where that very few companies idea comes from.
Buses on the other hand use standard ICE engines which have a lot of maintenance. Engine, transmission, or entire bus replacement is much more frequent. Rubber tire on asphalt, both of those items wear. They can use roads, but if it’s a brt there are dedicated lanes so it takes up pretty much as much room as a train.
Finally you have drivers. A train can be very long with one operator, much lower cost.
I have no idea where the very few companies idea comes from.
Taken from the book I cited in the last comment: A rail system, by contrast, tends to be locked into a permanent dependence on one or two suppliers of rolling stock. While buses tend to use truck engines where the spare parts have over time come to be produced by alternative low cost producers on a massive scale, the manufacturers of rail technology tend to remain monopoly suppliers of their spare parts, as the market for them is far more limited. These monopolistic conditions tend to drive up the operating cost of rail rolling stock. There are only a few major rail manufacturers in the world today (i.e., Alstom, Bombardier, Hitachi, Kawasaki, and Siemens). The scale required to set up local rail manufacturing is unlikely to be achieved in most lower income nations. Instead, manufacturing (and the associated employment) will be based in higher income countries, such as France, Canada, Japan, or Germany. When a city such as Bangkok purchases its rail metro vehicles, the carriages arrive almost fully fabricated (Figure 2.1). This tends to make the vehicles far more expensive.
And it makes sense, as cars are more common than trains. That also seems to increase driver’s salary, as it is easier by volume to find/train a driver for a bus than one for a LRT, given same capacity, and a LRT and BRTs have comparable capacities per vehicle.
These 2 mini-chapters talk further about costs of BRT, LRT and HRT, with several references and data based on real-world operations: Capital Costs and Operating costs
Well I laid out the fundamentals of why it’s wrong. Very very very wrong. No you’re not locked into one or two suppliers, there must close to a dozen that I’ve seen. It’s a competitive field.
Engines again, ICE engines wear out fast relatively speaking. That’s the nature of them. Even diesels. Electric engines are robust as fuck. There aren’t a lot of wear parts. I forgot to mention that the cost of diesel is way more than the cost of electricity, not even accounting for the cost of carbon.
There is the point that there is little local manufacturing for whatever country is buying them, but that does not mean by default that prices are high. That just means no local manufacturing for the local economy.
And it makes sense, as cars are more common than trains. That also seems to increase driver’s salary, as it is easier by volume to find/train a driver for a bus than one for a LRT, given same capacity, and a LRT and BRTs have comparable capacities per vehicle.
Oh jeez.
You have to train bus drivers just like you have to train train drivers. In either case they are in the same or similar unions so will be paid similarly.
A LRT can have over a thousand passengers per train (that’s multiple cars coupled together just to be clear). You aren’t getting that in a freaking bus. Like wow. The ONLY way you can say they are comparable is if you take a ridiculously short train and an extended bus, and even that the train will have more. AND that’s the whole point, you can couple train cars together. You can’t do that with buses. This just shows you either aren’t discussing in good faith or you have incredibly bad information. I’ll give you one out that the current trend is shorter and more frequent trains (and current trend of low floor lowers capacity), which I think is a mistake that we will regret in 20 to 30 years because like it or not we need to design for rush hour.
And with that I am out. Just wow.
This comes down to high initial cost just because that’s how it works and then lower operating cost.
Electric engines are robust as fuck. There aren’t a lot of wear parts
That is mentioned in the references, where a twice the expected for a rail-bases vehicle life is estimated. I never claimed otherwise.
You have to train bus drivers just like you have to train train drivers. In either case they are in the same or similar unions so will be paid similarly.
I know that any company requires training, I never claimed otherwise. However, I assure you that in several countries it is far easier to find a person capable of being trained for a BRT than a LRT, including mine where there’s basically 0 train infrastructure. This higher skillet requirement, and therefore higher salary, is mentioned in the reference I posted.
AND that’s the whole point, you can couple train cars together. You can’t do that with buses.
I feel like you are confusing HRTs and LRTs. I see HRTs as better alternatives to BRTs, but BRTs as better than LRTs. Looking at some number online, Dalla’s LRT has a very comparable capacity than that of Bogotá’s BRT, as it is smaller per vehicle; I’m not saying this implies that BRT is better, as Bogotá’s has in its fleet the biggest BRT in the world, just saying they are definitely comparable. Granted, this is not a systematic comparison, and you’ll likely think I cherry picked, but I just chose Bogotá as that’s where I live, and Dallas by looking at a guide to LRTs
This comes down to high initial cost just because that’s how it works and then lower operating cost.
Initial costs is usually paid in the form of loans, so it is an operating costs as well. This was mentioned in the reference.
