Ah, let me clarify. In the comment I responded to, the implication was that because there was just something "painted" on the road, it was relatively cheap. Further, if you read the various promotions for these systems, they also imply that normal road construction is sufficient. In other words, a huge cost advantage to "trackless trams". So, while there may still be some cost advantage, the biggest one (ie, not much costly road reconstruction required) is nowhere near what the promoters claim.ml69 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 8:06 amBiggest cost advantage? Are you saying laying down concrete on the road is the major cost of a tram system? I’d have thought the combined cost of doing the overhead track, tram control systems, doing the steel rails themselves would cost more (I’m excluding fleet purchase costs and station costs which both systems require).
The cost of reinforced concrete track with rails vs concrete bus pavement with a guidance system? Close, I'd say, but I'd be glad to have data.
The cost of a battery tram with steel wheels on rails, vs the same vehicle on rubber wheels, PLUS a guidance system on the "trackless tram" aligned to the one on the road? The guidance system on the tram is extra, and complex, so not cheap.
Advantage, conventional trams.
Power can be supplied to either system using overhead or battery/capacitors. If battery, the higher rolling resistance of tyres on pavement requires tougher batteries/higher capacity capacitors.
Advantage conventional trams.