Bus Priority Systems.

Kerb guidance is an off road technology which involves the creating of private rights of way (for buses) using a special trackway physically removed from the public highway. The first public kerb guided busway (KGB) opened in Essen, Germany in 1980, although Mercedes had previously demonstrated the concept at the 1979 international traffic exhibition (IVA) in Hamburg. In Germany the KGB system is often referred to as "O-Bahn", although the terms "Bahnbus" and "Spurbus" are also used.

The KGB trackway is similar - in theme - to conventional railway tracks except that instead of being designed for flanged steel wheeled trains / trams / streetcars it is designed for rubber tyred road vehicles. Essen's first installation features parallel sets of 'L' shaped prefabricated concrete panels which are 10m (metres) in length and laid 2.60m apart (as measured on inside vertical faces). For curved sections of trackage (guideway) the panels were gently bent as required whilst being laid. They are supported every 1.35m by sleepers to which they are fixed by means of fishplates and clamps. The sleepers are wide enough for both direction's tracks and are mounted on to concrete bore piles which act as the foundation. To make it easier for buses to enter the trackage the entry points are fitted with steel box girders which funnel in from 3.50m down to 2.60m.

Kerb guidance uses ordinary buses (motorbus, trolleybus, etc,.) fitted with two horizontal guide-wheels (one per side, mounted immediately in front of the front road wheels) which steer the vehicle via guide-arms attached to the steering knuckle. The buses' road-wheels use the bottom leg of the precast panels, and the guide-wheels run along the 18cm (approx 6") high upstand edge.

Sometimes additional touch-wheels are fitted next to the vehicles' rear wheels, (plus, on articulated buses, centre wheels) - these are not in continuous contact with the guideway but are needed for curves. Whilst on the track the driver retains full control of the vehicle except that (s)he no longer needs to use the steering wheel!

Away from the track the bus uses the normal road, just like any other rubber tyred road vehicle.

The reasoning for mechanically guiding buses is that the resulting dedicated busway uses less space (land width) so can be much narrower than a driver steered busway. To allow for driver-steered buses to "wander" sideways slightly and still pass safely when travelling at even a moderate speed an ordinary two lane road needs to be at least 7,5 - 8 metres in width. However for guided buses the lanes only need to be a little wider than the buses, so for standard width buses of 2.5m (or 2.55m) the total width required for a two-way busway will be only 6m. The resulting saved space can make a significant difference when trying to shoehorn a dedicated bus lane in to a narrow strip of land.

Why was the Kerb Guided Busway created?

Essen's O-Bahn system was part of an experiment in bus transport started in the late 1970's whereby the (West) German Government Federal Ministry of Research and Technology funded a developmental project to perfect two recent German designed innovations in bus transport - the 'self-steering' kerb guided bus and the twin system 'duo-bus'* - by means of a phased programme of testing and evaluation over two (later became three) quiet suburban private rights of way which, if successful, could eventually be linked up via the city centre to provide a 'dual-mode-bus' demonstration system.

The rational behind the experiment was that over recent decades Essen, like many other West German cities, had followed a policy of upgrading metre gauge street tramways into standard gauge light railways and in congested city centres relocating both modes into underground tunnel systems. Its buses however remained on the surface, and as might be expected at times of peak traffic flow the delays often caused considerable disruption to services. Having built expensive infrastructure for the steel wheeled transports it was felt desirable to try to maximise the benefits of that expenditure by extending the buses through the tunnels too.

(*For more information on duo-buses see the electric buses page; scroll down about halfway.)

The route to Kray was not part of the original plans but was added because the trams were blamed for traffic congestion in Kray and as Federal Government money was available (ie: someone else would foot the bill!) it was thought to be cheaper to replace them than relocate the tracks onto private rights-of-way away from the road traffic. The main guided section is located in the median strip of the A430 Ruhrschnellweg Krayer Strecke urban motorway.

It was decided that for health reasons within Kray's narrow streets the duo-buses would operate in zero emission trolleybus mode. This was fortunate because the one aspect of the bustitution of this section of tram route 103 that had alarmed the planners was the inevitability of more motor vehicle exhaust fumes, especially in Kray's narrow streets, some of which are usually thronged with shoppers. It is worth pointing out that on the duo-buses the waste gas outlet is at the back bottom left corner, just about the same height as a child sitting in a pushchair. As an aside, the same issue applies to many British diesel buses too - although the exact locations at the bottom back of the bus vary.

The access ramps are fairly steep and when the busway first opened wintry weather saw them become blocked by snow which had compacted under the wheels of the passing buses and this caused the service to be suspended until it could be broken up and removed by hand. As a result it became necessary to equip them with electric heating.

As part of a policy of testing everything 'on the surface' before installing in tunnels the section of guided busway on Wittenbergstrasse included trials of three different types of joint guided busway and tramway trackage, a kerb guided bus point ("switch" in American) plus two types of overhead wire supports to simulate where guided trolleybuses would share the tram tunnels.

For these trials the trolleybus overhead was energised at 600v dc, using the same rectifier substations as the trams. However it was decided that since the duo-buses were really intended to operate at 750v dc (and the trams use 600v dc) so for tunnel operations it would be best that the two transports would use separate rectifier substations.

The first two photographs (below) show the two different overhead wire systems that were developed - the first picture shows the version used in 'curved roof' tunnels and how it included a simulation of such a tunnel roof; the second picture shows the arrangement designed for surface sections of track sharing.

Below that is an image showing the points. These three sets of images have been sourced from an official brochure on the 'Dual-mode-bus' project.

Nowadays all overhead wires have been removed from this location, as have tram services too.

For tunnel operation the buses also had to be able to interact with the signalling system and after a few hiccups - which always failed 'safe' but were still nuisances - the technology became reliable.

