Would trolleybuses ever work in the UK?

[Journeyman]

Trolleybuses were largely a stopgap solution when tram systems began to contract. In London they were used as a means of efficiently using spare generation capacity after tramway closures, but as power stations reached life expiry, there was no point in keeping them, and the Routemaster was initially rolled out as a trolleybus replacement.

My mum used trolleybuses quite regularly in their final years in London, and recalled that they often ended up bunching badly because they can't overtake each other, and in bad weather they were constantly dewiring, and the conductor kept having to get out to mess with the poles.

I agree that if you're going to string up wires, go the whole hog and build trams. Trolleybuses always had significant drawbacks, and in the light of a rapid move to battery vehicles, there's no point in investing money in putting up the wires.

 

[Redmike]

Although people are quick to shout for trams, it is a set of characteristics that really attract people.

Fixed infrastructure with comfortable and safe waiting areas
Simplified ticketing, which doesn’t delay the journey
Priority/segregated from other forms of transport
Good frequencies

The guided busway to Leigh has shown these features can really attracts passengers.

 

[Killingworth]

Trolleybuses were largely a stopgap solution when tram systems began to contract. In London they were used as a means of efficiently using spare generation capacity after tramway closures, but as power stations reached life expiry, there was no point in keeping them, and the Routemaster was initially rolled out as a trolleybus replacement.

The point about electric generation capacity is a fair one but trolley buses were running in Leeds and Bradford from 1911 and certainly not stop gaps. That was long before anything like a Routemaster had been thought of.

They were rather more widespread than just in London. In the 1930s and 1940s they were still seen as the modern replacement for trams. The aftermath of WW2 largely did for that when city centres started to be redeveloped along with distant suburbs and the arrival of masses of congesting cars!

 

[daodao]

Trolleybuses were largely a stopgap solution when tram systems began to contract. In London they were used as a means of efficiently using spare generation capacity after tramway closures, but as power stations reached life expiry, there was no point in keeping them, and the Routemaster was initially rolled out as a trolleybus replacement.

My mum used trolleybuses quite regularly in their final years in London, and recalled that they often ended up bunching badly because they can't overtake each other, and in bad weather they were constantly dewiring, and the conductor kept having to get out to mess with the poles.

I agree that if you're going to string up wires, go the whole hog and build trams. Trolleybuses always had significant drawbacks, and in the light of a rapid move to battery vehicles, there's no point in investing money in putting up the wires.

When municipal authorities ran the local power stations, it was definitely advantageous for the same authority to continue with electrically powered local public transport; this ceased in 1948 when electricity generation was nationalised, and that event marked marked the beginning of the end of trolleybus development and expansion in the UK. It is noteworthy that few trolleybus services were established where there had not previously been an electric tram route. The poles and electrical supply were not as much in need of replacement as the tram track, so it was sensible to make use of them for another 20-30 years. This was not just true in the UK, but also occurred in North America, Australia, New Zealand and Western Europe. A few systems have survived in some of these places, often where there are significant hills and/or relatively cheap hydroelectric power, e.g. San Francisco/Seattle and Switzerland, and until 2017 in Wellington, NZ.

On a few routes where traffic demand has remained high, trolleybus routes have reverted to trams, e.g. in Geneva, and (after 45 years as a diesel bus service) on Ashton New Road in Manchester.

There may be a future role for trolleybuses with small batteries on high frequency bus routes which aren't suitable for tram conversion, particularly in hilly areas. The wiring need not cover the whole of the route, but needs to be long enough to enable the batteries to recharge en route to enable partial off wire operation. This could reduce the need for complex junction wiring and enable districts with lower population densities to be served economically and efficiently by electric public transport. The following web page has details of the relative economics of battery buses vs battery trolleybuses with recharging from a section of overhead wiring:

Trolleybus UK

Electric Tbus Group, campaigning for quiet, clean urban transport for London

tbus.org.uk

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Whilst out cycling I have been observing Stagecoach's new Enviro 400 EV deckers on Route 43 Manchester Piccadilly to the Airport via Oxford Road, Northenden and Wythenshawe - about 12 miles. They are very impressive - silent, smooth running and quick off the mark from stops and ideal for the busy route (10 min frequency, more in the peak). The depot is also conveniently en-route at Sharston. I understand they can do 190 miles on one charge, with 3.5 hours recharging time. I guess the vehicle requirement must be higher than diesel buses to operate to allow for recharging, but this will be offset by lower maintenance and fuel costs. In the past it would have been an ideal route for trolleybuses, but given what is now possible with these battery vehicles it difficult to see how they could be justified.

 

[Westcountryman]

I agree that if you're going to string up wires, go the whole hog and build trams.

What you don't take into account is the disruption it would cause whilst laying the tracks. I remember the Croydon Tramway taking an eternity in the centre of Croydon. I would imagine that the wiring part or wiring for trolleybuses could be accomplished quite quickly and easily.

 

[dm1]

Whilst out cycling I have been observing Stagecoach's new Enviro 400 EV deckers on Route 43 Manchester Piccadilly to the Airport via Oxford Road, Northenden and Wythenshawe - about 12 miles. They are very impressive - silent, smooth running and quick off the mark from stops and ideal for the busy route (10 min frequency, more in the peak). The depot is also conveniently en-route at Sharston. I understand they can do 190 miles on one charge, with 3.5 hours recharging time. I guess the vehicle requirement must be higher than diesel buses to operate to allow for recharging, but this will be offset by lower maintenance and fuel costs. In the past it would have been an ideal route for trolleybuses, but given what is now possible with these battery vehicles it difficult to see how they could be justified.

They would be justified by having a higher capacity and having the same (or a smaller) vehicle requirement as the diesel bus, while being significantly cheaper (batteries are expensive!).

That higher vehicle requirement is very critical and very significant.

Moscow, having made the almost universally condemned decision to replace its trolleybus system with (a very small number) of battery buses (the vast majority were replaced by diesel buses), realised that the battery buses cost twice as much and twice as many of them are needed. As you might imagine, the reasons for pushing through with the destruction of what was the largest trolleybus network in the world was not based on a rational cost-benefit analysis.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Nov 2020 ==

What you don't take into account is the disruption it would cause whilst laying the tracks. I remember the Croydon Tramway taking an eternity in the centre of Croydon. I would imagine that the wiring part or wiring for trolleybuses could be accomplished quite quickly and easily.

One significant reason it takes so long is that often you have to divert the utilities under the street before laying the tracks, which takes a while and impacts what will be the road (since that's where they end up). Not so for a trolleybus.

 

[edwin_m]

One significant reason it takes so long is that often you have to divert the utilities under the street before laying the tracks, which takes a while and impacts what will be the road (since that's where they end up). Not so for a trolleybus.

The flexibility of a trolleybus to switch lanes is nullified if that means it runs with general traffic. That's a bad idea particularly for the busier bus routes that might be candidates for electrification. If you want to dedicate roadspace to transit then it's a bad idea to have the utilities digging it up all the time. Also, if the vehicle is guided as a high-quality rubber-tyre system might well be, all the tyres follow exactly the same path and this will cause rutting in an asphalt surface. So to do the job properly it might be worth diverting the utilities and building a concrete slab anyway. Not as bad as a tramway, but not a simple matter of "don't have to do that".

 

[dm1]

The flexibility of a trolleybus to switch lanes is nullified if that means it runs with general traffic. That's a bad idea particularly for the busier bus routes that might be candidates for electrification. If you want to dedicate roadspace to transit then it's a bad idea to have the utilities digging it up all the time.

That depends. If the road being served is fairly free-flowing, then there's no inherent need to have a separate lane anywhere, except maybe at the junctions. Admittedly that's seldom the case on busy routes.

There are also some very creative solutions for solving that problem. For example, on a narrow stretch of road between traffic lights, when a bus (or trolleybus) arrives, the far set of lights halts all oncoming traffic and the bus uses the oncoming lane to overtake waiting cars.

You can put the wires up first, and then gradually shift the uitlities when necessary, or when they become life-expired. Sharing a short stretch of route at a time with general traffic for a few hundred metres, especially if it's controlled (i.e. a temporary trolleybus-only traffic light halting all traffic behind it and giving it priority, isn't really a problem in the same way it would be for a tram. Exactly that is a significant benefit.

