HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,772
Well I decided to do a rather basic analysis on the economics of trolleybuses in the UK, and excluding benefits to the state from current diesel operations being lost in the conversion (In this case I refer chiefly to the fact that diesel bus operators pay full price for diesel, including the petroleum duty and 20% VAT, compared to no duty and 5% VAT for electricity) it would appear that the threshold for conversion for a service to electric operation seems to be rather low.
Based on experience and estimations in Vancouver in 2001, and accounting for inflation in the local currency since then and the current exchange rate, it would appear that a single twin lane (one in each direction) kilometre of Trolleybus infrastructure would cost in the vicinity of £813k, including infrastructure like points and substations and the like.
If an Index Linked 20 year gilt was used to pay for the infrastructure (with its current yield of -1.05%) with the full 20 year period being used to defray the capital costs, it would appear that the infrastructure repayments woud total roughly £90 per day for each twin lane kilometre, or roughly £45 per day for each single lane kilometre.
This, admittedly rather old, report from TfL seems to indicate that a non hybrid London bus currently achieves a fuel mileage of roughly 5mpg, which translates to roughly 0.55 litres of diesel per kilometre.
Using a relatively simple conversion of 4kWh(e) = 1L of diesel in terms of useful energy, it would appear that a simple conversion would have the bus using roughly 2.2kWh per kilometre.
However the bus would have access to regenerative braking which reduces this energy use to approximately 1.8kWh/km using a reasonable approximation. (That is ~20%, I find figures of roughly 40% savings from regenerative braking a little hard to believe).
The price of .55 litres of fuel is roughly 77 pence, whereas the price of 1.8kWh of electricity to a large industrial customer (as a national or regional trolleybus system would undoubtedly be) is roughly 11.7 pence (6.5p/kWh).
This means that 65.3 pence is saved from each run under the kilometre of trolleywire.
Which means that if 69 double decker buses use that kilometre of infrastructure every day the state would break even on the cost of installing the equipment assuming it has a 20 year operating life and any savings in the maintenance of trolleybuses compared to diesel vehicles was also passed on and could cover maintenance of the overhead equipment (which is reasonable IMO, since trolleybus maintenance if it uses wheelhub motors and LED lights is minimal).
69 double deck buses each day in each direction translates to roughly 4 buses per hour, excluding short spurs which would enable more bus routes to go over to entirely electric operation.
This means that if you account for the network effect it would appear to suggest that the electrification of very large segments of urban bus networks would be to the state's financial benefit, ignoring the loss of tax income from fuel duty, while reducing carbon emissions and necessary imports of valuable liquid fuels, which may have strategic importance in an increasingly uncertain future oil market.
The losses in fuel duty from the bus diesel market would appear to be a very minor effect compared to the fact that a great deal of London Bus routes are very much more heavily used than that and the massive fines from the EU that London and the UK are soon to face due to repeated failures to improve air quality.
The electrification of the majority of the urban bus networks in the UK is sure to have major positive impacts on air quality, reducing both those fines and expensive incidences of respiratory diseases.
I have to believe that those effects will be cancel out any disbenefits from the loss of fuel duty.
So in summary:
Bus routes with more than 69 buses in each direction each day in isolation would be advantageous for the state to use the very low cost borrowing available at the present time to convert to trolleybus operation.
If the network effect is included the number of routes suitable increase rather dramatically, resulting in it being beneficial, IMO, to electrify the majority of Britain's urban bus networks.
Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter?
Please note:
I am assuming that the only infrastructure work to be done is the installation of electrification, with operations continuing as they do now, and that the trolleybuses purchased are double deckers similar in concept to the original double deck trolleybuses used in the UK, perhaps with very limited battery capability to manoeuvre around obstacles and pass each other for whatever reason.
With the huge order I am suggesting it is highly likely that they would be a similar price, if not cheaper, to conventional diesel buses so I am not including this factor in my calculation in order to be conservative.
