Return of trolleybuses to Hobart and Lauceston

[Myrtone]

Why what?

[Myrtone]

And why is there still no answer after all this time? Here is a photo of a Launceston trolleybus:
And a photo of a Hobart trolleybus:

[1whoknows]

From whom were you expecting an answer?
Were you not advised to lobby government instead of prattling on here?
Have you done that?

[tonyp]

For less dense routes a fully electric bus can do everything a trolley bus can do without the poles and wires.

I've only just come across this discussion. I can't keep up with the pace of where Myrtone pops up next!

This isn't exactly correct. A trolleybus has 100% operational availability with no downtime, compared to a battery-electric or combustion-engined bus. It really is a quite superior type of bus (for passenger comfort too) IF you're prepared to take on the extra capital costs. Static battery buses (requiring stationary recharge) still have a significant downtime (including dwell time) and range issue. The better technology that's coming to the fore now is the dynamic electric bus that runs on battery and can be recharged on the move on shorter sections of overhead wire.

I remember riding the Hobart trolleybuses. They really were a very nice passenger experience compared to the typical British diesel bus that dominated government fleets at the time. If the technology of extended running off-wire on batteries had been available at the time, I'm sure some of these old systems in English-speaking countries might have survived, as they would have had operational flexibility, the lack of which at the time would have been one of the main reasons for killing them off.

[Myrtone]

A trolleybus has 100% operational availability with no downtime, compared to a battery-electric or combustion-engined bus. It really is a quite superior type of bus (for passenger comfort too) IF you're prepared to take on the extra capital costs. Static battery buses (requiring stationary recharge) still have a significant downtime (including dwell time) and range issue. The better technology that's coming to the fore now is the dynamic electric bus that runs on battery and can be recharged on the move on shorter sections of overhead wire.

Isn't the dynamic electric bus just like a trolleybus with an auxiliary battery pack, only that the latter uses external electricity by default?
Static electric buses can be charged at various points along a route if scheduled correctly with the right infrastructure in place.

I remember riding the Hobart trolleybuses. They really were a very nice passenger experience compared to the typical British diesel bus that dominated government fleets at the time. If the technology of extended running off-wire on batteries had been available at the time, I'm sure some of these old systems in English-speaking countries might have survived, as they would have had operational flexibility, the lack of which at the time would have been one of the main reasons for killing them off.

Are you referring to diesel buses that already had engines under floors?
By the way, rechargeable batteries did exist and I've read that Brisbane trolleybuses did have them. But maybe other large enough vehicles (like trucks) would have shared the wires with trolleybuses had auxiliary batteries been more widely available.

[Myrtone]

Even now, battery buses only capable of charging while stationary are either heavier for their capacity than trollebuses or have more limited range that those with internal combustion engines.

[1whoknows]

Given that both Hobart and Launceston are commencing trials of battery electric buses soon, I think we can conclude trolleybuses are not on their horizon, now or ever. There are many parts of the world where you can sample trolleybuses. Australia is not one of them. I enjoyed visiting regional cities in Hungary and Czech Republic earlier this year where I sampled 6 trolleybus systems outside of capital cities. But they've all been in existence for many decades. None of the systems are new but existing fleets are being refreshed with new trolleys in many places.

[Myrtone]

Prague has a new trolleybus system and it is being expanded.

Also, even before battery buses were trialled, trolleybuses were not on the horizon.

[rtt_rules]

Trolley Bus tech is old hat now and realistically we may only see minor route extensions on existing networks.

In Chinese city of Jinan I noticed that despite the extensive trolley bus OH and trolley buses, few trolley buses were actually using the poles. I think what they have done is installed larger Li batteries and largely run wire free, but on short sections or waiting at bus stops they raise the poles to recharge the battery's but mostly drive with the constraints of using the OH.

My feeling is that Battery tech has now out paced trolley system and I think we will just see BEV buses rolled out charging in depos over night and/or during the day when out of service in a depo. Unfortunately /ironically they lead to curtailment or even closure of the trolley bus networks in the future.

[boronia]

In-service charging would allow the use of smaller batteries in the buses, and would reduce the power demand in depots for static charging.

[Myrtone]

Trolley Bus tech is old hat now and realistically we may only see minor route extensions on existing networks.

In Chinese city of Jinan I noticed that despite the extensive trolley bus OH and trolley buses, few trolley buses were actually using the poles. I think what they have done is installed larger Li batteries and largely run wire free, but on short sections or waiting at bus stops they raise the poles to recharge the battery's but mostly drive with the constraints of using the OH.

My feeling is that Battery tech has now out paced trolley system and I think we will just see BEV buses rolled out charging in depos over night and/or during the day when out of service in a depo. Unfortunately /ironically they lead to curtailment or even closure of the trolley bus networks in the future.

And yet some trolleybus power networks are being expanded, and Skoda transportation is even testing a new trolleybus model.

[rtt_rules]

Interesting looking back at this thread 12mth later.

The move towards BEV buses is only increasing. While there are some trolley network expansions and I think the odd greenfield in countries with existing trolley networks, BEV is now very much the leading technology for non combustion fuel buses.

[tonyp]

Interesting looking back at this thread 12mth later.

The move towards BEV buses is only increasing. While there are some trolley network expansions and I think the odd greenfield in countries with existing trolley networks, BEV is now very much the leading technology for non combustion fuel buses.

Lower whole-of-life costs, together with the flexibility available with in-motion charging and higher passenger capacity with less downtime have given trolley systems a new lease of life. They're favoured where there's very heavy use and there's no tram or metro system to do the heavier lifting.

[Myrtone]

All this has given trolleybuses what you describe as a new lease of life, but only on mainland Europe, not elsewhere. Might it be that whole-of-life costs of trolleybuses are lower on mainland Europe but not elsewhere? Only mainland Europe still has enough surviving trolleybuses power networks that there is still a market for standarised trolleybuses.
Battery electric is the leading technology outside Europe, where manufacturers are not tooled for trolleybuses.

[rtt_rules]

All this has given trolleybuses what you describe as a new lease of life, but only on mainland Europe, not elsewhere. Might it be that whole-of-life costs of trolleybuses are lower on mainland Europe but not elsewhere?

Only mainland Europe still has enough surviving trolleybuses power networks that there is still a market for standarised trolleybuses.
Battery electric is the leading technology outside Europe, where manufacturers are not tooled for trolleybuses.

Culture applies to technology.

EU has both technology providers to promote the techology and lobby govts to go down this path plus a culture of the technology already in use the public is familiar with to support the decisions rather than oppose the OH visual impact. Additionally the streets are often narrow with consistent building design making installation of the OH easy.

In places like Australia that hasn't used Trolley Buses for over 50 years the questions are
- why stuff around installing OH and the visual impact, case in point the Sydney L2, L3 and L4
- Building design is less friendly to supporting the OH
- Few people who havn't actively travelled to locations with trolleys and care enough to even look will remember them in use, benefits etc
- No local technology providers leaving govts open to buying what ever technology gives the overall best deal or at least best sales pitch
- EV buses are very simple to install and roll out despite some govt departments making more of a meal of it that should be.

Overall BEV technology is winning the race against combustion fuel buses againt trolley, even in Europe.

[Myrtone]

Perhaps another factor is that all surviving trolleybus systems are in countries with left-hand drive, and I wonder if that might have impact. I am not sure if even most manufacturers on mainland Europe are tooled for right-hand drive buses. Furthermore, I am pretty certain not a single manufacturer in any right-hand drive country is tooled for trolleybuses, keep in mind these might need different roofs in order to accomodate trolleypoles.
So while there are manufacturers (probably only on mainland Europe) that are tooled for trolleybuses and all manufacturers in Australasia/Oceania, Japan and the British Isles are certainly tooled for right-hand drive buses, I am not sure if any manufacturers is both tooled for trolleybuses and right-hand buses.

With that in mind, I wonder how the whole-of-life cost of a right-hand trolleybus would compare to that of a right-hand drive battery only bus.

[tonyp]

BEV technology is also on board trolleybuses, which, nowadays, don't need anywhere as much OHW as they used to. But the battery pack is only small because it's recharged while the bus is in motion under wires, so it doesn't have the weight, therefore the bus can carry more passengers. How does 90 passengers in a battery trolley 12 metre bus or 150 passengers in a battery trolley standard artic sound? (Provided there are sufficient doors and a flat floor!) I've been on them in peaks and it's incredible how many they can take on board compared to our poorly-designed buses here, where our 12 metre battery buses are downrated to about 60 passengers because of weight.

Most non-technical people don't comprehend that an electric bus, whether it's trolley, battery or hydrogen, is a common piece of electric-drive technology from the road right up to the roof line. It's only the method of power collection that differs, whether by trolley, trolley and battery, battery alone or fuel cell with battery. The rest of the bus is a standard chassis and body (or integral), an electric drive and the steering wheel and doors can be on either left or right-hand side as required by the customer.

The biggest surprise for many is that China is also a big manufacturer of trolleybuses, not only for their own systems but for export. Lately, Yutong has been supplying trolleybuses to Central and South America. After all, they're just a battery bus with sticks on the roof, so they're within scope for any competent electric bus manufacturer.

There's also been a considerable propaganda campaign to promote battery buses, which has tended to blot out some basic facts about the technology. The modern battery bus emerged in Europe in the early 2000s, with the in-motion-charging battery trolley. So the technology was established and available for experimentation with pure battery buses, which started appearing on the market about a decade later, which is when China got on board. Marketing, being what it is, tended to boost the straight battery bus by disparaging the "old fashioned" trolleybus (the way they used to disparage old trams vs modern buses).

The most hilarious example was in Wellington (no Kiwi jokes please!) where they got rid of the trolleys while proclaiming that they were introducing "electric buses" to NZ for the first time, to replace the "old"(actually modern) "trolleybuses". You think, eh, what do they think they've they been running for last 70 years? This propaganda goes on around the world, but the trolleybus has found new life and will be around alongside pure battery buses indefinitely. The option that looks like it's unsuccessful and will die is the fuel cell battery bus. Fortunately these can also run as straight battery buses and the hydrogen equipment can be ditched.

[Myrtone]

BEV technology is also on board trolleybuses, which, nowadays, don't need anywhere as much OHW as they used to. But the battery pack is only small because it's recharged while the bus is in motion under wires, so it doesn't have the weight, therefore the bus can carry more passengers. How does 90 passengers in a battery trolley 12 metre bus or 150 passengers in a battery trolley standard artic sound? (Provided there are sufficient doors and a flat floor!) I've been on them in peaks and it's incredible how many they can take on board compared to our poorly-designed buses here, where our 12 metre battery buses are downrated to about 60 passengers because of weight.

Point of fact: Some trams also have this technology and also do not need overhead wires through the network of tracks on which they operate.

Most non-technical people don't comprehend that an electric bus, whether it's trolley, battery or hydrogen, is a common piece of electric-drive technology from the road right up to the roof line. It's only the method of power collection that differs, whether by trolley, trolley and battery, battery alone or fuel cell with battery. The rest of the bus is a standard chassis and body (or integral), an electric drive and the steering wheel and doors can be on either left or right-hand side as required by the customer.

Many non-technical people also do not comprehend how complicated vehicle design is. Here is an article by a design engineer explaining how complicated car design is, see how that applies to other vehicles.

Also, the frame of a bus has to be different for each driving side (partly) because the doors are on different sides according to the driving side on which it has to operate.

The biggest surprise for many is that China is also a big manufacturer of trolleybuses, not only for their own systems but for export. Lately, Yutong has been supplying trolleybuses to Central and South America. After all, they're just a battery bus with sticks on the roof, so they're within scope for any competent electric bus manufacturer.

I was not sure if China is a big manufacturer of trolleybuses but China is also very secretive, it still has a Soviet style of government and withholds a lot of information.

By the way, if is has trolleypoles, the roof has to accomodate those, if not, the roof does not need to be designed to accomodate them. There might well be bus models in production that could not be produced in straight-electric (trolley) versions without redesigning the roof and it might not be possible to redesign the roof without redesigning the model's whole shape.

The most hilarious example was in Wellington (no Kiwi jokes please!) where they got rid of the trolleys while proclaiming that they were introducing "electric buses" to NZ for the first time, to replace the "old"(actually modern) "trolleybuses". You think, eh, what do they think they've they been running for last 70 years? This propaganda goes on around the world, but the trolleybus has found new life and will be around alongside pure battery buses indefinitely. The option that looks like it's unsuccessful and will die is the fuel cell battery bus. Fortunately these can also run as straight battery buses and the hydrogen equipment can be ditched.

Okay, so there is no market in Australasia/Oceania for standardised trolleybuses nor is there a market for standardised right-hand drive trolleybuses. While there did used to be maybe a lot of right-hand drive trolleybus systems in the past, I am not sure if there was a market for standardised right-hand drive trolleybuses even then as a lot equipment might have been custom made at the time. I know Australian trams traditionally were, each state capital building trams in its own workshops.

Wellington is also lacking in density.

[rtt_rules]

Point of fact: Some trams also have this technology and also do not need overhead wires through the network of tracks on which they operate.

I know, I said that and trolley buses that operate without an OH are now called BEV buses.


For buses, RHD or LHD, is there really that big a difference in the design, just bolt on different bits on different sides.

Cheapest bus design is one that is mostly unversal as much as possible, LHD, RHD, H2, Trolley or battery. I'm thinking only diesel or gas would be different enough to be potentially a different vehicle. I don't see the tooling to be drive side specific, its design of a box. Cars are more complicated to design for both as the engine bay needs to be laid out in such a way the steering column and brake hydraulics can be swapped over. The Americans are stupid and don't cater for this in their car designs and as such export to RHD countries is expensive due to the requirement to completely re-engineer the vehicle to the point it needs to be Engineer certified.

I do not see Chinese manufacturers beeing secreative about their bus technology because of the govt. Actually in China now for business and have seen 12 different factories for other materials, not buses over last two weeks and its the completely open, at times too open allowing me to take photos of our competitors products.

[Myrtone]

For buses, RHD or LHD, is there really that big a difference in the design, just bolt on different bits on different sides.

Yes, the doors are on different sides, so the frame will (probably) be different.

Cheapest bus design is one that is mostly unversal as much as possible, LHD, RHD, H2, Trolley or battery. I'm thinking only diesel or gas would be different enough to be potentially a different vehicle. I don't see the tooling to be drive side specific, its design of a box. Cars are more complicated to design for both as the engine bay needs to be laid out in such a way the steering column and brake hydraulics can be swapped over. The Americans are stupid and don't cater for this in their car designs and as such export to RHD countries is expensive due to the requirement to completely re-engineer the vehicle to the point it needs to be Engineer certified.

Cars are more complicated to design than buses?

I do not see Chinese manufacturers beeing secreative about their bus technology because of the govt. Actually in China now for business and have seen 12 different factories for other materials, not buses over last two weeks and its the completely open, at times too open allowing me to take photos of our competitors products.

I did not say Chinese manufacturers are secretive because of the government, I just said it is a secretive country that still has a Soviet style of government that withholds information.

[tonyp]

For buses, RHD or LHD, is there really that big a difference in the design, just bolt on different bits on different sides.

In a low-floor bus, there is a portal rear axle and a stepless gangway, so it's not possible to put the engine/motor/drivetrain along the centreline of the bus in the traditional way. It has to be over on one side under the seats, on the offside so that doorways can be installed along the nearside. Of course, the offside on a LHD bus is the nearside on a RHD bus and, presently, the great majority of the bus market is in LHD countries. If there was a large enough RHD market, manufacturers would find it worthwhile to move the drivetrain to the other side. In the meantime, it means that RHD buses can only have doors from the front as far as the centre of the bus, but not at the rear. LHD buses can have doors from front to rear. Changing the steering over to the other side, on the other hand, is a simple task.

[Myrtone]

By the way, the offside is the kerbside of a two-way street in right hand traffic. But yes, some low floor buses, those with portal rear axles, have the engine on the driver's side so that the doors can be on the kerbside.

Most buses each have a door right next to the driver's seat, and with doors on only one side, the driver's seat needs to be opposite the doors. I also explained that the side of the doors could affect the design of the frame.

[rtt_rules]

Most buses each have a door right next to the driver's seat, and with doors on only one side, the driver's seat needs to be opposite the doors. I also explained that the side of the doors could affect the design of the frame.

I don't know but my personal opnion is not much.

[rtt_rules]

Cars are more complicated to design than buses?

Personal opinion, yes.