Also, if the vehicle is guided as a high-quality rubber-tyre system might well be, all the tyres follow exactly the same path and this will cause rutting in an asphalt surface. So to do the job properly it might be worth diverting the utilities and building a concrete slab anyway. Not as bad as a tramway, but not a simple matter of "don't have to do that".

That's one important argument against making the vehicle guided. Very few BRT systems (which are the main area of application for guided buses) actually use guided buses, for precisely that reason.

It's sufficient to concrete over the bus stops, but ideally you would do that irrespective of whether you have a diesel bus, battery bus, or trolleybus.

 

[johnnychips]

In Beijing, there are several trolleybus routes where the buses drop their poles (?) and run on batteries in the central area to avoid visual pollution. The link gives details:

Battery powered trolleybuses in Beijing - Checkerboard Hill

Trolleybuses normally require a web of overhead wires in order to supply power to the electric vehicles that run beneath them – but in the streets of Beijing’s Wangfujing shopping district, they aren’t necessary. The buses drop their trolleypoles. But […] Continue reading →

www.checkerboardhill.com

On the other hand, Gent, the alleged greenest city in Belgium, dropped its trolley buses about four years ago and replaced them with bendy buses (but not sure what powers them).

Edit: they finished in 2009. Time flies!

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's one important argument against making the vehicle guided. Very few BRT systems (which are the main area of application for guided buses) actually use guided buses, for precisely that reason.

The main purpose of guided buses is squeezing them into a small space, e.g. a railway formation. They have lots of disadvantages otherwise.

 

[dm1]

My poin

The main purpose of guided buses is squeezing them into a small space, e.g. a railway formation. They have lots of disadvantages otherwise.

My point exactly.

If you're planning on using a railway formation, then a tram will almost certainly be a better choice in my opinion.

 

[Killingworth]

My poin
My point exactly.

If you're planning on using a railway formation, then a tram will almost certainly be a better choice in my opinion.

The Cambridge Guided Busway. Mixed opinions on that. Uses part of the old railway formation and shared with bikers and walkers. I've used it a couple of times and the buses were well patronised. Has the advantage of not needing full railway route restoration and a bus can dive off at any number of places en route. The concrete sections may not be as robust as expected, but that's not for this thread. No need for overhead wires, metal rails set into roads or costly railway standard level crossings. Probably easier to introduce than trams and more flexibility with route - but not as fast as a train.

Some information from rail supporters about the route; http://www.castiron.org.uk/index.php

 

[mark-h]

The main purpose of guided buses is squeezing them into a small space, e.g. a railway formation. They have lots of disadvantages otherwise.

One advantage is that it is possible to restrict usage to approved vehicles only. This would be especially useful with trolleybuses as it prevents a competitor (using conventionally powered buses) from running competing services.

 

[Westcountryman]

One advantage is that it is possible to restrict usage to approved vehicles only. This would be especially useful with trolleybuses as it prevents a competitor (using conventionally powered buses) from running competing services.

I don't know whether I'm missing something here. A guided busway uses conventional buses with some small horizontal wheels to guide he steering. It doesn't really matter whether these are diesel, electric or trolleybuses. It also depends on the type of busway. I am not familiar with the Cambridge busway, but there are short sections in Crawley. Here it would be entirely possible for a competitor to use the same route and just go round the guided section like lorries have to. It probably wouldn't cost a fortune for competitors to have a suitable number of buses fitted with guide wheels. And surely any competitor would have to register a new route with the Commissioner, who may possibly refuse consent.

 

[radamfi]

The Leigh guided busway is run by First under a 10 year contract to TfGM, according to this:

Leigh-Salford-Manchester Bus Rapid Transit - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Implying that nobody else can run services on the busway without permission from TfGM

First Greater Manchester runs the service under a 10 year contract from TfGM

 

[edwin_m]

I don't know whether I'm missing something here. A guided busway uses conventional buses with some small horizontal wheels to guide he steering. It doesn't really matter whether these are diesel, electric or trolleybuses. It also depends on the type of busway. I am not familiar with the Cambridge busway, but there are short sections in Crawley. Here it would be entirely possible for a competitor to use the same route and just go round the guided section like lorries have to. It probably wouldn't cost a fortune for competitors to have a suitable number of buses fitted with guide wheels. And surely any competitor would have to register a new route with the Commissioner, who may possibly refuse consent.

You are correct on the technology but there is some legal complication too consider too. If I remember rightly a guided busway can be designated as a normal road, with traffic restricted to buses with the appropriate equipment. In that case it can be built under the usual highway laws but anyone operating a suitable vehicle can use it. I don't think the Traffic Commissioner can refuse a service on the grounds that it creates competition, only on safety grounds and similar.

I believe restricting a guided busway (or probably an unguided one) to one or more specific operators requires a TWA order.

 

[Greybeard33]

You are correct on the technology but there is some legal complication too consider too. If I remember rightly a guided busway can be designated as a normal road, with traffic restricted to buses with the appropriate equipment. In that case it can be built under the usual highway laws but anyone operating a suitable vehicle can use it. I don't think the Traffic Commissioner can refuse a service on the grounds that it creates competition, only on safety grounds and similar.

I believe restricting a guided busway (or probably an unguided one) to one or more specific operators requires a TWA order.

Regardless of the legal niceties, the construction and maintenance of a dedicated busway, whether guided or not, represents substantial expenditure on bus infrastructure. When diesel buses are phased out, it surely makes sense to spend a bit more and add trolley wires to the busway, rather than run battery buses along it? Likewise when bus lanes and bus priority schemes are added to the public highway, such as along the East Lancs Road between the Leigh guideway and Salford.

The tradeoff is essentially the same, on a smaller scale, as that between OLE and battery trains on the railway - see the "bionic duckweed" thread. Trolleybuses with small battery packs and in motion charging have lower capital cost, better performance and better fleet utilisation than battery buses with large batteries that require static charging, per the analysis that @daodao linked in #64. For a high frequency radial route in a large conurbation, this saving can outweigh the additional cost of the trolley wires.

 

[Man of Kent]

Trolleybuses with small battery packs and in motion charging have lower capital cost, better performance and better fleet utilisation than battery buses with large batteries that require static charging,

The link referred to in message 64 is by a pressure group that seeks to promote trolleybuses. It has used a wide variety of sources for vehicle costs, though its figure of £500k for an in motion charging trolleybus is not borne out by the quoted cost of the articulated ones in Solingen, new around the beginning of 2019, which were approximately 950,000 Euro each (German language source here: https://rp-online.de/nrw/staedte/solingen/solingen-auf-probefahrt-mit-dem-bob_aid-35643451). A new double deck diesel in this country is around £250,000, the premium for battery is falling as production ramps up, and I believe is in the order of 50% (the Ultra Low Emission Bus Scheme - ULEBS - figures on the government website give a rough idea). Various sources indicate the price of a hydrogen double decker as between £500-550,000. The in motion trolleybus is a scale of magnitude beyond any of these other alternatives, which even taking into account the cost of fixed infrastructure to serve the battery buses would still be difficult to categorise as "lower capital cost".

 

[daodao]

The link referred to in message 64 is by a pressure group that seeks to promote trolleybuses. It has used a wide variety of sources for vehicle costs, though its figure of £500k for an in motion charging trolleybus is not borne out by the quoted cost of the articulated ones in Solingen, new around the beginning of 2019, which were approximately 950,000 Euro each (German language source here: https://rp-online.de/nrw/staedte/solingen/solingen-auf-probefahrt-mit-dem-bob_aid-35643451). A new double deck diesel in this country is around £250,000, the premium for battery is falling as production ramps up, and I believe is in the order of 50% (the Ultra Low Emission Bus Scheme - ULEBS - figures on the government website give a rough idea). Various sources indicate the price of a hydrogen double decker as between £500-550,000. The in motion trolleybus is a scale of magnitude beyond any of these other alternatives, which even taking into account the cost of fixed infrastructure to serve the battery buses would still be difficult to categorise as "lower capital cost".

Apples and oranges. One needs to compare the prices of buses of similar design and size, where just the energy supply is different, to obtain a meaningful comparison. An articulated bus is likely to cost more than a standard length bus, but carries more passengers.