Apart from signalling another important safety issue concerned what might happen if the tram catenary broke and fell on to a bus. It was reasoned that if one wire fell on to the bus, the chances are that the other end of the breakage could still fall somewhere where it would trigger the circuit breakers to cut off the power. But what if both ends fell onto the bus? Again it was reasoned that by virtue of the buses' rubber tyres there would be no circuit to earth and even though this would mean that the circuit breakers would not be triggered the people in the bus would remain safe - as long as they remained in the bus! If, however, someone outside the bus touched it (or a passenger tried to alight at a stop) then it could be that the full line voltage would use them as a route to earth, resulting in the almost certain probability of a serious electric shock - or worse.

So as an extra safety measure all the duo-buses were fitted with metal skates which automatically lower on to a tram rail when the vehicle's speed is less than 3 km/h. Under normal circumstances a safety interlock will prevent the passenger doors from opening until after the earthing device has been lowered (the driver is advised of correct operation) however in case of malfunction the driver has an override control. The driver also has the ability to manually raise the earthing device (in case the vehicle's pneumatics fail) as otherwise it would render the vehicle immobile - an undesirable situation which would result in a blocked tunnel.

Click the projector icon or this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKZGKA2Bk4c to watch a six minute video of a guided duobuses in Essen. This includes parts of the Kray and the phase 1 (pre 1991) tunnel section and uses footage sourced over several visits in both summer and winter.

The extension to the underground system which opened in September 1991 included two underground stations which featured central island platforms that required the passengers to use the duo-buses' off-side doors.

View inside the tunnels showing a junction leading to some reversing sidings and the other direction's tunnel which is for trams with driving controls at both ends only.

Left: Whilst passing through here the buses would remain in self-steering mode however the bus drivers needed to ensure the vehicle kept in contact with the unbroken guide rail to its right. Along the left of the buses' path is a row of flaps which replaces the guide rail for the junction with the idea being that if the bus was straying too far off course and drove over them they would be heard and felt. This image was sourced from the official brochure on the 'Dual-mode-bus' project.

Right: The device seen between the tracks is part of the signalling control system.

---

In connection with their enhanced status bus routes 145 & 147 were re-branded as 'City-Express' routes, becoming CE45 / CE47. However they have now reverted back to plain 145 / 147. This also applies to route 146 (CE46) which linked several surface sections of the guided busway but did not use the tunnels.

Underground services have now completely ceased, this being because after just a few years the experimental wooden trackage became life-expired and with the ending of the developmental programme the funds were no longer available to replace it. However most of the rest of the O-Bahn is still in use.

In September 2001 the special duo-buses were withdrawn from service, having spent most of their lives operating as motor buses they were now deemed to be 'life expired'^§. They were replaced with low floor motorbuses. Meanwhile the introduction of new low-floor trams which partially fouled the guided busway trackage led to the partial removal of the bus trackage from the underground tunnel system. By 2004 much of the now redundant trolleybus overhead wiring had been removed too.

^§ Although deemed to be 'life expired' as defined by German standards at least some of the fleet was sold to Russia (Khimki, Vidnoye and Podolsk, which are in the Moscow region) where they operate as standard diesel buses. Photographs of these can be found here - http://stts.mosfont.ru/articles.php?gid=13. As the photographs clearly show, the buses retain their 'city express' livery. With thanks to Artem Svetlov, Moscow, for the information and making the pictures available for other people to see. (external website which opens in a new window).

Essen's Bus Replacement Dilemma.

One unforeseen issue which crept up unnoticed concerns bus widths. Essen's kerb guided busways were built with a track gauge of 2.6m - being designed to accept buses which are 2.5m in width, plus an extra 10cm for the guide-wheels. However, nowadays buses are built to a slighter more generous width of 2.55m. (5cm is approximately 2 inches and 10 cm approximately 4 inches).

Because of their extra width when EVAG (the Essen operator) invited bus manufacturers to tender for the delivery of new buses, none were able to offer suitable replacement vehicles. Therefore, replacement of the buses (which had been planned for 2004) had to be postponed while negotiations took place with manufacturers to source suitable vehicles.

The key issue here was to find a 2.55m bus which would fit in to trackage built for 2.5m wide buses. With the busway kerbs being 2.6m apart it was reported that the hoped-for solution would be that the extra width required for the guide-wheels could be halved to 5cm.

An option which they did not want to follow would be to re-gauge the busway trackage, especially as whilst some of the system could be rebuilt / widened with relative ease, there are some space-constricted locations (especially on the route to Kray, which is located in the median of a motorway) where sideways expansion would be very challenging.

A solution to this was found in September 2007 after trials with an articulated Mercedes / Citaro 'Facelift' bus, and the first of a replacement fleet of both 'articulated' and 'rigid' format entered service in 2008.

As an aside, had they followed their original proposals and electrified most of the system they would (probably) not yet have faced this dilemma. The buses they wanted to replace are the 1993 batch of low floor diesel articulateds which having been used rigorously for 21 hours a day, 7 days a week for the first seven years of their lives were beginning to show their age and had become in need of replacement. 10-12 years is not unusual for the commercially viable life of a motorbus. As a contrast trolleybuses usually last for 20 - 30 years, with many examples then being sold / cascaded (donated) to "poorer" cities that cannot afford brand new vehicles, where they keep going for even longer...

What benefits does kerb guidance provide?

Kerb guidance offers a transport operator a system that - without compromising the limited available roadspace - can help its buses avoid traffic congestion and therefore provide a more reliable service to their passengers. The possibility of tunnel operation shared with light rail services makes for added cost effectiveness because where vast amounts of money have been spent on putting rail systems underground it would now be possible to further increase the benefits of that expenditure by allowing the buses to join them. In the event, as yet no other city sees such shared tunnel operation, indeed the very existence of subterranean bus services is still very unusual - perhaps the oldest example being the short tunnel and station at Harvard in the Greater Boston area, USA. Also in Boston, the "Silver Line" Bus Rapid Transit route includes some sections of bus subway. Apart from Boston there are only a handful of examples; perhaps the most significant of which is in Seattle, USA (see below). Two of the others are in Japan. These form part of the Tateyama - Kurobe Alpine Routes and feature 26 trolleybuses using single - track tunnels where services often run in 'flights' with several vehicles travelling together in groups with one of the lines being controlled (signalled) using railway style tokens and the other on the basis of buses starting when the signal is clear and the number of vehicles being counted as they depart. However, as these services are tourist-orientated and not part of a 'serious' urban transport solution their status is somewhat different.

