Imagine what it might be like during the Olympics if someone reports a stray whiff of vapour somewhere.
Tempting as it is to comment on the Megabus coach trapped by armed police on the M6—the precision of a prompt police response that became anything but Rapide (sic) in the end—there are more important things to consider. At least we all now know how an electronic cigarette works. But will this mean passengers using them atop a double decker and, if so, what will be the response from others when they see a whiff of “smoke”? It’s interesting to speculate that had there been smoking ban on buses, no one would’ve batted an eyelid. I remember the time when the upper deck was thick with tobacco fug...
e-Smoking at the wheel... tut, tut
Back to the important news. We heard yesterday that the DfT has approved England’s first proper buses in 40 years. Leeds’ “new generation transport” trolleybuses look somewhat like the generation transport of old… and I speak as someone who remembers the trolleys of Bournemouth.
The Bournemouth trolley era finished in 1969. It was killed off by the unwillingness of manufacturers to build new, a lack of spares and inflexible, expensive & expired catenary. Only Bradford’s lasted longer and it finished in 1972, 40 years ago. Now, neighbouring Leeds is set to see them again. Leeds and Bradford were the first two English trolley systems.
The 21st century trolley is somewhat different, of course. If coupled with battery power or a diesel hybrid, it can theoretically go off wire and this gives it the flexibility that the original trolleys lacked. Couple (pun intended) this to the ability to whizz silently up hills (here, I’m thinking Richmond Hill, in particular), and you may have a winning formula.
But, overhead wires don’t always allow you to dodge congestion. This was another reason why Bournemouth threw in the towel, that and roadworks. And, let’s face it, wires don’t look nice. It’s perhaps as well, then, that 3½ miles of the 8¾-mile system are on reserved track. But, couldn’t ordinary diesel hybrids be just as beneficial? I’m thinking Eclipse.
The truth is that mere buses don’t have the same influence as light rapid transit systems (and here I include trolleys). By adding overhead wires, you seem to add an ingredient that charms motorists in a way that a simple bus can never do. Smoke & mirrors it may be but motorists won’t leave their car so easily. And the cynic might wonder whether a simple bus corridor offers Metro PTE no control, whereas the trolleybus system does.
Non-polluting buses (at least at locally on the street) are great but the way to reduce the congestion and pollution, for which the car is by far the largest cause, isn’t just in providing decent solutions like trolleys, though this is a wonderful step forward and a good opportunity. Might I venture to suggest that you could achieve more by restricting the car altogether… by offering dedicated roadspace to all buses.
Buses these days are rather like cigarettes. They’re viewed as unpopular and polluting. Users are even seen as lepers. But perhaps that’s where electricity current comes in. Just like an electric cigarette, really.
45 comments:
I hate to be a pedant, but Bournemouth's trolleybuses were outlived by those of Cardiff, Walsall and Teesside in addition to Bradford.
Has not Eclipse or Cambridgeshire busways not convinced motorists to take the bus. This smacks of local ITA self justification with tax payer money. If that sum had been put into improving infrastructure for existing and new bus priority measures how the masses would have benefited. Elitism at its best.
Borismaster, Edinburgh tram and now the Leeds trolleybus. All completely inappropriate spending/waste of public money in the current climate. What "real" improvements could we make across the country with that sort of money?
Trolleybus Networks are not expensive costing only about 10% more than modern buses.
Ffom systems abroad the indication are maintainance costs are lower and the life of the trolleybus is considerably longer. They also increase ridership
The technology is considerably more advanced then the old trolleybuses and they are also far more flexable than trams. Trolleybuses can also use existing bus depots
They are environmentally friendly and very quiet unlike trams
THe article is totally incorrect in stating that Trolleybus cannot dodge conjestion , they can. Modern Trolleybuses can operate several miles under battery power at speeds of upto 30mph
Trams are not 'inappropriate'. Sheffield Supertram now carries about 10-11% of all public transport journeys in South Yorkshire, including good loads in the evening when buses are running around almost empty. One factor must be that it offers a long-term stabilty that a commercial bus network, with its endless changes that Joe Public can't keep up with, does not. Trolleybuses will offer that same stablity. And that's leaving 'green' issues out of the equation.
