Would trolleybuses ever work in the UK?

[dm1]

I'd be interested to see any practical applications that demonstrate these statements, and also comparisons of energy use by a trolleybus and by a tram of the same size. It was reported that the GLT/TVR that ran for a while in France used about 50% more energy than a tram equivalent, presumably because of the inefficiencies of rubber tyres.

A tram is of course far more efficient in terms of energy used. But it is also significantly more expensive and far more disruptive and time-consuming to build. Another point is that a trolleybus can be used as a stepping stone to a tram. Once you have the electrical infrastructure for the trolley supply, it is relatively easy to convert to a tram at a later date if necessary.

That infrastructure is worth it if you are running long tram vehicles, but otherwise you can get very close to that with bi-articulated trolleybuses.

I agree a trolleybus will be inherently more efficient than a battery or diesel bus. My concern is the size of the niche between self-powered buses that don't require any infrastructure and are therefore most cost-effective at the low end (and probably getting more so at increasing passenger numbers as technology advances), and trams that are both most energy-efficient and most cost-effective at the high end of passenger flows. This niche may be small and could even be of a negative size!

The relative lack of new trolleybus operations in recent decades, compared with a minor boom in trams, suggests that the trolleybus isn't competitive even in countries where the deregulation issue doesn't muddy the waters. And for most of that period the battery or fuel cell bus wasn't a viable technology, but it is becoming so now.

In European parlance, a trolleybus can be considered to be between bendy buses and trams on the hierarchy of modes. If you are running a bendy bus at 8 bus per hour frequencies, it is probably worth electrifying. Any higher or if routes overlap, even more so. At 2 or 3 minute intervals you then probably need a tram (yes, I think London needs more trams too).

When looking at overall efficiency, yes a trolleybus has more hysteresis losses in the tyres, but installing and maintaining tram rails also has a carbon cost, which at lower demand levels/ with shorter trams is questionable.

The other situation where trolleybuses prove their own is on routes with significant elevation changes. The speed of a tram on steep gradients is very limited, particularly downhill, whereas trolleybuses (because of their rubber tyres) do not have this problem.

Some countries are buying large numbers of battery buses. Is that wise?

I think battery buses do have their place - but mostly on suburban routes or "all round the houses" routes where the frequency is low or the distance travelled by a bus per day is small and the weight issue is not a problem.

But a city like London should be looking at more efficient options too, as the fixed infrastructure needed will pay for itself extremely quickly. Anywhere with 'high' frequencies would benefit from some form of transport with infrastructure (be that a trolleybus, tram, or even heavy rail)

 

[Vespa]

Interesting to see a trolleybus using an earthing skate, I saw one clip of a similar thing, I think it was New Zealand transport museum and I know St Helens corporation did the same when converting the St Helens-Rainhill-Prescot route from trams to trolleybus as the wire wasn't set up in time, they used an earth skate as temporary measure.

 

[edwin_m]

Bravo, sir (or madam, as I don't know your profile, sorry). It takes courage to even advocate the continued use of trolleybuses in places that still have them, let alone propose they be introduced (or, quite often, reintroduced) in more towns and cities, but there are quite a few instances where this has either happened, is about to happen, or is being seriously considered. Contrary to anything you may have read in this thread already, the cost of starting a new trolleybus route from scratch as opposed to tram or light rail is much lower in most of the world (assuming that the mode doesn't already exist, in both cases) not only on account of the infrastructure involved but because the wholesale digging-up of roads and relocating utilities is unnecessary, thus disruption to the local populace and businesses is much less and doesn't last so long. I will attempt to do some background reading to where these developments are happening, and why, and report back within a day or three.

Looking forward to the results of this research, which would contradict the views I just set down above.

A tram is of course far more efficient in terms of energy used. But it is also significantly more expensive and far more disruptive and time-consuming to build. Another point is that a trolleybus can be used as a stepping stone to a tram. Once you have the electrical infrastructure for the trolley supply, it is relatively easy to convert to a tram at a later date if necessary.

That infrastructure is worth it if you are running long tram vehicles, but otherwise you can get very close to that with bi-articulated trolleybuses.


In European parlance, a trolleybus can be considered to be between bendy buses and trams on the hierarchy of modes. If you are running a bendy bus at 8 bus per hour frequencies, it is probably worth electrifying. Any higher or if routes overlap, even more so. At 2 or 3 minute intervals you then probably need a tram (yes, I think London needs more trams too).

When looking at overall efficiency, yes a trolleybus has more hysteresis losses in the tyres, but installing and maintaining tram rails also has a carbon cost, which at lower demand levels/ with shorter trams is questionable.

The other situation where trolleybuses prove their own is on routes with significant elevation changes. The speed of a tram on steep gradients is very limited, particularly downhill, whereas trolleybuses (because of their rubber tyres) do not have this problem.



I think battery buses do have their place - but mostly on suburban routes or "all round the houses" routes where the frequency is low or the distance travelled by a bus per day is small and the weight issue is not a problem.