The Seattle bus subway is wholly located within the city's 'free travel' zone, which means that so no fare is required at any station during hours when the policy is in effect. Opening in September 1990 and 1⅓rd mile (2.1km) in length it features 5 stations which open on Mondays - Saturdays only. Services were originally provided by a fleet of Italian Breda duo-buses, with some routes providing a direct link to the city's airport.

At the time of construction rail tracks were also installed for a future light rail service. Unfortunately despite this commendable forward thinking it was subsequently decided that part of the light rail line will follow a different alignment than the existing tunnels, so on 24th September 2005 the bus subway was closed for a two year period of rebuilding. Most of the duo-buses were actually withdrawn in advance of the closure, and (amazingly) replaced with diesel powered buses. In April 2005 local users were reporting on some Internet discussion groups that the tunnels were often somewhat smelly from (what thinking people know to be) the carcinogenic diesel engine exhaust fumes. Whilst it is true that the buses are hybrid diesel-electrics and when underground operate in a special low power 'hush' mode they still need to use the fossil fuel traction package whilst underground. Apparently the choice of fossil fuel buses is influenced by the transport operators' belief that it is not possible (or not safe) to mix overhead wire powered light rail and electric trolleybuses / duo-buses in an underground tunnel system - even though Essen proved otherwise!

Click the projector icon or this link http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=etT_wVuKy_I to watch a six minute video of the Seattle bus subway as seen on a visit in May 1993.

Now known as the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel it re-opened exactly 2 years later (on 24th September 2007). The works included lowering the tunnel floor (road surface) for the light rail and this has led to concerns that the bus mirrors - which are now at head height - may strike people waiting on the platform. In an effort to prevent this the mirrors have been equipped with flashing lights and the speed of the buses within the stations has been lowered from 15mph to 10mph (24km/h to 16km/h).The Central Link light rail system opened on 18th July 2009 and now shares the tunnel with the buses. As the tunnel is entirely within the Ride Free Area no fare is charged to travel on the buses during the ride-free hours of 6am to 7pm (06:00 to 19:00). But... as the buses and light rail follow different fare structures and fares are charged on the light rail trains at all times. Apparently including the light rail in the free fare zone would have resulted in light rail fares being 25 cents higher.

However, none of these Japanese and American bus subways see buses using kerb guidance. It might be assumed that for safety's sake "some" sort of system would be needed - if only to reduce the chance of a bus accidentally hitting the tunnel wall - especially where they use narrow London Underground 'tube-like' tunnels??? But this seems not to be the situation.

Apart from Essen (and Britain) - Where else globally?

Apart from Essen the only other German city to have used the kerb guided O-Bahn system was Mannheim, where buses shared a pre-existing surface light rail private right of way. Installed in April 1992 this 800 metre installation helped city-bound vehicles to bypass traffic congestion leading up to a busy traffic signal controlled junction in a location where there was no space for an extra traffic lane. (Out-bound vehicles use[d] the public highway). As the view of two buses at a traffic signal controlled 'level crossing' along the route demonstrates, even though they were buses the tracked vehicles used to receive precedence over other vehicles that wanted to cross the line.

The trackage used here consisted of longitudinal wooden beams and steel guidewalls as developed in Essen for where trams and buses share formation. Compared to wooden track in Essen the ride quality of a Mannheim kerb guided bus was considerably better, however Mannheim's track had more and sharper curves which together with the four guide-wheels (one next to each of the front and rear road wheels) gave an impression of almost 'bouncing' between the buses' four corners! In the event the distance was so short (and the already slow moving bus had to slow down even further for the level crossing) so ride quality was not really too important.

Guided busway services were withdrawn in September 2005 when the majority of buses fitted with guide wheels were decommissioned for age reasons, and it was decided not to adapt their replacements.

Near to Essen is the city of Oberhausen and when in the mid 1990's they built a new combined tramway / busway they did not see the need for the buses to use any guidance systems. This moderate speed (90km/h - approx 55mph) public transport right of way has been praised as being an excellent example of how several low frequency bus routes serving different parts of a town can be brought together to provide modern, fast(ish) public transport on a common section of the route.

A tram on the Oberhausen tramway / unguided busway - as seen from the front of a bus.
(Taken with a panoramic / stretch camera, which explains the image format).

Elsewhere globally the Japanese also have some kerb guided busways.

The only fully operational installation is a single 6.5 km (4 mile) line in Nagoya, Aichi which opened on 23rd March 2001. This is served by five bus routes which are operated by three different bus companies. Away from the guided section the buses use the normal roadway. As with the many Japanese monorails or automated guideway transits the line is legally considered as a sort of railway.

The line is officially called Guideway Bus Shidami Line, although it is also has a nickname of Yutorito Line, this being is a combination of Yutori ("relaxed") and street (Sutorito). The name is also unofficially spelt Yutreet Line. It is owned by Nagoya Guideway Bus, whose name is also often used as an alternative name for the line.

The other Japanese systems are more experimental in nature.

One of these is very similar to the O-Bahn, except that the kerbs are wider apart so both sides of the bus cannot make contact at the same time (apparently the vehicles are fitted with a stabiliser to improve straight travel stability) and the guide wheels can be retracted when the vehicle is operating on the normal road. This system has also been tested with bi-directional single track running, using automated signalling systems to only allow one vehicle on a section of track at a time. (Similar signalling systems are commonplace on single-track railways).

