# Parry Peoplemover



## Guest_Birdy_* (Jan 10, 2009)

Have you guys heard of the Parry PeopleMover? Does it work? Can it be hot-rodded to work at 70+ MPH?

Basically, its a glorified bus with a flywheel and engine system that operates on a railed carriageway. Between the rail and the flywheel, its highly energy efficient. The stuff I saw on the web was a little third-worldish sounding, but I dunno. In principle, it would allow a light rail system to be deployed pretty cheaply since it doesn't require much of a track or electrification.

On our standard-gauge but low-population density Railrunner train here in NM, it seems to me that something like that could be used to fill in the gaps on the schedule. For example, there is nearly a five hour gap between the last morning train arrival and the first afternoon train depature. A mid-afternoon run of such a vehicle (holding maybe 100 sitting passengers and getting maybe 12 mpg, with only one driver) would nicely fill the gap at relatively low cost. It could be used to serve the small suburb (Eldorado) 25 miles away along the state owned but unimproved track. It could be used to make low-volume runs on weekends. Perhaps some intra-city runs could be squeezed in as well.

It seems to me that there would also be opportunities for light-rail only line extensions of the system. That is, standard gauge but light rail only (and moderate speed) feeders could be branched off from the main line without breaking the bank.

Oh well, another internet pipe dream. Go ahead and burst it now.


----------



## jamesontheroad (Jan 10, 2009)

It has worked, and will be working again shortly (if not already) on the 0.8 mile Stourbridge Town branch line in the UK. However this is a five minute shuttle between a mainline railway station and a town station, and has only been brought in because there was less and less justification for a single carriage DMU to be used on such a short line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stourbridge_Town_Branch_Line

Considering that heavier DMUs used throughout Europe seem unacceptable to most North American rail passengers on the grounds of collision weight, I doubt very much that anyone would ever accept a Parry People Mover in the US. I'd suggest looking at the various full size mainline DMUs in use over here. Ottawa have trialled a trio of Bombardier Talent DMUs for a few years on their O-Train line; that might suit your city (which, I must confess, I am not familiar with).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-Train

*j* :blink:


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 10, 2009)

jamesbrownontheroad said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stourbridge_Town_Branch_Line
> Considering that heavier DMUs used throughout Europe seem unacceptable to most North American rail passengers on the grounds of collision weight, I doubt very much that anyone would ever accept a Parry People Mover in the US.


If the passenger track for the Stourbridge Town Branch Line is isolated from the mainline such that a freight train cannot physically get itself onto the Stourbridge Town Branch Line no matter how the switches are aligned and no matter how stupid the engineer and conductor are being, then I think it's actually something the FRA in the US wouldn't have any problem with, as subway / light rail systems whose track is isolated from the national rail system don't have to comply with an awful lot of the FRA regulations. However, the typical commuter rail system in the US runs on tracks that do carry varying degrees of freight (everything from freight railroad owned tracks that carry a few passenger trains a day, to the reverse), and therefore vehicles used there would need to meet the full FRA crashworthiness requirements, unless perhaps the FRA grants a waiver based upon time of day separation or some other sort of waiver (such as is used with the Talgo trainsets).

It seems that the main ``advantage'' the Parry People Mover offers over an ordinary streetcar is that the Parry People Mover requires a fuel source of which there is not a sufficient supply in the US (unless the hydrogen option mentioned on their website turns out to be more viable than I'm suspecting it is), whereas an ordinary streetcar with an overhead power line can easily be made to operate on a wide variety of energy sources which are available in plentiful quanties in the US (regardless of whether you think wind, solar, nuclear, or coal is the right answer, we have plenty of all of those domestically).


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> It seems that the main ``advantage'' the Parry People Mover offers over an ordinary streetcar is that the Parry People Mover requires a fuel source of which there is not a sufficient supply in the US (unless the hydrogen option mentioned on their website turns out to be more viable than I'm suspecting it is), whereas an ordinary streetcar with an overhead power line can easily be made to operate on a wide variety of energy sources which are available in plentiful quanties in the US (regardless of whether you think wind, solar, nuclear, or coal is the right answer, we have plenty of all of those domestically).