I think it’s fair if you consider I’m discussing in bad faith, this is not my field of expertise and I’m pretty ignorant in the topic, despite some efforts. However, I really think that my bad-faith is not out of sheer lazyness.
I’m not the original commentator. Rail has very low maintenance. The electric motors are robust AF and last a long, long time. Steel wheels on steel track have very little wear. Rail is common so maintenance is not exactly specialized. There are plenty of companies that make rail cars when eventual replacement (again a long time) is needed. I have no idea where that very few companies idea comes from.
Buses on the other hand use standard ICE engines which have a lot of maintenance. Engine, transmission, or entire bus replacement is much more frequent. Rubber tire on asphalt, both of those items wear. They can use roads, but if it’s a brt there are dedicated lanes so it takes up pretty much as much room as a train.
Finally you have drivers. A train can be very long with one operator, much lower cost.
Taken from the book I cited in the last comment: A rail system, by contrast, tends to be locked into a permanent dependence on one or two suppliers of rolling stock. While buses tend to use truck engines where the spare parts have over time come to be produced by alternative low cost producers on a massive scale, the manufacturers of rail technology tend to remain monopoly suppliers of their spare parts, as the market for them is far more limited. These monopolistic conditions tend to drive up the operating cost of rail rolling stock. There are only a few major rail manufacturers in the world today (i.e., Alstom, Bombardier, Hitachi, Kawasaki, and Siemens). The scale required to set up local rail manufacturing is unlikely to be achieved in most lower income nations. Instead, manufacturing (and the associated employment) will be based in higher income countries, such as France, Canada, Japan, or Germany. When a city such as Bangkok purchases its rail metro vehicles, the carriages arrive almost fully fabricated (Figure 2.1). This tends to make the vehicles far more expensive.
And it makes sense, as cars are more common than trains. That also seems to increase driver’s salary, as it is easier by volume to find/train a driver for a bus than one for a LRT, given same capacity, and a LRT and BRTs have comparable capacities per vehicle.
These 2 mini-chapters talk further about costs of BRT, LRT and HRT, with several references and data based on real-world operations: Capital Costs and Operating costs
Well I laid out the fundamentals of why it’s wrong. Very very very wrong. No you’re not locked into one or two suppliers, there must close to a dozen that I’ve seen. It’s a competitive field.
Engines again, ICE engines wear out fast relatively speaking. That’s the nature of them. Even diesels. Electric engines are robust as fuck. There aren’t a lot of wear parts. I forgot to mention that the cost of diesel is way more than the cost of electricity, not even accounting for the cost of carbon.
There is the point that there is little local manufacturing for whatever country is buying them, but that does not mean by default that prices are high. That just means no local manufacturing for the local economy.
Oh jeez.
You have to train bus drivers just like you have to train train drivers. In either case they are in the same or similar unions so will be paid similarly.
A LRT can have over a thousand passengers per train (that’s multiple cars coupled together just to be clear). You aren’t getting that in a freaking bus. Like wow. The ONLY way you can say they are comparable is if you take a ridiculously short train and an extended bus, and even that the train will have more. AND that’s the whole point, you can couple train cars together. You can’t do that with buses. This just shows you either aren’t discussing in good faith or you have incredibly bad information. I’ll give you one out that the current trend is shorter and more frequent trains (and current trend of low floor lowers capacity), which I think is a mistake that we will regret in 20 to 30 years because like it or not we need to design for rush hour.
And with that I am out. Just wow.
This comes down to high initial cost just because that’s how it works and then lower operating cost.
That is mentioned in the references, where a twice the expected for a rail-bases vehicle life is estimated. I never claimed otherwise.
I know that any company requires training, I never claimed otherwise. However, I assure you that in several countries it is far easier to find a person capable of being trained for a BRT than a LRT, including mine where there’s basically 0 train infrastructure. This higher skillet requirement, and therefore higher salary, is mentioned in the reference I posted.
I feel like you are confusing HRTs and LRTs. I see HRTs as better alternatives to BRTs, but BRTs as better than LRTs. Looking at some number online, Dalla’s LRT has a very comparable capacity than that of Bogotá’s BRT, as it is smaller per vehicle; I’m not saying this implies that BRT is better, as Bogotá’s has in its fleet the biggest BRT in the world, just saying they are definitely comparable. Granted, this is not a systematic comparison, and you’ll likely think I cherry picked, but I just chose Bogotá as that’s where I live, and Dallas by looking at a guide to LRTs
Initial costs is usually paid in the form of loans, so it is an operating costs as well. This was mentioned in the reference.
I think it’s fair if you consider I’m discussing in bad faith, this is not my field of expertise and I’m pretty ignorant in the topic, despite some efforts. However, I really think that my bad-faith is not out of sheer lazyness.