Another feature of this system is that the vehicle's have two guide-wheels by each rear road-wheel (one each in front / behind). The sole purpose of these extra 'touch wheels' is for protection in case of sideways sliding, on snow, ice or in windy weather.

The other experimental system is in many ways a 'next stage' advance. While in guided mode it features fully automated driverless operation - so in addition to the block signalling (used for safety) the computers will literally 'drive' the buses - stopping at stations, opening / closing the doors, selecting the route (the system allows for junctions and route bifurcations) etc,. It uses electric buses which are fitted with storage batteries for use on the normal road; in guided mode power is collected by means of a terminal which extends sideways from the rear of the vehicle and contacts a power rail located alongside the track just above a guide rail. (Guided mode also sees recharging of the vehicles' on-board batteries). This power collection system makes an interesting alternative to 'overhead wire' systems (ie: trolleybuses) except that it would not be safe to use in the street environment.

Outside of Germany and Japan many other cities have looked at the concept of guided buses, but very few have chosen to use it. It is possible that at least one installation will be built in Italy - as part of the Italian government's major new transport infrastructure initiative the trolleybus system linking the coastal towns of Rimini and Riccione has been successful in obtaining funding to create a section of kerb guided trolleybusway. Apparently this installation will include tunnel operation, where guidance will be a positive safety feature. However, exactly 'when' remains unknown.

At one time São Paulo (Brazil) was also reported to be planning a guided busway using a fleet of double-articulated kerb-guided buses calling at high level bus stops where passengers would pay their fares before boarding the vehicle, however whilst the first 2.5km of the fura-fila reserved lane busway had been expected to open back in October 2000 only one double and two single articulated buses were actually built, and conflicting reports put in question whether or not this installation will now actually use kerb-guidance. Incidentally this type of ticketing system and double articulated (not guided) motor buses already operate in what is claimed to be a very successful all-bus transport system in the Brazilian city of Curitiba. (See picture).

In fact despite being nearly 30 years since the first section of Essen's demonstration systems began passenger operation the Germans have clocked up only one overseas sale. This has been to the Australian city of Adelaide, which is the state capital of South Australia. Originally planned as an extension to the Glenelg Tramway, the decision to use kerb guided bus technology comes from change of governing political party after state elections. Interestingly S.A. is noted for its large ethnic German population.

The Adelaide, Australia O-Bahn.

Adelaides' 11.8km (approx. 7 ⅓rd miles) O-Bahn is both the fastest and longest example of kerb-guided busway so far in existence. It is located in a linear park near to the city centre and extends to an outer suburban shopping centre. There are two intermediate stations, one of which also acts as an intermediate access point for buses to join / leave the system.

Services here are of an 'outer suburban' nature with it acting as a high-speed 'corridor' from which the buses 'fan out' to serve low density suburbs. When built the people of Adelaide were promised it would offer "One-Ride For All", ie: all suburban destinations would enjoy direct services between the suburbs and the city centre without having to change vehicle en route. Indeed this was one of the main selling points which resulted in the use of a bus based system instead of an extension to the Glenelg tramway.

However it quickly became apparent that for some quieter routes through services were just not financially viable, so nowadays whilst passengers in some suburban areas do enjoy one-bus services direct to Adelaide city centre (with some buses entering / leaving the guided busway at one of the intermediate stops) there are also some 'local' bus services which feed into the busway 'stations' from where passengers must change for an onward connection to Adelaide city centre.

Because of traffic congestion and resulting variable journey times between the guided busway and the city centre, plus delays caused by the "pay the driver" ticketing system buses frequently run late and therefore for most of the time passengers using the feeder services and the local services no longer benefit from guaranteed timetabled connections.

The busway begins about 4.5km (approx 2¾ miles) from Adelaide city centre. The route between the busway and the city centre is a public highway, and although it was rebuilt / widened concurrent with the construction of the O-Bahn virtually no bus priority was provided. At the busiest of times it can take as long as 20 minutes to travel between the busway and city centre.

Both the entrance and exit are formed of slip roads off the public highway, similar to those found at junctions on motorways, etc. The entry slip road leads from the right hand side of the carriageway, and into an underpass below the public highway's city-bound carriageway. The exit slip joins the roadway from the kerbside.(not shown)

In an attempt to prevent unauthorised access the entry and exit points are protected from private vehicles by 'open pits' which were designed to be too wide for private cars to pass without the wheels on one side falling in - probably causing severe damage to the vehicle.

The Adelaide O-Bahn features two passenger stations / bus stops en-route plus a third at the northern terminus. They all feature 'park & ride' facilities and - unlike all the other guided bus systems - are on unguided sections of busway. This allows buses to overtake / pass each other as required. Included in this is the ability for express services to pass all-stations services.

For most of its length the speed limit is 100km/h (about 62 mph - the Australians have gone metric). The O-Bahn is unsignalled and especially in the rush hour it is quite normal to see buses running in convoy - they are supposed to keep at least 175 metres apart. South Australia is well known for having exceptionally enthusiastic and pedantic policing of its speed limits (with revenue generation being a stated aim) and following a court ruling in the early years of the system's operation decided that the O-Bahn is officially considered a road, the South Australian police have been permitted to install speed cameras and use radar speed traps to fine speeding bus drivers too.

Construction of what was originally known as "The Northeast Busway" began in 1982 with the first section opening in March 1986 and the second stage in August 1989. At one time there were plans for more busways, especially a route that would have served suburbs to the south of the city, however these have now been scrapped.

More recently several new bus based rapid transit systems have been built in several other Australian cities and despite the success of the Adelaide O-Bahn all these other bus systems eschew the O-Bahn system and include sections of bus-only road where the bus drivers steer the vehicle, as per normal.

So whilst in Australia the O-Bahn has remained unique and in Germany there has been retrenchment, tram systems (in both countries) continue to be built and expanded.

January 2006 saw the introduction of the first of a new fleet of trams for Adelaide's Glenelg tramway which in October 2007 was also extended by 1.2km (approximately ¾ mile) north from the former Victoria Square terminus which was located just to the south of Adelaide city centre through the city centre to City West via Adelaide railway station.

Adelaide Bus Replacement Dilemma!

In June 2007 it was reported that Adelaides' O-Bahn is faces dramatic service changes because the State Government is struggling to replace its ageing fleet of articulated buses. Apparently the Passenger Transport Act legislation requires that buses should not exceed 25 years of age and there 54 buses which are nearing their use-by date. Trials with modern low-floor articulated buses have shown that their central floor sections are not rigid enough so that when used on the high speed busway they produce unacceptable levels of vibration. For this reason they have been deemed as being unsafe for use on the O-Bahn busway.

A possible solution being suggested is that if need be the articulated buses will be replaced with non-articulated (ie: rigid) buses, however this is not seen as an ideal situation because to maintain passenger capacity it will be necessary to run more of them, which will increase air pollution & operating costs (more buses need more bus drivers) as well as at busy times possibly increase traffic congestion. Rigid buses can seat up to 40 passengers, whilst the articulateds have a seated passenger capacity of 66.

The Next Development?

Most kerb guided bus vehicles have either been 'rigid' or 'single-articulated'; the Germans have also developed 'double articulated' versions but more as conceptual prototypes than as actual service vehicles.

The MAN version was designed to be suitable for both street and guided modes. Apparently at 23 metres in length it was too long to be legal for road use (in Germany) so it had to be given a special dispensation before being allowed to venture on to the public highway. This having been granted the first trials required a police motorcycle escort, although in 1982 it spent a several months as part of the Munich bus fleet, during which time it operated without a police escort. This vehicle featured both front and rear axles steering with the centre axles being powered by a rear mounted diesel engine. It was designed to carry 225 passengers, of which 72 would be seated. First introduced in September 1981, after its 1982 trials it seems to have slipped into quiet oblivion.

The Mercedes-Benz double-articulated vehicle was promoted as their alternative solution to counter the runaway success of light rail as a mode of transport. In response light rail advocates retorted that this vehicle was not even a solution to an unspecified problem! As the photograph shows the 0 305 G2 can be likened to two articulated buses joined back-to-back. One end has bus-type driving controls while the other end has tram-type driving controls. Neither end has a steering wheel, because amazingly - for a bus - this vehicle cannot operate on the normal road sharing road space with other traffic (!) -- something that puts it at a severe disadvantage even when compared to 'ordinary' kerb guided buses.

With this vehicle the outer two axles are steered while the inner two axles are driven. It is electrically powered, collecting its power from the single overhead wire via a pantograph while electrical return is via the guide rails - although there is no reason why it should not be able to use trolley-bus twin overhead wires and trolleypoles. In this way it could share all or part of the guideway with 'ordinary' trolleybuses or duo-buses, subject to it being compatible with the already designed O-Bahn points (switches). Multiple unit operation of 'trains' (sic) of these vehicles is a design feature, however being electric it is easy to envisage multiple-unit operation with ordinary trolley / duo-buses too. For many years multiple-unit operation of two-axle trolleybuses (in normal 'driver-steering' mode) was commonplace in eastern European (especially Soviet Union) cities, although more recently the practise has fallen out of favour with ordinary (single) articulated buses replacing them.

As yet no city is reported as having taken a serious interest in the 0 305 G2, perhaps because there is no need for a bus that the driver cannot steer and therefore cannot travel on the ordinary road. In its present form this vehicle would be most suitable as an upgrade to a pre-existing O-Bahn system, but with so few in operation this does not look likely in the near future. Any city using the 0 305 G2 from scratch would have to invest in sufficient private right of way before it could be introduced into service putting it at a severe disadvantage compared to light rail (its primary competitor) - which can share roadspace with other traffic - but putting it on a par with some of the other fixed-track 'people mover' and metro systems.

The platforms were designed for single-door buses, requiring accurate stopping by bus drivers. The sign asks passengers to stand clear of the edge when a bus approaches, partly for safety but presumably also to allow alighting passengers to pass first.

Traffic signal controlled entry / exit point at the Birmingham end of the line. Note 'dripping oil' deposits from where buses halt at signals / bus stop.

Same location as above but looking in the other direction.

The 'far' end of the busway complete with information board and one of several saplings planted along the route.

Roughly the same viewpoint as above but seen in 1997 - when the busway had been (almost) completely removed and partially converted to extra car parking space.

At the far end the busway ended at a traffic signalled junction after which the buses used a private (driver steered) road protected by normal "no entry" road signs and a qualifying plate which read Except Guided Buses on the pole. ---------------- This view was taken in May 2008 - more than twenty years since closure - and the pole on the left still has this sign. Technically unguided buses should not be using this road!

Birmingham kerb guided bus at a bus stop. Clicking any of the Tracline 65 images will lead to a dedicated page showing more (and larger) images in a popup window; alternatively clicking here will open the page in a new full-size window.

It is well known that most car drivers see motor buses as slow, utilitarian vehicles that are constantly stopping, and if caught in traffic these motorists would very much prefer to be sitting in their cars listening to their stereos rather than in a bus! Even the privatised bus companies admit (albeit only in private) that as a mode of transport buses have a 'down at heel' image. As a contrast modern trams are seen as sleek, sophisticated, rapid, comfortable, clean and fume free, in fact everything that efficient rapid transit needs to be. So if buses are to achieve their full potential then there is a need for them to be seen in a light similar to the trams. To be kind to the drafters of British bus deregulation and privatisation this is probably what they had hoped would have happened. The reality was, and in many places still remains, very different.

Trams often have their own private rights of way which enables them to bypass congestion, and for Britain the idea behind most of the kerb guided bus schemes is to emulate that feature. The thinking is that if 5% of a bus's route takes 20% of its journey time, then investment should be made on that 5%, elsewhere the bus can use the normal road. If, later, congestion worsens then more trackage can be constructed on a 'as required / available space basis'. With guided buses the trackage can be installed almost anywhere, even places that would otherwise be too narrow for 'driver steered' bus lanes.

As with ordinary bus lanes kerb guidance trackage can be available to almost any eligible vehicle, all the bus operator has to do is fit guide-wheels to its vehicles and make sure its drivers are properly trained! - because of the special driving techniques required (how to enter and use the busway and the importance of not hitting the kerb with the guide-wheels when driving on the normal highway) the British government has made it a criminal offence for untrained drivers to drive guide-wheel equipped buses, whether on the busway or ordinary road.

Whether the inspiration behind the development of kerb guidance in Britain was copied from the Germans is not known, however whereas Adelaide's busway uses technology purchased from Mercedes-Benz the British systems use British technology.

Britain's First Installation.

The first British line was in Birmingham. Operated by the West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive ('Centro') it featured six 'passenger stations' which were equipped with shelters, tip-up seats and electronic information displays advising passengers when the next bus would be due. Access to the stops was by ramp, so even though the vehicles were not 'low floor' they were still more easily reached by people with special needs. The busway trackage consisted of a concrete road surface into which steel guide-walls were set, with the centre strip between the bus' wheels 'rough surfaced' to deter cars from using it and overall landscaping designed to deter pedestrians from wandering where they were not wanted. Technically it was treated like any other bus lane, ie: a part of the normal highway that had been made subject to a Traffic Regulation Order restricting access to buses only - in effect this meant that construction and maintenance were the responsibility of the local highway authority, and not the bus operator.

Promoted as Tracline 65, it featured a dedicated fleet of specially adapted brand new Mk2 Metrobuses. Because the guide wheel assemblies had the effect of making the vehicles wider than the legally permitted maximum width a special dispensation was obtained to allow these vehicles to be used on the public highway. To help make them more visible to other road users these assemblies were fitted with white reflectors on the front, red reflectors on the back and on the outer edge amber lights which were linked into the traffic direction indicators.

Driver training was carried out at the test track at the Motor Industry Research Association (MIRA) where at a press demonstration it was shown that guided operation could actually be safer than 'normal' mode. For instance on emergency stops it would not matter if the front wheels locked as it was impossible for the bus to loose steering control; when bricks were placed on the track the bus shattered them and continued as if nothing had happened.

This busway was only a small part of what effectively was an experiment in bus transport. The larger picture was to see if by a program of concentrated improvements along a specific route that led to faster journeys and a generally higher quality of service to passengers it would be possible to attract more people to bus transport. The guided section of Tracline 65 was just a 600 metre strip at the very end of the route in an area where traffic congestion was not an issue; elsewhere new bus lanes were created, parking restrictions introduced / stiffened, more and better bus shelters erected and there was much media publicity. As far as guided operation was concerned the experiment was always meant to be of limited duration and closure came in 1987 when following bus deregulation a rival bus company won the contract for the Sunday service and with it not willing to spend money equipping vehicles with guide wheels the situation arose whereby there would have had to be different stops (on the parallel dual carriageway) for different days of the week.

Within the parameters set for it this experiment was proven successful. Bus patronage on route 65 rose by 29.3% compared to a more modest 4.2% within the West Midlands area as a whole. The guidance system proved both safe and reliable in operation, the initial fears that the protruding guide wheels might prove hazardous - especially to unwary pedestrians - were proven unfounded (although one did snap off when a bus that had been diverted away from its normal routing hit a kerb) and although little now remains of the Birmingham installation much valuable information was gained.

A view of the 'Martlesham' end with two buses passing, and Tesco supermarket.

Pedestrian crossing located next to the bus stops. Note the gap in the guideway and red/white diagonal hazard striping to stop people from walking into the raised kerb. In the distance is the Tesco supermarket & car park.

Same crossing seen from a different viewpoint, note child cyclists able to ride happily across the busway.

A winter view, showing the crossing (again), the bus stops / shelters and the pedestrian walkway & cycle track which flank the busway (on left) and in this weather were too slippery to use! Heavy snow can also be a hazard for guided buses, as the buses will 'pack' it under their wheels which could lead to 'derailing'.

A view (in summer 1996) looking along the busway from the Ipswich end. Being only 200 metres in length it takes just a few minutes to walk its entire length. To the left of the busway can be seen empty fields and a roadsign showing the 2.4m width restriction (the latter being more easily seen in the larger version of this image).

A similar view in summer 2006, after the busway had been widened for standard width buses. Note the sign showing the 2.6m width restriction.

To deter private cars from entering steel channel galvanised traps are located at each end of both guided bus lanes.

A double decker calls at the landscaped bus stop.

More information on the need for this busway plus a map showing its location relative to other roads in the area can be found on this page http://www.buspriority.org/bus_gates.htm which is a page about bus-only roads designed to either get the buses past traffic queues (by holding back / delaying the other traffic) or where physical impediments are used (such as rising bollards) to prevent other vehicles from travelling along sections of roadway. The Suffolk County Council website also has a page with more information about Superoute 66 and why it includes the bus quideway. (links to external sites open in new windows)

2006 information update.

As previously mentioned the Kesgrave guided busway was designed for buses 2.4m in width. However the success of this service has resulted in the need for larger buses and the busway has now been regauged for standard sized buses. Initially these were single deck Scania L94UB with Wright Axcess Floline bodywork, but by 2005 patronage had increased so much that these were replaced with 20 double deck Volvo B7TL with Alexander ALX400 bodywork.

Appalling service, disgruntled locals.

