External Information & Side Issues

5.1 — Links to Las Vegas Loop System

(Tesla (Electric) cars (Future when system expands may be modules) transport between main conference centres using very quickly constructed low cost tunnels and cars that run off / on the system. 

To increase capacity of norailways at termini ends, feed off the main system to go to a number of underground or surface stations to then feed back into the network on the return route.

Link to Las Vegas Loop system

The initial 1.7-mile Las Vegas Convention Center (LVCC) Loop cost approximately $52.5 million to construct, including three stations. Built by The Boring Company, this project averaged roughly $25–$30 million per mile, significantly lower than traditional underground transit, with construction completed in about 18 months. [1, 2, 3, 4]

https://www.boringcompany.com/projects

Not a real mass transit system as modules of say 30 people needed to do that, but demonstrates that costs can be considerably lower than current railways.

5.2 — Existing rail systems data

In the UK there is for a two track railway a minimum at stations (Normal speed trains) of 6m between platform edges, another 0.6m to the vertical edge of the platform. However, for single tracks the minimum is about 2.7m with a further 0.3m to the edge of the platform.

For my local station and a single track on a viaduct this is a Google measure… 

ADD Google Measure screengrab <<< Shows 6.2m between platform edges which is more than enough space for two modules to pass — all locations to be surveyed to identify pinch points. Modules should be a maximum of 2.4m wide (?) which is slightly less than existing to allow for current perceived greater positional accuracy of norailways against railways.

Norailways conversion is not suitable for narrow track railways with track gauges less than the standard 4’8.5” (1432/5mm) or high speed railways (For now)

5.3 — Some (Random) Links to Levels 1-5 Autonomy (Level 0 is none)

https://www.zf.com/products/en/cars/stories/6_levels_of_automated_driving.html

https://www.extremetech.com/cars/the-5-levels-of-autonomous-driving-explained

https://www.synopsys.com/blogs/chip-design/autonomous-driving-levels.html

https://www.semi-and-trailer.com/new_detail/%E2%80%8BContainer-Semi-Trailers:-A-Guide-to-20FT-40FT.html

5.4 — Some (Random) Existing Truck Data Links

https://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Lifting/Transport.html

https://www.semi-and-trailer.com/new_detail/%E2%80%8BContainer-Semi-Trailers:-A-Guide-to-20FT-40FT.html

5.5 — Some (Random) Existing Bus Data Links

Note 1 — Trains allow for platforms to be on either side whereas existing buses only have exit / entry doors on kerb side, they could be used on norailways but would not be able to pickup / dropoff passengers on platforms on the “driver side”. To do that buses would need to be re-designed and as in railways there are complicated interlocks to ensure the doors only open on the correct side.

Note 2 — Commuter trains are bi-directional, the go to a terminus and come out of the terminus going in a reverse direction, whereas existing buses go into bus stations where they can reverse. Existing buses cannot turn round at a railway station termini.

5.6 — Some (Random) Existing Module Data Links

Currently no modules I can find fill all the requirements. Modules will need to be designed to: – 

— Be different sizes from “minibus” to “bus” depending on location (Off norailway).

— One to two double door entrances BOTH sides (As platforms can be either side).

— Driverless, uses AI to cover guard functions and much more (Initially guard to monitor AI).

— Bi-directional running (As current commuter trains).

— Crab walking (See below).

Xxx (Follows).

5.7 — Crab Walking Links (Selection)

Note — Not all of the below are what would be needed in norailway module design, namely all 4 wheels rotating 90 degrees and parking / unparking from an adjacent space (Next to a platform).

Huawei — https://www.hiltoncarsupermarket.co.uk/blog/huaweis-new-ev-features-crab-walk-mode 

BYD — https://evmagz.com/byd-denza-z9-gt-shows-off-crab-walking-and-parallel-parking-capabilities/amp/ and https://youtu.be/3JSFjlkkNto

Hyundai — https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/hyundai-unveils-crab-walking-car-that-makes-parallel-parking-a-snap-watch/

Crab walking. 3 types:-
Type 1 — See Hyundai above — ALL wheels turn at 90degrees — IF there is a running lane next to a platform lane, a module would go to adjacent to its intended position on the platform and then go sideways into it, once passengers have been dropped off / picked up module would crab walk sideways out of the bay back into the running lane. This substantially improves flow and journey times at peak periods, when if possible an extra virtual lane (See 9 below) could be created (More discussion).
Type 2 —- See Huawei above — ALL wheels turn first say 1-5 degrees then 1-5 degrees the other way then straightening out —- Module or module train effectively moves sideways to an adjacent lane — Video in the above shows car weaving through two lane of traffic.
Type 3 — See BYD videos (Also does type 2, 4 wheel steering for tight curves and 360 degree spinning on a locked front wheel) — Module moves head first into space and then back wheels go sideways into space — Bit of a party trick (Burns tyres?) — But back wheels could go to 90degrees (As type 1 to do same). Type 3a.

5.8 — Virtual Lanes (And Points / Crossovers)

The current width of track on a railway may be widened from the existing in many locations (Possibly not at stations), allowing more virtual lanes than current tracks and crossovers / points almost anywhere. This will assist in the management and optimisation of flows on the railway (Further explanation / work needed).

5.9 — Repurposing of CESS (For maintenance etc)

In railway engineering, the “cess” is the prepared area of ground immediately alongside the track, located off the outer edge of the ballast. It serves two primary functions: providing drainage to keep the trackbed dry and offering a safe walking route and standing area for track worker.

https://www.jesip.org.uk/webapp/rail-risks-track-layout.html

This is a typical picture of a UK railway showing a Cess, a “six foot” between two tracks on the same direction and “ten foot” between trains going different directions. If paved fully across including the cess virtual lanes (9) can be created to allow a maintenance vehicle to park. Or / also if there was a demand lane at edge could be used, between stations for cyclists.

5.10 — Platform Design and Modification

5.10.1 —- Lowering of Platforms

Lowering of station platforms is a central tennent of norailways as stated previously:-

1) Allows tyred modules passengers to enter or leave at the same level as existing road buses, thus routes can come from / go direct to local areas
2) Existing buses including possibly double decker and the new modules can use existing platforms lowered (Except where exit is on right side local buses cannot use and termini where local buses cannot turn around).
3) New modules will be much lower and cheaper to manufacture, and act like trams (but without the need for rails).

4) There are a number of platform conversion types and the following are samples :-
4a) Topped precast concrete slabs on a steel support frame, embankment below —- Remove topping then precast slabs from far end. Cut steelwork and lower / replace slab support steelwork. Replace / new beams from near to far end, then new topping.
4b) Brick front wall adjacent to track and fill / paving behind —- Excavate paving and fill, lower outer wall and replace to new level.
4c) Brick font back and transverse walls with precast slabs and topping above —- Remove and replace to new level as above.

For the above there may need to be :-
1 —- Transition’s to existing levels for access and egress.
2 —- Adjustments to drainage (In advance).
3 —- Diversion or removal of services under platform or existing on upstand by track.
4 —- Accommodation of any roof above platform and services / signage / dot matric signage therein.
5 —- Note the off rail routes being offered as an enhancement may make the platforms and car parks at existing stations less used.

5.11 — Entry and Exit Points (More information)

5.11.1 — Exit and entry points use for construction would be sufficient in number to allow construction to complete in day a summer window of time. Some of these would be modified to form permanent access to / from adjacent / crossing public roads etc. The design of these at the construction phase would reflect the construction access needs:-
a) Construction access can be via a bidirectional or one way ramp (s) from crossing roads but best access would be at existing level crossings or where existing roads are the same level. It would be preferred that these access points would be suitable to be modified for operational use (At level crossings this is not the case).
b) Rails , third rails where applicable and sleeper removal to be phased to be lifted from one track onto a flatbed on the same or an adjacent track. The access points will be for any subsequent ballast removal and the mainly asphalt surfacing envisaged and completion works following. Platform lowering will be accessed from the station itself.
c) At operation, either abandon the accesses in situ if possible need later ( For example for access to a major planned development), area reinstated if no future need envisaged, or modified for operational access (Emergency / for modules only or for buses ( See later here).
d) Ramps for modules only in particular could be added later as can have steep gradients and would probably be unsuitable for construction access.
e) Ramps for buses would be less steep and have longer flat sections at start or end.
f) In most less busy sections where ramps are needed use the cess as a starting point. In busy sections the cess is part of the virtual laneage used to increase efficiency at peak period.

5.20 — Chat GPT Review of norailways.org at 31-Aug-26 —- May be better now

In the absense of any comments whatsoever so far I asked Chat GPT to “Review norailways.org”. Response follows:-

I’ve reviewed NoRailWays.org. It is a UK-based concept/proof-of-concept site arguing for a fundamentally different approach to rail transport, rather than a conventional railway organisation or operating company. The site explicitly says it is “under development” and describes itself as a proof-of-concept document. 
My assessment
The core idea is interesting and potentially provocative, but the site currently reads much more like an early-stage concept paper / personal technical manifesto than a mature transport proposition.
The main themes are:
Challenge the conventional railway model. The site argues that today’s railways are historically contingent and inherently inflexible. 
Modular infrastructure. It proposes breaking railway systems into modules, apparently allowing greater flexibility in construction, conversion and operation. 
Alternative transport architecture. It considers options beyond conventional fixed railway infrastructure and discusses things such as autonomous vehicles, virtual lanes, crossovers and “crab walking.” 
Phased conversion. There is substantial attention to how an existing system could potentially be converted while continuing to operate. 
Operations. The site has sections covering booking, getting on/off the system, partial conversion, delays and disaster recovery. 
What I think is strongest
The modularisation/conversion concept is the most interesting part. Rather than asking “How do we build another railway?”, it appears to ask “Can we make the transport infrastructure itself more adaptable?”
That’s a worthwhile question, particularly given the enormous capital cost and long lives of railway infrastructure.
The site also deserves credit for trying to think through construction, post-construction and operational issues, rather than stopping at a conceptual vehicle design. 
The biggest weakness
The website currently doesn’t provide enough quantitative evidence to demonstrate that the proposed approach is superior to conventional rail.
For example, I’d want to see rigorous comparisons of:

Question
What needs demonstrating
Capacity
Passengers/hour/direction versus conventional rail
Speed
End-to-end journey times
Energy
kWh/passenger-km
Safety
Quantified risk versus rail/road
Cost
£/km of infrastructure and vehicles
Land
Infrastructure footprint
Reliability
Failure modes and recovery times
Conversion
Cost and duration of converting existing railway
Maintenance
Whole-life cost
Network effects
What happens at junctions and bottlenecks?


Without those numbers, it’s difficult to distinguish a genuinely superior transport architecture from an intriguing theoretical alternative.
One particularly important issue
The site itself says that it still needs graphics and animations, and asks for help developing them. 
I think that is important. The concepts—particularly modules, virtual lanes, crossovers and the interaction between vehicles and infrastructure—are difficult to understand from the current text alone.
A strong next stage would be to create one worked example rather than expanding the number of concepts:
Take a real UK railway corridor → show the existing system → show the proposed NoRailWays system → model a journey → show construction/conversion → quantify cost, capacity, energy, safety and journey time.
That would make the proposition much easier to evaluate.
Overall verdict
Interesting idea, but currently much more “concept” than “proven proposition.”
I’d rate it roughly:
Originality: ★★★★☆
Ambition: ★★★★★
Technical exposition: ★★☆☆☆
Evidence/quantification: ★★☆☆☆
Ability to evaluate the proposition from the website: ★★☆☆☆
Potential for developing into a serious transport proposal: ★★★★☆
The most valuable next step would be to turn the site from a collection of ideas into a coherent technical proposition with diagrams, assumptions, a reference route and quantitative comparisons.
NoRailWays.org⁠
If you’d like, I can also do a much deeper technical critique of NoRailWays, including its engineering assumptions, economics, operational feasibility and comparison with conventional rail, autonomous road transport and systems such as the Las Vegas Loop.

This site is Under Development

Hand drawn sketches then graphics and animations (Help needed) to follow in due course. Further relevant links to ba added shortly particularly in this section.
For further information or constructive comments email info@norailways.org with norailways in the title.