But a city like London should be looking at more efficient options too, as the fixed infrastructure needed will pay for itself extremely quickly. Anywhere with 'high' frequencies would benefit from some form of transport with infrastructure (be that a trolleybus, tram, or even heavy rail)

For some reason it isn't letting me edit this quote, but my response relates to paragraph 3 onwards. I fully agree that a trolleybus sits between a bus and a tram, but is there actually a gap between the upper end of the range where self-powered buses are best and the lower end of that where trams are best? My suspicion, going by the lack of new trolleybus schemes, is that this gap is actually an overlap.

 

[philthetube]

Can trams and trolleybuses realistically share infrastructure?
I was thinking somewhere like Blackpool - run buses along the tram line, charging batteries under the wires, then running under battery power into the town centre and eastwards, or southwards to Lytham

They built a kerb guided busway along a tramway in Essen, Germany, but the trams are metre gauge and I think a standard gauge 2.65 width (as Blackpool now is) tram might foul the guideway. A road-railer bus has been tried before, but could be difficult for a modern low-floor vehicle. There have been many accidents from over-hasty transfers of such vehicles between road and rail mode in an engineering context, so the demands of doing this every few minutes in a time-critical passenger service could raise safety concerns.

there would be no need for buses to be guided in Blackpool

 

[edwin_m]

there would be no need for buses to be guided in Blackpool

There might be on the reserved sections, as they are probably too narrow to work as roads. On the Promenade the buses would go along the road anyway.

 

[mark-h]

I fully agree that a trolleybus sits between a bus and a tram, but is there actually a gap between the upper end of the range where self-powered buses are best and the lower end of that where trams are best?

A trolleybus with some battery range would make sense where there is a busy, electrified, core route which has a number of different destinations served at each end. A tram would require track to be constructed to each destination which may not be economic.

 

[edwin_m]

A trolleybus with some battery range would make sense where there is a busy, electrified, core route which has a number of different destinations served at each end. A tram would require track to be constructed to each destination which may not be economic.

Indeed it would. But I'm not aware of any recent such routes or serious current proposals, which rather suggests the technology or the economics isn't there.

 

[7 Ingleborough]

Requires very tall lamp posts. Walk out of Surbiton Station and look at the height of the lamp posts. They used to hold the catenary poles for the London Transport Trolleybuses that ran between there and Kingston. I'm old enough to remember the first weekend when the Routemasters replaced them on that route. I was 5 at the time, and I'm told most of the fleet were sold to a Spanish city.

 

[randyrippley]

There might be on the reserved sections, as they are probably too narrow to work as roads. On the Promenade the buses would go along the road anyway.

No, the whole point was to get the trolleybus off the congested road and onto the promenade tram track, where it could share power infrastructure

 

[edwin_m]

Requires very tall lamp posts. Walk out of Surbiton Station and look at the height of the lamp posts. They used to hold the catenary poles for the London Transport Trolleybuses that ran between there and Kingston. I'm old enough to remember the first weekend when the Routemasters replaced them on that route. I was 5 at the time, and I'm told most of the fleet were sold to a Spanish city.

I've just done so virtually and they all appear to be modern, although to a pseudo-heritage design. Definitely nowhere near as thick as the old tram/trolleybus posts which lasted into the 80s and 90s but there can't be many left now. https://goo.gl/maps/zqTXjFW9dRWRcSNR8

No, the whole point was to get the trolleybus off the congested road and onto the promenade tram track, where it could share power infrastructure

You'd need to put up more wires offset to one side, as the tramway is now pantograph-compatible. And trebling the weight of the wires would mean replacing most of the posts, or perhaps inserting a new one between each existing pair. So if you wanted to do that you might as well put in a new set of supports to put the wires above the road, and sort out the traffic instead.

 

[radamfi]

If you look at towns with both trolleybuses and battery buses at similar specification, is there a significant difference in passenger experience?

 

[Non Multi]

A trolleybus with some battery range would make sense where there is a busy, electrified, core route which has a number of different destinations served at each end. A tram would require track to be constructed to each destination which may not be economic.

Zurich have articulated battery trolley buses that allow 10km range on battery power alone. Actually 30km can be achieved, but 10km was what they required.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you look at towns with both trolleybuses and battery buses at similar specification, is there a significant difference in passenger experience?

I can't see why there would be; they're both electric and the presence of batteries doesn't affect passenger experience per-se, unless they were to catch fire.

I do recall the trial battery buses on MK's route 7 (my local route) emitted some unpleasant high frequency sounds (probably not audible to most but I've got good ears for a 41 year old; my pet hate is cat scarers), but I think those were from the motors and related circuitry, not from the batteries.

 

[radamfi]

I can't see why there would be; they're both electric and the presence of batteries doesn't affect passenger experience per-se

So why is there even a debate about this? Are there people reading this who travel on quality battery buses on a regular basis, maybe outside the UK? If these people have a good experience of travelling on a battery bus and don't notice the difference, then it is hard to make the case for trolleybuses.