Overhead electrification is expensive, and as a result is not applied so some "commuter light rail" routes, such as the Sprinter in San Diego, River Line in New Jersey, and planned SMART in Northern California (none of which are FRA-compliant). The flywheel drive might offer faster acceleration from stops than some convention DMU systems (though diesel-electric DMUs can have this benefit as well), and allow emissions or noise to be reduced when traveling through sensitive areas.

In addition, overhead electrification is often considered unacceptable in historic city centres (including e.g. Washington DC). Versions of the Parry People Mover can "charge" their flywheel with an electric motor at stops (if sufficiently frequent) and use it for power while moving, which might in some circumstances be preferable to battery storage (though I do not know the relative efficiencies of the two technologies).

This said, the Parry People Mover seems to be a favourite of pie-in-the-sky plans for rail service on routes that barely justify it, and remains relatively unproven.


----------



## jamesontheroad (Jan 11, 2009)

The Parry People Mover in use in Stourbridge is diesel, which I would imagine is the most likely motive option for any American scenario. If you go to the expense of electrifying a line, you might as well buy some full size commuter EMU stock 

The Ottawa O-Train does share its track with the occasional freight, although I believe there is some government exception such as freights only at night when the train isn't in service. An interesting operation detail of that mixed useage track is that the European Talent DMUs have narrower bodies than North American stock, so special platform extenders have to be used for the platforms. These can be folded out of the way when a freight uses the line, so that the train doesn't foul the limited clearance of the DMU.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 11, 2009)

Guest said:


> Overhead electrification is expensive, and as a result is not applied so some "commuter light rail" routes, such as the Sprinter in San Diego, River Line in New Jersey, and planned SMART in Northern California (none of which are FRA-compliant).


This is partly about cost, and partly about politics. Remember that our outgoing President and Vice President have ties to Haliburton, which is in the oil business, whereas Obama has promised to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Reducing oil dependence by electrifying passenger mass transit has some real benefits for national security, and last I checked we weren't too concerned about how expensive national security can be.

Where those dollars of construction cost go is also an important question. We should be thinking not so much about ``saving dollars'', but of matching available American labor to valuable work. If there are Americans whose options turn out to be electrifying passenger and freight routes or collecting unemployment checks, why not pay those Americans to do useful work instead of paying them seemingly smaller numbers of dollars to do nothing? I'd be a lot more interested in listening to those opposed to electrifying rail lines and bus routes if their argument took the form that there were not enough American workers available to perform that work relative to the other possible priorities for those workers. I haven't figured out how to do a detailed survey of the specific skill sets of various workers, but I thought I have heard something about how there lately has been a huge supply of workers in general relative to demand.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 11, 2009)

jamesbrownontheroad said:


> The Parry People Mover in use in Stourbridge is diesel, which I would imagine is the most likely motive option for any American scenario. If you go to the expense of electrifying a line, you might as well buy some full size commuter EMU stock


The MBTA's Mattapan Line and the D branch of the MBTA's Green Line are perfectly good examples of former steam railroads that now operate with electric streetcars. I think the Mattapan Line bridges might not even be strong enough for full size commuter equipment.



jamesbrownontheroad said:


> The Ottawa O-Train does share its track with the occasional freight, although I believe there is some government exception such as freights only at night when the train isn't in service. An interesting operation detail of that mixed useage track is that the European Talent DMUs have narrower bodies than North American stock, so special platform extenders have to be used for the platforms. These can be folded out of the way when a freight uses the line, so that the train doesn't foul the limited clearance of the DMU.


Ottawa is in Canada, not the US. That has got to make the regulatory environment a little different. The Canadians are also perfectly happy running trains faster than 80 MPH with no cab signaling or automatic train stop.

Platform clearance is a problem in US commuter rail service with US built rolling stock, too. The standard passenger car width used in the northeast in conjunction with high level platforms is narrower than some freight cars, which can be another reason not to install full length high level platforms along commuter rail routes at stations where freight traffic may occasionally pass through (in addition to the cost of constructing the platform). (It's certainly possible to build a freight bypass track if there's space and money for it, but freight compatibility often adds to the inertia to keep the low-level platforms.)


----------



## AlanB (Jan 11, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Overhead electrification is expensive, and as a result is not applied so some "commuter light rail" routes, such as the Sprinter in San Diego, River Line in New Jersey, and planned SMART in Northern California (none of which are FRA-compliant).
> ...