I agree with the comments that this is a tremendous amount of money but look at what was spent on the Cambridge busway - way over budget and time.
What is not clear is how much of the quoted sum includes provisions for risk, uncertainty etc. There is also the issue that modern trolleys are new territory for the UK and goodness knows what Metro might stumble across in terms of legislative issues, objections from property owners etc. Hopefully a lot of work has been done already to identify these risks and the necessary mitigation or risk removal strategies.
I hope that Metro put proper cost control and project management in place so they avoid the woes of other schemes that have sullied the reputation of trams and busways. The other issue is that they do not go "too clever" on things like fare collection - no more daft FTR type systems. It will be interesting to see if the QC proposals are achieved and what consequences there would be when the trolleybuses are ready to run. If there is no QC presumably the trolleys will have to fight for their share of the market against other commercial services.
I am in favour of electric buses long term, and I love trolley buses, but as usual Metro and DfT are going about it the wrong way. They should have concentrated first on proper full route length bus lanes followed by BRT routes. When there was a criticial mass of BRT across the UK they could all have been converted to electric as one job lot cutting costs on overhead teams and on vehicles.
But the trolley/tram theory is outdated as far as winning over motorists. The latest research for Greener Journeys shows that once LAs get behind the buses all social classes will use them as in Brighton, Nottingham etc. Yes, if the council is antibus, then buses will be seen a 'chav wagons', but in many towns and cities you might be overawed by the social standing of your fellow bus passengers!
"The other issue is that they do not go "too clever" on things like fare collection - no more daft FTR type systems."
If they're going to do anything clever, taking most of the ticketing off the bus a la Oyster, Strippenkaart etc is the way to go. Conductors would be expensive, and shutting the driver away not sensible.
Neil
£250 million for 20 odd posh buses in this financial climate. We're away with the fairies...
The £250M is not just for the Trolleys buses which are 20 Dual Car Units. It also cover the cost of the infrustructure.
Trolleybuses are cheaper to operate and cleaner and once the basic infrustructure is in the cost of extending the network falls very considerably
In the longer term Trolleybuses are cheaper than buses to operate and maintain
Quote"What is not clear is how much of the quoted sum includes provisions for risk, uncertainty etc. There is also the issue that modern trolleys are new territory for the UK and goodness knows what Metro might stumble across in terms of legislative issues, objections from property owners etc. "
There are no real risks. The technology is well established and the issues are not different to those with trams in fact they are considerably less as services do not need to be diverted nor are long term road closers needed which was a major issue in Edinburgh.
Much of the work of installing a trolley bus network does not need road closures and can be done with the roads open.
" In the longer term Trolleybuses are cheaper than buses to operate and maintain"
This may be true, but it is also supposed to be true about trams,trams and trolleys easily outlast buses by decades.
However, they will always be competing with new cars so longevity even with regular refurbs may be an achilles heel.
And in any case Manchester is replacing 'young' trams so the economics may be hopeless in reality.
And trolleybuses may not be the best way to get electric buses.
We should go for BRT and wait and see, especially as oil prices may force bus companies to electrify at their own expence
Anonymous at 11.34 said: "there are no real risks...."
That may be so with the technology, but the risks that have caused so much problem at Edinburgh and Cambridge are contractual ones rather than technological.
The Cambridge buses are fairly upmarket versions of established products which have caused no problems, but the arguments were essentially about precisely what the construction contract covered.
At Edinburgh, I understand much of the problem was about how diversions of the underground services (gas, water electricity and telecoms) were dealt with that has caused much of the problem and led to a halt in progress. I've not heard of any problems with the trams which have yet to enter service.
Scheme promoters tend to under-estimate or misunderstand how risks are allocated and much depends on how well the contract is written, so I hope the Leeds scheme has recognised and effectively covered this aspect..