The 4 Solaris Trollino 18 large articulated battery trolleybuses purchased by Solingen in 2018 can carry 175 standees as well as at least 35 seated passengers, well in excess of the capacity of a traditional standard length British bus, but similar to that of a Bombardier M5000 Metrolink tram. Its costs need to be compared with equivalent diesel/hybrid/battery buses and standard trolleybuses of the same size made by this Polish manufacturer.

 

[Greybeard33]

Apples and oranges. One needs to compare the prices of buses of similar design and size, where just the energy supply is different, to obtain a meaningful comparison. An articulated bus is likely to cost more than a standard length bus, but carries more passengers.

The 4 Solaris Trollino 18 large articulated battery trolleybuses purchased by Solingen in 2018 can carry 175 standees as well as at least 35 seated passengers, well in excess of the capacity of a traditional standard length British bus, but similar to that of a Bombardier M5000 Metrolink tram. Its costs need to be compared with equivalent diesel/hybrid/battery buses and standard trolleybuses of the same size made by this Polish manufacturer.

Quite. For a vehicle with the same chassis and body, the additional equipment for in motion charging is little more than the trolley poles themselves (with servomechanism for automatic deployment). It beggars belief that the cost of this could exceed the cost of the bigger battery needed on the self powered version (assuming volume production to give similar economies of scale).

But the bigger issue is the capital cost of the whole fleet, not the unit cost of one vehicle. A standard battery bus has a lower maximum daily utilisation than a diesel or trolleybus, because of the dead time needed for recharging between workings. Therefore a larger fleet is needed to cover the same route network, increasing the capital cost of the fleet even if the individual vehicles are the same price.

 

[Killingworth]

Quite. For a vehicle with the same chassis and body, the additional equipment for in motion charging is little more than the trolley poles themselves (with servomechanism for automatic deployment). It beggars belief that the cost of this could exceed the cost of the bigger battery needed on the self powered version (assuming volume production to give similar economies of scale).

But the bigger issue is the capital cost of the whole fleet, not the unit cost of one vehicle. A standard battery bus has a lower maximum daily utilisation than a diesel or trolleybus, because of the dead time needed for recharging between workings. Therefore a larger fleet is needed to cover the same route network, increasing the capital cost of the fleet even if the individual vehicles are the same price.

When in Cologne last year I saw this bus parked just outside the main railway station. I was curious and went to get a closer look. The driver was very happy to talk about it. Good to drive, smooth to ride in.

However he couldn't stay long at the city centre terminus where space is at a premium so wouldn't be fully recharged from the installation in the picture. He highlighted the problem when he explained the length of stop he'd be taking at the out of town terminus where there's more space. Lots of dead time when the bus is not in service and driver not driving. Skipping buses at termini might reduce the manning issue, but parked up buses need more space and more buses in the fleet.

 

[dm1]

It is that specific issue that makes the IMC trolleybus optimal in most city situations.

You have the battery which gives you the flexibility, but you use it to it's maximum (increasing efficiency and mitigating the environmental impact of building the battery), and you don't have the utilisation issues that you would have otherwise.

We can argue about how battery technology will develop - and I'm sure it will to some extent, but it will do so relatively slowly, and the efficiency will still be lower than when much of the energy is supplied directly from wires.

The physics of charging and power supplies means that you are unlikely to be able to improve the charging speed without either expensive infrastructure (high power grid connections, supercapacitors, stationary batteries etc), or sacrificing efficiency (or more likely both).

That's even without the service aspects mentioned above. In the UK people have been shown to prefer trams over buses, because of the fixed infrastructure which means routes are less likely to be changed. The fixed infrastructure of overhead wires has a slightly smaller, but similar effect. I've used trolleybus wires numerous times as a guide to find a bus stop for example. That shouldn't be underestimated as a benefit.


For those are old enough to have experienced trolleybuses in the UK before their demise, it is worth emphasising that trolleybus technology has developed very significantly since then - dewirements are exceedingly rare, the catenary can be designed to allow full speed accross junctions, where these cannot be avoided using the battery (which is increasingly the case). The buses themselves are quieter, more modern, more efficient, can regeneratively feed energy back if necessary, and can connect and disconnect themselves to/from the wires automatically at the push of a button.

The infrastructure itself requires less maintenance and can be made less obtrusive than used to be the case.