I am also assuming that the hybrid buses in use on many urban routes would be kicked to less heavily used routes to displace pure diesel buses and thus it is reasonable to assume that the trolleybuses are replacing pure diesel and not hybrid vehicles like the "Borismaster".
Based on experience and estimations in Vancouver in 2001, and accounting for inflation in the local currency since then and the current exchange rate, it would appear that a single twin lane (one in each direction) kilometre of Trolleybus infrastructure would cost in the vicinity of £813k, including infrastructure like points and substations and the like.
If an Index Linked 20 year gilt was used to pay for the infrastructure (with its current yield of -1.05%) with the full 20 year period being used to defray the capital costs, it would appear that the infrastructure repayments woud total roughly £90 per day for each twin lane kilometre, or roughly £45 per day for each single lane kilometre.
This, admittedly rather old, report from TfL seems to indicate that a non hybrid London bus currently achieves a fuel mileage of roughly 5mpg, which translates to roughly 0.55 litres of diesel per kilometre.
Using a relatively simple conversion of 4kWh(e) = 1L of diesel in terms of useful energy, it would appear that a simple conversion would have the bus using roughly 2.2kWh per kilometre.
However the bus would have access to regenerative braking which reduces this energy use to approximately 1.8kWh/km using a reasonable approximation. (That is ~20%, I find figures of roughly 40% savings from regenerative braking a little hard to believe).
The price of .55 litres of fuel is roughly 77 pence, whereas the price of 1.8kWh of electricity to a large industrial customer (as a national or regional trolleybus system would undoubtedly be) is roughly 11.7 pence (6.5p/kWh).
This means that 65.3 pence is saved from each run under the kilometre of trolleywire.
Which means that if 69 double decker buses use that kilometre of infrastructure every day the state would break even on the cost of installing the equipment assuming it has a 20 year operating life and any savings in the maintenance of trolleybuses compared to diesel vehicles was also passed on and could cover maintenance of the overhead equipment (which is reasonable IMO, since trolleybus maintenance if it uses wheelhub motors and LED lights is minimal).
69 double deck buses each day in each direction translates to roughly 4 buses per hour, excluding short spurs which would enable more bus routes to go over to entirely electric operation.
This means that if you account for the network effect it would appear to suggest that the electrification of very large segments of urban bus networks would be to the state's financial benefit, ignoring the loss of tax income from fuel duty, while reducing carbon emissions and necessary imports of valuable liquid fuels, which may have strategic importance in an increasingly uncertain future oil market.
The losses in fuel duty from the bus diesel market would appear to be a very minor effect compared to the fact that a great deal of London Bus routes are very much more heavily used than that and the massive fines from the EU that London and the UK are soon to face due to repeated failures to improve air quality.
The electrification of the majority of the urban bus networks in the UK is sure to have major positive impacts on air quality, reducing both those fines and expensive incidences of respiratory diseases.
I have to believe that those effects will be cancel out any disbenefits from the loss of fuel duty.
So in summary:
Bus routes with more than 69 buses in each direction each day in isolation would be advantageous for the state to use the very low cost borrowing available at the present time to convert to trolleybus operation.
If the network effect is included the number of routes suitable increase rather dramatically, resulting in it being beneficial, IMO, to electrify the majority of Britain's urban bus networks.
Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter?
Please note:
I am assuming that the only infrastructure work to be done is the installation of electrification, with operations continuing as they do now, and that the trolleybuses purchased are double deckers similar in concept to the original double deck trolleybuses used in the UK, perhaps with very limited battery capability to manoeuvre around obstacles and pass each other for whatever reason.
With the huge order I am suggesting it is highly likely that they would be a similar price, if not cheaper, to conventional diesel buses so I am not including this factor in my calculation in order to be conservative.
I am also assuming that the hybrid buses in use on many urban routes would be kicked to less heavily used routes to displace pure diesel buses and thus it is reasonable to assume that the trolleybuses are replacing pure diesel and not hybrid vehicles like the "Borismaster".
Last edited:
