Stop me if this sounds familiar!
At least in Chile, they’re really trains though!
Paris uses them too. The primary benefit is noise reduction.
Montreal as well. Apparently another benefit is quicker acceleration and deceleration, meaning you can have greater density of stations without heavily impacting transit times.
A big downside for Montreal though is cold weather operation. Steel wheels aren’t affected as much by ice and snow, meaning that regular trains can operate on the surface or in a tunnel, whichever makes the most sense for the geography. Rubber tired cars need above freezing temperatures or they’ll have traction problems. This has forced Montreal to keep its metro system below ground even in areas where at grade would have made more sense.
The Brisbane Metro is such a disappointing missed opportunity.
That said, I really don’t understand the appeal of rubber-tyred true metros either. They seem like a worst-of-both-worlds situation. You still get the pollution of microplastics and maintenance costs caused by the tyres wearing down, and you lack the flexibility of a bus.
Ah the Paris and Montreal squeaky trains!
This seems to be combining the worst bits of both transport methods…
Does it squeak like a dog chew toy / oversized novelty clown hammer as it drives around?
It’s surprisingly quiet, though you can feel the difference in the way it travels
Montreal too