Yes I realise we get the knitting, the poles and the bus priority but honestly. In this financial climate is an extra £240 million (compared to some high quality conventional vehicles) for some electric buses really a wise way to spend our money or is it a PTE ego trip.
"At Edinburgh, I understand much of the problem was about how diversions of the underground services (gas, water electricity and telecoms) were dealt with that has caused much of the problem and led to a halt in progress. I've not heard of any problems with the trams which have yet to enter service."
One advantage of trolleybuses over trams is of course that this is unnecessary; they just run on the road as the diesel buses did previously.
Neil
"They should have concentrated first on proper full route length bus lanes followed by BRT routes."
Another UK incorrect mentality.
You *do not need* full route length bus lanes. You need bus infrastructure where there is substantial congestion on the road such that the bus never needs to stop unless it wishes to do so.
That might be bus lanes running the length of a typical queue at a specific set of traffic lights, or an overtaking "portal", or a "turn right across the flow" arrangement or whatever.
Look at how the Germans and Dutch do it. Except in odd cases where buses replaced trams and the tram infrastructure has been used for the buses, e.g. on one route in Hamburg, they don't do full route length bus lanes, yet bus operations are efficient and avoid much congestion just by way of good design.
Neil
For example the bus lanes seen here, running the entire length of Midsummer Boulevard...
http://goo.gl/maps/xl0K
are completely pointless as there is never congestion on the bulk of the road. All they serve to do is annoy motorists and create a danger because people cut across the bus lane to turn left.
I have suggested a design for useful bus lane infrastructure in CMK to the Council, but they ignored it and did this instead.
Neil
With the Leeds proposals about 40% of the route has a dedicated lane. This is mainly over the sections where conjestion is kikely to be a problemand in other areas where a dedicated lane can be put in without any great problem or cost
Anonymous said...
£250 million for 20 odd posh buses in this financial climate. We're away with the fairies...
This is no great difference from the cost of Bendy buses which is the nearest conventional bus equivalent
The London ones cost about £250K a piece and extensive changes were needed to the roads and garages
"With the Leeds proposals about 40% of the route has a dedicated lane. This is mainly over the sections where conjestion is kikely to be a problemand in other areas where a dedicated lane can be put in without any great problem or cost"
This seems sensible and pragmatic.
Neil
I'm hoping one of your correspondents looks at the *green* biofuel buses in Lincoln. Everything seems quiet in the press. No mention that after spending £25,000 per bus (13) coverting to run on the greener fuel, rumours are awash claiming only diesel is used. Reasons are because it's cheaper than bio.
How can £250K for the diesel bendies be anywhere near to a fraction of the £250m for the new trolleybus system ?
20 bendies at £250k would only amount to £5m - rather dramatically far short of £250m, even allowing for roadworks and infrastructure.
With Trolley buses the main cost is the ifrustructure once that is in place and depreciated costs are far lower than for buses
Once the core network is in place further routes can be added at a fraction of the cost and hybrid versions mean they can run without the overhead wires in outer areas and residential areas
Future developments may allow for trolleybuses to run without the need for overhead wires by using an inductive sysytem silmilar to that used by some electric tooth brushes. Laser guidence can also be used if need be which allows them to run in a narrow lane
£250 million? That's a ridiculously huge amount of money which could have been better spent in numerous other ways benefiting far more people over a much wider area.
Face it, the only reason these schemes happen is because the ITAs can apply for funding to do it and it achieves one of their prime aims i.e. that of getting their hands on the provision of bus services, albeit in this case by using trolley-buses.
Even if the 20 trolleybuses themselves cost as much as £500,000 each it would only account for £10m of the £250m.
Given that there is little/no need to move underground utilities (as would be needed for trams) I'm struggling to see where the other £240m is going to be spent. A few millions on sub-stations, depot and wiring etc still wouldn't get anywhere close to £250m.
What's the hidden figure for?
"By adding overhead wires, you seem to add an ingredient that charms motorists in a way that a simple bus can never do."
I think the factor that encourages motorists to use trams, light rail, etc, is the rails rather than the overhead wires. To be fair, the validity of that point has not been tested in the UK in the last 40 years, so we will have to wait and see. I do, however, seem to recall some concerns about the impact of the overhead wires for the trams in Manchester, when that system was being planned and built (the current Manchester tramway).
There is also research and development going on to try to avoid the need for overhead wires for trams as well, at least for short stretches, so I think the general consensus is not so enamoured with overhead wires.
Electric buses are a good idea to my mind, as I've mentioned before - but nowadays, trolleybuses are not the appropriate form. If the system and infrastructure already exists, as is the case in several cities in Switzerland, then it may make sense to buy new trolleybuses. However, even there, the economics do not seem to favour trolleybuses. Basel has closed in the last few years, and La Chaux de Fonds is under threat, so despite the theoretical savings being mentioned here, the reality seems to be rather different.
The case for Trams has clearly been disproven in the UK as the costs are through the roof and passenger numbers do not materialize and the required subsisises are massive and unaffordable which only leaves buses & trollybuses as viable options
With the Troleybus system you mention they are very old systems and they were not willing to invest in them so closed them and replaced them with buses
@ Anonymous 0840 - so which UK tram system is a failure then? I thought Croydon Tramlink, Nottingham, Sheffield, Metrolink and Midland Metro were all doing well with patronage above expectations. Try squashing your way on to a tram in Croydon next time you visit. Edinburgh is a very unfortunate mess but that does not invalidate an entire mode of transport. I expect the Edinburgh line will be well used once it is in service.
There are useless bus operators but we don't sit here and say their awfulness overrides the reputation and performance of good to excellent operators or that it means buses are useless. Can we please have a sense of proportion.
Given the progress with hybrid/electric buses, which can be expected to continue, trolleybuses are at best an obsolescent technology. If there is money to be spent, it should go on enabling public transport vehicles, however powered, to cut through congestion.
@plcd1
Most of the tram systems now cover direct operating costs, though Sheffield took a very long time to reach acceptable patronage levels (much of which can be attributed to Stagecoach). However, Midland Metro is however a disaster - patronage of c.6 million pa is a fraction of the 15 million predicted. Yet it is being welcomed with open arms by the chairman of Retail Birmingham who said "The Midland Metro extension will not only deliver more visitors into the heart of the retail area..." but no mention of the rather greater number of bus passengers whose journey will now be disrupted.
http://www.birminghammail.net/news/birmingham-news/2012/07/05/all-change-in-birmingham-city-centre-as-buses-are-taken-out-of-corporation-street-97319-31326494/
Same old rubbish about restricting the car rather than making the bus more attractive, and most of all more affordable. No other business trys to ban the competition, it makes itself more attractive than the competition to potential customers.
@ Astonite - fair comment about the impact of the works in central Birmingham. However my view of buses is the West Midlands is that they fall far short of their potential. In the last couple of years NXWM have spent some money to drag the fleet towards some sort of modernity. However the overall impression of the UK's second city's buses is pretty down market with jumbled liveries, poor cleanliness and utterly appalling cheap jack operators running mobile scrap heaps.
If NXWM cannot run a top notch operation given their virtual monopoly one has to wonder what they are about. It is no surprise that the politicians and retailers don't see buses as important if the operators do not present their own services as being prominent and therefore important to the local area.
Hybrid buses can never offer better performance than Trolleybuses , they also can never be as environmentally friendly
Trams are an outmoded technology with many countries getting rid of them.
A clear distinction though needs to be drawn between trams and light railways, frequently in the UK the terms are used interchangably when they are two very different animals
Anonymous said...
"Hybrid buses can never offer better performance than Trolleybuses"
Since hybrid technology is still very much in development, the old rule of 'never say never' applies here.
Anonymous said...
"they also can never be as environmentally friendly"
That depends on how the electricity is generated.
Anonymous said...
"Trams are an outmoded technology with many countries getting rid of them."
For example?
Anonymous said...
"A clear distinction though needs to be drawn between trams and light railways, frequently in the UK the terms are used interchangably (sic) when they are two very different animals"
We've had this discussion before, and, basically, you are wrong; but you could at least explain what you consider the differences to be to justify your argument!
Anon 22:19 said:
"Hybrid buses can never offer better performance than Trolleybuses , they also can never be as environmentally friendly"
Rubbish. The hybrids I've been on have had superb performance, certainly more than adequate compared to a diesel. Have you travelled on a NBFL? An excellent machine.
I can't see what benefits an expensive trolleybus system brings. It has disadvantages too such as ugly overhead wires.
I notice that no-one's yet explained how the Leeds project will actually spend the whopping £250million involved.....
I've tried and tried, but I've just never really dug trolleybuses; they seem a bit Soviet to me.
Where are they going to string the overhead, just down the Dewsbury Road? Nice place for a big traffic jam caused by a load of trolleybuses (foreign-made, of course) that can't overtake.
The wires can use existing lamp posts. Modern Trolleybus can overtake
Can we have a separate debate on here as to how they come up with £250m for the Leeds trolleybus system - it seems a ridiculously high figure.
The lighting standards won't have been designed to take the weight of the extra overhead for a trolleybus. If for example they are a standard 10m collum then the root will only be at best a metre below. The root (thats the bit buried under the ground) will have been installed with the weight of the arm (The bit that supports the lamp) only. No extra will have been taken into consideration for extra span wires etc.
There was always a sound case for the trolleybus and it is regretable that it became victim to UK fashion and not least a powerful oil lobby, back in the 1950/60s.
However I too find the £250m an incredible sum for a twenty vehicle system in Leeds. But it does reflect the 'modern' way in which public projects seem to soak up money - sums that do not appear to directly contribute to any final practical outcome. To put this into perspective over £40m has already been spent on an aborted new Leeds tram system - have you seen just a metre of track or even a tram seat? Quite!
In response to comments, I have to agree existing street lamp-posts would not support trolleybus wires, the stronger wire support poles would however also carry the street lamps - so minimising visual impact. (Lesson from Bournemouth history again).
From the perspective of a trolleybus supporter I have to suggest that existing hybrid buses that use an electric motor driveline might well be regarded as a very inefficent pseudo trolleybuses - ones with their own exhaust emitting generator plant on board but missing the roof conductor poles!
The solution here might of course be to enable such buses to run on pure electricity over high frequency sections of route, and thus become diesel/electric hybrid trolleybuses. (Look across the sea for plenty of these).
The trolleybus ahould not have been ignored for so long and even its detractors must surely welcome this Leeds opportunity to see it in the flesh.
With the less than happy outcomes of some recent tram installations, particularly the crazy Edinburgh fiasco and now a belated reawakening of the trolleybus, I would dare to suggest the second coming of the UK tram may already be passing us by.
sunbeam said...
"There was always a sound case for the trolleybus and it is regretable that it became victim to UK fashion and not least a powerful oil lobby, back in the 1950/60s."
Although the rest of your comment is generally rather more balanced than some of the pro-trolleybus postings, I don't believe the case is sound at all. It is not only the UK where trolleybuses have been or are in retreat, and, as I pointed out earlier, even in Switzerland, with a relatively high number of systems, their future is uncertain in some cases. The economics are clearly not as favourable as some people would like to believe.
I would agree that the oil and internal combustion engine lobbies have to some extent tried to muddy the water between buses and trams/light rail systems, and that trolleybuses have been caught up in that issue, but the simple fact is that trams/light rail need an high level of investment in infrastructure, so can only be justified where traffic flows are proportionately high. However, the balancing factor is that they can carry those large numbers of passengers much more cost effectively than buses. Where such levels of traffic do not exist, then rail based systems fail the cost-benefit analysis test, but trolleybuses require infrastructure investments, but don't have any extra capacity in order to cover the costs of the infrastructure, and the operating cost advantages (at present) are not sufficient to do so.