In September 2006 a visit was made to update this website photographically. Arrival in the Kesgrave area was approximately just before 1pm, and the visit was scheduled to be for about an hour. It was found that buses were timetabled to run at 15 minute intervals Monday - Saturday daytime, 30 minute intervals in the evenings and on Sundays, plus approximately 60 minute intervals at night. This compared slightly less favourably with the situation found on previous visits, when there was an enhanced 10 minute interval service during the afternoon busy period (3-7pm). However the larger buses can carry more passengers so total passenger capacity is still significantly enhanced. (The less frequent service should be more attractive to the bus company, whose operating costs - fewer buses & drivers - will be lower).

On this visit some buses were found to be running exactly to time, which is commendable. However, others did not show up at all! For instance, the 13.12 to Ipswich failed to turn up, whilst the 13.27 arrived several minutes late. From their actions it could be deduced that the large crowd of people waiting at the bus stop were obviously wise to the workings of the bus 'service' because they suddenly started walking / running to the next bus stop (beyond the guideway), with those who are slower on their feet asking the quicker friends to hold the bus at the next stop whilst they caught up! From a hurried conversation with some of the running and out-of-breath would be passengers it was learnt that the next bus was only a single decker, which suggests that a vehicle that does not have guide wheels had been rostered for this service.

Unfortunately this seems to not be an isolated incident. It was decided to wait for the 13.57 before leaving the area, however when this service was due it suddenly disappeared from the dot matrix screens and the 14.12 became the next scheduled service. With more than sufficient photographs (to update this page) having already been sourced plus there being another destination yet to be visited so it was decided that there would be little benefit in waiting to determine the fate of the 14.12. Before leaving however, a brief conversation with the 'very unhappy' crowd of people at the bus stop who had effectively been left in the lurch suggested that this is in no way untypical of the 'service'. Unfortunately most of their comments are unprintable, but as a general theme it can be deduced that if this is how a high profile service operating under a quality partnership system treats its passengers then it is no wonder that so many British people avoid public transport - of any kind.

Some of Leeds's kerb guided busway uses the median strip of the dual carriageway. Seen here under construction, in 1997.

Pedestrian crossing point complete with 'tactile' paving (to help blind people) on busway located between the footpath and the roadway.

Bus calling at stop on Scott Hall Road.

With a section of busway under construction a bus calls at a temporary kerbside stop. Phase Two

A general view (from a convenient footbridge) showing a section of the East Leeds elite guided busway where guidance is for outbound buses. Note the bus stop for non-guided buses (right) and continuous inbound unguided bus lane (left).

From the same footbridge a view of a busy double road intersection showing a short unguided section and around which cross traffic can wait for their turn at the traffic signals.

Beyond the junction with the Selby Road York Road features a short section of two-way guided busway, complete with bus stops both on and off the busway - and a very curious speed restriction!

Selby Road features a short inbound busway which ends just before the road narrows to pass under a railway bridge.

Because not all bus operators have fitted guide-wheels to their buses some buses must continue to use the public highway.

To help prevent other road users confusing their signals with those dedicated to the guided buses both Yorkshire cities use these special traffic signals with twin converging white lines instead of a green lamp.

From the days of Leeds City Buses comes this image of a demonstration kerb guided bus on a non-passenger test track. Picture courtesy of Dr Tebb.

The first section of Leeds guided busway finally opened in September 1995. However, all that opened was the first section of the first of two separate schemes. This first scheme involves a total of 1.15km (approx ¾ mile) of guideway along the A61 'Scott Hall Road' which heads north towards Harrogate; the second scheme was expected to see a total of 4km (2½ miles) of guideway along the A64 York Road which heads east, towards York. Both schemes have been 'adopted' by the British Department of Transport as the 'Official UK Guided Bus Experiment', and are being built on an 'incremental' basis, as funds become available.

As in Birmingham and Ipswich the sections of guided busway are technically parts of the public highway that are subject to 'guided buses only' restrictions. The significance of this for Leeds is that the installation works are being treated as general highway improvement schemes within the overall strategy for the area, and maintenance - should it become necessary - will also be the financial responsibility of the local highway authority and not the bus operators. Incidentally, there are also plans to reintroduce trams into Leeds, and the proposals include Scott Hall Road hosting one of the tram routes. However the British government's anti-tram bias (as demonstrated by its actions, not words) means that it is very unlikely that the same investment criteria will apply to the trams as the guided buses. And unlike bus companies, tram companies have to pay for the maintenance of their fixed infrastructure themselves.

In Leeds the guided busway is seen as a 'congestion buster'. Short sections of single direction trackage are located at the approaches to roundabouts with transponders influencing traffic signals to make sure the bus side-steps any congestion. Unlike Ipswich the trackage consists of a reinforced concrete roadway and separate extra deep kerbstones acting as walls for the buses' guide-wheels. The system includes a long unguided inbound contra-flow bus lane which opened in December 1996 and is designed to help in the morning peaks. So far only local bus services feature guided operation, all of them follow the same corridor from Leeds City Centre and then in the suburbs fan out to serve various localities.

Initially services were provided by a dedicated fleet of Scania N113 buses fitted with Alexander bodywork. They were purchased in 1994 as part of a larger fleet and are not low-floor, this is because at the time 'mainstream' low floor buses were not available, although they are now. (The first low-floor vehicle arrived in April 1997, and was used to open the third section of this busway). They are painted in a special 'Superbus' livery and because the idea is to create an up-market sophisticated image are finished to a high specification, including (information quoted from a timetable booklet) a clean, efficient engine, low emissions and a lower noise level; self-levelling air suspension for a smooth ride; efficient heaters for passenger comfort; high quality moquette seats for increased comfort. To make sure that passengers are properly welcomed aboard the bus drivers have undergone special 'customer care' training, for different reasons this training also included the special requirements of a guide-wheel equipped vehicle, including the importance of not hitting the kerb with the guide-wheels and how to use the busway. Because of the special driving techniques required the British government has made it a criminal offence for untrained drivers to drive guide-wheel equipped buses, whether on the busway or ordinary road.