While I can't speak about Sprinter, I'm quite sure that Bush/Channy/Haliburton/Oil had nothing to do with the selection of DMU's for the River Line. Diesel was chosen because for much of the run, the light rail trains run on freight tracks and they didn't want overhead wiring in the way of double stacks. Additionally, they broke ground on the line in May of 2000, the year that Bush became President. DMU's were selected before Bush became President, and probably even before he was elected President.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 11, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> jamesbrownontheroad said:
> 
> 
> > The Parry People Mover in use in Stourbridge is diesel, which I would imagine is the most likely motive option for any American scenario. If you go to the expense of electrifying a line, you might as well buy some full size commuter EMU stock
> ...


While it's not streetcars, all of the NYC Subway lines that terminate at Coney Island were once steam RR's for at least part of the current runs.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 11, 2009)

AlanB said:


> While I can't speak about Sprinter, I'm quite sure that Bush/Channy/Haliburton/Oil had nothing to do with the selection of DMU's for the River Line. Diesel was chosen because for much of the run, the light rail trains run on freight tracks and they didn't want overhead wiring in the way of double stacks. Additionally, they broke ground on the line in May of 2000, the year that Bush became President. DMU's were selected before Bush became President, and probably even before he was elected President.


That's a good point that our habit of not electrifying predates the Bush administration.

But I don't think electrification is really incompatible with double stack freight at all. Aside from bridges and tunnels, catenary can just be placed a little higher to leave room for them, and 600 V third rail ought to be a viable option in areas with limited clearance, and locomotives that run off a mix of electricty sources ought to be pratical.


----------



## George Harris (Jan 13, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > While I can't speak about Sprinter, I'm quite sure that Bush/Channy/Haliburton/Oil had nothing to do with the selection of DMU's for the River Line. Diesel was chosen because for much of the run, the light rail trains run on freight tracks and they didn't want overhead wiring in the way of double stacks. Additionally, they broke ground on the line in May of 2000, the year that Bush became President. DMU's were selected before Bush became President, and probably even before he was elected President.
> ...


There is no technological or any other reason that I know that would prevent electrification of lines with sufficient clearance to handle double stack trains. The old Pennsylvania Railroad electrification set the wire at 22 feet and in some areas 23 feet above the rail where overpasses and other structures permitted. The allowed height limit *today* on double stacks is 20'-2". There have been studies of electrifying lines that show that, given the efficiency of current day diesel engines the energy saving in electrification is close to nil. People tend to forget about the rather large line losses in the distribution system. It is only when we have much of our electricity from non "fossil fuel" sources that electrification begins to make sense for the sake of energy, and only if the fixed plant generation of electrifcation becomes much cheaper will it make economic sense to electrify. At this time the main place railroad electrifcation makes sense is for short haul multiple stop passenger services. Therefore it is no accident that the lines that carry significant amouts of this type traffic, and that includes the northeast corridor, are the ones that pull thier power from the wire. It will also make sense for very high speed services where the power requirements and desirable weigth restrictions make diesels impractical.

I am also tired of hearing Bush blamed for everything under the sun. It is mostly pure nonsense.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 13, 2009)

George Harris said:


> It is only when we have much of our electricity from non "fossil fuel" sources that electrification begins to make sense for the sake of energy, and only if the fixed plant generation of electrifcation becomes much cheaper will it make economic sense to electrify.


Even with coal plants, there is some potential benefit to reducing the amount of energy the US has to import.


----------



## Guest_Birdy_* (Jan 15, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > It is only when we have much of our electricity from non "fossil fuel" sources that electrification begins to make sense for the sake of energy, and only if the fixed plant generation of electrifcation becomes much cheaper will it make economic sense to electrify.
> ...



Well, yes, the perfect is the enemy of the good. Cal High speed train initiative people say the carbon footprint for high speed is 6X less than airplane and 20% less than conventional train. Remember, from an environmental standpoint, there is 20% nuke in the mix, and a rising component of "green" energy, so there is that built in advantage from a CO2 standpoint.

Lets look at the numbers: A large, fast, TGV train operating at full chat in difficult terrain pulls as far as I can tell, 4.4 MW. Wholesale price of a MW is maybe $50. Electricity production is viewed as having a generation, transmission and distribution component. TGV is its own distribution, so the cost is only for generation and transmission over high voltage powerlines. So the cost is $550 in juice per hour. Train ride for 500 people takes maybe 3.5 hours. so that translates into $4 or $5 in fuel cost per passenger on 350 mile trip, on a moderately loaded (75% load capacity) trip.