The benefits of using electric traction are not in dispute, but there needs to be a way of realising it without such high infrastructure investment (some will inevitably be needed, for battery based systems). Battery systems would avoid the need for the ugly overhead wires and the booms/poles on the vehicles - which also make the system inflexible. I must admit that I cannot understand why some trolleybus supporters are so keen on the obsolete aspects of electric traction, when a battery system has the potential to spread the benefits of electric traction to a wider range of operations.
Trolleybuses and the Leeds NGT ought to be separate debates really.
There have been a few comparisons with hybrids in the above post. While hybrids do offer smoother and quieter rides as well as environmental advantages over convensional diesel or gas buses, as long as they are fossil fuel reliant they'll always be inferior to trolleybuses, as you'll still have the excess noise and vibration of an (albeit smaller) diesel engine and they'll still emit CO2. Trollybuses have the potential to be CO2-free if the power comes from a clean source. Failing that they are at least emission-free on the road and a power station is probably quite a bit more efficient (and clean) than a 5-litre diesel engine. Trolleybus technology has come a long way over the years. An auxiliary power source can keep the vehicle going for a good distance at a low speed (cheaper than full-fledged hybrid), and wiring technology means that dewiring is rear and automatic pick-up is easy. Go to Lyon to see how brilliantly they trolleybuses work. Trolleybuses are an extremely mature technology and are much better value for money than hybrids. Personally I'm amazed how trolleybuses have been completely ignored in this country until now. This is not to say hybrids have no place however.
Back to the Leeds NGT - the 250m figure really does sound steep, especially considering much of the north-route is on-street. A cost breakdown provided by this table (http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u7/Electric_City_photos/CapitalCosts-PO-NBA-LCA.jpg) shows that risk, professional fees, preliminaries and estimating uncertainty eat up a substantial chunk of the budget. The cost of vehicles is also surprising - manufacturers like Solaris and Skoda provide off-the-shelf 18m and 24m models which cost little more than comparable diesel vehicles. It looks like too much is being spent on consultants for what I would consider a text-book case and there is a lot of overestimation. Let's hope the overestimation does result in subsequent cost reductions but I'll hold my breath.
It could be that they have planned for utility diversions for future tram (light-rail) conversion, which would be a sensible thing, as that corridor has the critical mass that justifies something of a higher level than essentially a glorified bus service. And before someone shouts Edinburgh let me just say trams are a proven technology and Manchester and Nottingham demonstrate brilliantly how it can be used well. The Edinburgh disaster only has political and management incompetence to blame.
RC169 says;
I must admit that I cannot understand why some trolleybus supporters are so keen on the obsolete aspects of electric traction, when a battery system has the potential to spread the benefits of electric traction to a wider range of operations.'
I cannot disagree with you. Just develop and demonstrate a working, all day no limits full size battery bus (capacity 70+), and I will pay you very well for the patent and sole rights to market it - and so would countless others starting with vehicle manufacturers worldwide!
I have career experience of Bournemouth's attempt to run a battery midi-bus in the 1980s, it weighed as much as a double-decker diesel bus, behaved like a bloated milk-float and was roundly quite hopeless. (At least it sounded like a trolleybus - when not being diesel hauled back to Depot with flat batteries).
One day we may get there with electric storage, although my guess would be under road surface magnetic/electric field induction technology may come first.
Until then for fast efficient zero emission buses up must go the wires, not obsolete or for nostalgic reason and indeed widely acknowledged to be a positive feature in customer assurance terms. In practical ways there remains no option if you require a clean unrestricted electric power supply, which a serious bus will.
Of course some would say that the oil people already have that electric energy storage technology you aspire for locked safely away, and have for many years......I could not possibly comment.
What does it matter if a technology is old as long as it works? Wireless power supply is probably decades off and this timescale corresponds conveniently with the life-time of a trolleybus fleet. You can always convert the power pick-up mechanism quite easily in any case.
High-frequency public transport routes are relatively fixed anyway and modern trolleybuses are perfectly capable of short-distance running / overtaking. I don't think there's any problem in the flexibility department at all.
Post a Comment