In the longer term there is an interest in using articulated buses, which being rare in Britain would have a certain 'novelty' image. However they are more expensive to purchase, and at present the priority is to keep frequencies as high as possible. (Privatised bus companies have to make their choice of vehicles on stringent financial criteria). In pursuance of this aim summer 1997 saw an arctic being loaned from the Grampian Regional Transport fleet. This vehicle was an Alexander-bodied Mercedes-Benz 0405G, with the personalised plate of K1 GRT.

Local reaction to the services has been very favourable. Within six weeks of the opening of the guideway bus usage had risen by 9%. Growth continued, and by May 1997 it had risen by a claimed 40% above patronage before the Superbus scheme commenced. Even a fares increase (on all services provided by the Yorkshire Rider Company) did little to slow the increase in patronage. However, as Dr Tebb (the UK's foremost promoter of kerb guided buses) pointed out, this success is primarily the result of a policy of 'whole corridor enhancement'; guided operation may make the journey a little faster, but equally important is the rest of the 'package', including the special livery, quality vehicle interiors, customer care training for drivers, household distribution of timetables and information, positive media profile, etc. In many ways success in Leeds only reinforces experiences gained in Birmingham and Ipswich.

Speaking to local people there was plenty of enthusiasm for the improvements, but also a certain amount of dismay at the constant vandalism of the enclosed bus shelters. Apparently, the night before the official opening one bus shelter was given a police guard - to ensure all its glass was still intact the next morning! Other comments included that riding the guided section was no different to anywhere else and locating the bus stops in the guideway improves road safety (some years ago this lady saw a car crash into a bus whilst stationary at a stop which, because there was not a 'pull-in' was located in the normal carriageway).

The above was (mostly) written in 1996. According to a study by the Transport Research Laboratory conducted in 1999, the private trackage results in buses now saving up to two minutes per journey with variability in journey times down by 75%. Furthermore, despite the need to keep calling at bus stops the ability to side-step traffic congestion make some rush hours bus journeys faster than cars. These factors, together with some other improvements (more direct routes, better vehicles, etc.,) have seen patronage rise by 6%. Surprisingly, other traffic has also benefited by almost 50 second reductions in journey durations - this is assumed to be because buses waiting at bus stops no longer block traffic lanes.

According to the Leeds City Council website "the 450 metres of outbound guideway saves up to 3 minutes per bus in the afternoon peak and the 800 metres of inbound guideway saves up to 5 minutes per bus in the morning peak. All sections create absolute consistency in bus running times peak and off-peak, thereby enhancing service regularity and punctuality. The final phase of 400m of guideway opened in July 1998 and this too has achieved timesaving benefits."

In addition to just installing guided busways, the bus stops on the guided section were upgraded to light rail standard, featuring level boarding, tactile paving and good quality shelters whilst away from the guideway a form of 'bus docking' was introduced which uses the guide wheel arrangement to allow buses to pull up close to the kerb, facilitating level access for passengers with mobility problems. Also included is automatic vehicle detection equipment which gives buses priority as they approach signalled junctions.

More in West Yorkshire...

On 5th November 2001 the second tranche of guided busway opened in Leeds. Marketed under the name of 'elite' and costing about £16 million it features a total of 2.1km (1 ⅓rd mile) of guided busway plus 2.6km (1 ⅔rds miles) of new (unguided) bus lanes on York Road and Selby Road in East Leeds.

For this scheme over 330 bus stops have been reconstructed and 150 shelters replaced, plus all stops raised to 160mm at the kerb to allow easier access on to the dedicated fleet of low-floor easy access buses. The new shelters are modern in design, with internal lighting and a large area of 'transparency' so that waiting passengers can see all around them as well as being seen by others. The roof is also transparent to allow in more daylight. The shelters also feature improved information displays, which are larger and easier to read. As part of the high-profile publicity scheme all new shelters are red and cream in colour and can also be identified by their purple "half-moon" ends and purple timetable cases. The intention is that if passengers see a bus shelter featuring the elite scheme's purple, they can have confidence that it will be served by the new 'elite' buses. In due course it is intended to introduce a 'real time information' system using global positioning satellite technology.

This scheme is also innovative because two competing bus operators (First and ARRIVA Yorkshire) are involved; between them they have invested heavily (£6 million!) in a total of over 40 new 78-seater double-decker buses, enabling passengers to travel in style and comfort. However there are some other bus companies which also provide services over these sections of road and when elite opened they neither invested in new vehicles, nor equipped their exisiting buses with guide-wheels - which means that they cannot use the new guided busway. This means that in places there are two sets of bus stops for buses travelling in the same direction - one each on and off the guideway. It remains to be seen whether they find it commercially desirable to fit guide-wheels to their buses.

Hot on the heels of the opening of Leeds's second guided busway another Yorkshire city has opened its first installation. This was on the 31st January 2002 and is in nearby Bradford. Here there are five sections totalling 2.3km (1½) of guided busway which form part of a 3.7km (2¼ miles) Quality Bus Initiative along the A641 Manchester Road. This installation includes 11 new traffic light-controlled pedestrian crossings, new footpaths, seats, plus major landscaping which has seen the planting of thousands of bulbs and shrubs and scores of trees.

Perversely the opening of the Bradford guided busway was accompanied by a 25% reduction in the parallel road's speed limit (from 40mph to 30mph [65km/h - 50km/h]). Unfortunately this creates the impression that faster, better & generally more attractive bus transports can only be achieved if car travel is made slower and less attractive. This lunacy suggests that the transport planners have fallen prey to the luddite anti-car ideology of "lets screw the motorist in every which way we can" instead of following what is the only true solution to traffic congestion - this being improving the public transports in their own right so that those people who have a choice (ie: car users!) will see them to provide positive alternative choices to driving.