Conventional diesel railroad gets 2 mpg for the locomotive alone. Add Four cars pulling 120 passengers apiece gets about 3/4 mpg. Since I hypothesize that our railroad is government owned, it skips all taxes on the diesel and pays $2.50 per gallon. So 350 mile trip is 425 gallons, so the fuel cost is maybe $2.50 per passenger. So yes, I suppose there is a tiny fuel savings on the conventional diesel of fifty cents per hour per passenger. (I used a fairly extravagant figure for the TGV, however both in terms of passenger load and fuel use). But really, I'd say the cost gets lost in the noise. Given that it would take the conventional train 6 hours to cover the distance, its a safe bet that at least a hundred passengers would take the airplane instead, at a fuel cost 6X that of our diesel, much more than canceling out any savings over the TGV (I found out that this effect is called the 'El Farol Bar Problem' in game theory).

It seems to me that since high speed train requires its own right-of-way, and has high voltage power lines anyway, the prudent planner would include enough space to allow high voltage powerlines for the use of other load. This would increase the overall efficiency of the power grid in general, and would help offset the cost of running the high speed train.

Applying "El Farol Bar Problem" to the Parry People mover, you have to weigh the value of the optimal, electrical, system deployed at some time in the future, against the very good, but less than optimal diesel engine with flywheel system that is deployed now.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 16, 2009)

Guest_Birdy_* said:


> It seems to me that since high speed train requires its own right-of-way, and has high voltage power lines anyway, the prudent planner would include enough space to allow high voltage powerlines for the use of other load. This would increase the overall efficiency of the power grid in general, and would help offset the cost of running the high speed train.


Doesn't stringing 132 kV power lines directly above the tracks increase the safety risks if the lines fall down, vs putting them a couple hundred feet or more away from the tracks?

I also suspect that the costs of installing the 132 kV or whatever lines are closely related to the distribution charges utilities charge their customers, such that there may not be great savings in doing this.


----------



## birdy (Jan 19, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Guest_Birdy_* said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to me that since high speed train requires its own right-of-way, and has high voltage power lines anyway, the prudent planner would include enough space to allow high voltage powerlines for the use of other load. This would increase the overall efficiency of the power grid in general, and would help offset the cost of running the high speed train.
> ...


Well, I was just speculating that the high speed rail right of way might also double as an electric transmission corridor, although not on the same wires, since there would be a fairly disruptive right of way to install the catenary and track anyway. Much as the existing railroad right of way doubles as fiber optic and telecom right of way. ("Sprint" is actually an acronym for Southern Pacific Railroad International Telecom). Utility guys have very cut and dried standards as to the height and placement of the wires, depending on the voltage the wire carries. I wouldn't think that proximity to a railroad line would be a particular problem, as that is a fairly common circumstance in heavily industrialized areas and a line drop would stop the trains. I suppose a line could fall on a train, but so could the catenary.

You are correct that the HV line for the train is almost the functional equivalent of the distribution part of the electric grid, capitalized in the cost of the train system. So The train would be running on wholesale power, plus transmission cost, which is about 60% of what you and I pay for electricity. To the extent the extra transmission capacity could be rented, the operating costs of the system could be mitigated, perhaps to a slightly below wholesale cost for the electricity.


----------



## Derwent Park Junction (Jan 22, 2009)

http://www.parrypeoplemovers.com/

This Parry newsletter has info on planned broadening of usage to the established (in Europe) Tram-Train concept to be trialled in northern U.K.

http://www.parrypeoplemovers.com/newsletter52-count.htm

Apparently Parry also have a US based partnership Parry Transit

http://www.digitalfox.co.uk/parrytransit/p...ement-count.htm

Cheers,

*DPJ*


----------



## Sealink (Jan 23, 2009)

The Stourbridge Town service has been beset with delays - the Parry People Mover still has not got final clearance to operate the line, so the DMU is gone, and it's a replacement bus for the time being. The line also has an extremely steep gradient, so the Parry People Mover would be ideal for it.

Here it on test

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...eople_Mover.jpg


----------