 

[mark-h]

I do recall the trial battery buses on MK's route 7 (my local route) emitted some unpleasant high frequency sounds

Most modern electric vehicles, including trains, have Variable-frequency drives so a new trolleybus would make similar noises. The main difference is how audible it is.

 

[jumble]

You'd need to put up more wires offset to one side, as the tramway is now pantograph-compatible. And trebling the weight of the wires would mean replacing most of the posts, or perhaps inserting a new one between each existing pair. So if you wanted to do that you might as well put in a new set of supports to put the wires above the road, and sort out the traffic instead.

I think you have this the wrong way round
Pantographed trams don't care if the wire is trolley compatible or not
Plenty of the vintage trams in Blackpool still use trolley poles (ie the Boats) so the positive tram wire in Blackpool must be good for either and thuis would work with trolley busses
I understand that this was done in Kings Cross Sydney Australia

https://www.sydneytramwaymuseum.com.au/members.old/Trolley_Wire/170%20-%20Trolley%20Wire%20-%20Jun%201977.pdf

Page 8

 

[dm1]

If these people have a good experience of travelling on a battery bus and don't notice the difference, then it is hard to make the case for trolleybuses.

The case is more economic, operational and environmental, rather than directly to do with passenger experience.

Or rather, the passenger experience to compare with is a diesel bus. Once you decide to go electric the question is, which system to use (normal trolleybus, IMC trolleybus, battery bus with opportunity charging, battery bus with overnight charging). In that comparison the IMC trolleybus is probably the best long-term solution as far as lifetime cost and energy efficiency goes in many cases (see my earlier posts in this thread)

 

[jumble]

Across Mainland Europe, I've seen and been on many trolleybuses that they have there.

I also know Leeds was planning to build a trolleybus network, the so called NGT, but the scheme got cancelled in 2016.

So I was wondering, seeing that the UK currently has none of such networks - would trolleybuses be a good or bad idea for the UK?

A little bit OT but where in the world can you have a trolleybus ride where you have doors on both sides and which side you get on /off and where you pay depends on the direction of travel ?
Second question why?

 

[hst43102]

I can't see why there would be; they're both electric and the presence of batteries doesn't affect passenger experience per-se, unless they were to catch fire.

I do recall the trial battery buses on MK's route 7 (my local route) emitted some unpleasant high frequency sounds (probably not audible to most but I've got good ears for a 41 year old; my pet hate is cat scarers), but I think those were from the motors and related circuitry, not from the batteries.

I think battery buses do make a big difference compared to diesel. They don't rattle!

 

[edwin_m]

I think you have this the wrong way round
Pantographed trams don't care if the wire is trolley compatible or not
Plenty of the vintage trams in Blackpool still use trolley poles (ie the Boats) so the positive tram wire in Blackpool must be good for either and thuis would work with trolley busses
I understand that this was done in Kings Cross Sydney Australia

Overhead can indeed be made compatible with tram pantographs and trolley poles, as long as the supports for the wire are designed not to foul either the pantograph or the pulley on the trolley. Wiring for pantographs also has to stay nearer the centerline of the track, as the pantograph can't swivel outside the width of the vehicle as a trolley can. Wiring designed purely for one probably won't be compatible with the other.

However trolleybuses have two wires fairly close together and a tram with a pantograph would touch both and cause a short circuit. That's why in the shared route in Essen the trolley wires had to be separate ones off to one side.

 

[Greybeard33]

I've suggested several times in these threads that the trolleybus tends to combine the worst features of the bus and the tram. It can't carry any more people than a motor bus, is subject to rough riding due to road surface and driver steering, also has tyre emissions and higher energy costs per passenger than a tram, but needs fixed infrastructure in the form of overhead wires that are more obtrusive than those for trams. There's a benefit over buses in performance and zero emission at point of use, but as suggested technology is well on the way to delivering the same without needing overhead wires. Probably the main reason to go for one today would be somewhere with steep hills that trams and battery buses can't cope with.

As a schoolkid in the 1960s I regularly used to ride on the Nottingham trolleybuses. These were mostly 3-axle double deckers, with significantly higher capacity than a modern day diesel or battery bus. Passengers loved them. As well as being quiet, smooth and fume-free, they had a very high power to weight ratio compared with diesel or battery vehicles. On hilly routes, this gave much quicker journey times than the diesels that replaced them. On roads shared with diesel routes, the trolleybuses had additional stops but still kept up with the diesels because of the rapid acceleration (you had to hang on tight if standing)!

A battery-only bus cannot match the performance or capacity of a trolleybus, because of the weight of the batteries. And the manoeuvrability of a trolleybus enables it to use existing roads that would be unsuitable for a tram line.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

As a schoolkid in the 1960s I regularly used to ride on the Nottingham trolleybuses. These were mostly 3-axle double deckers, with significantly higher capacity than a modern day diesel or battery bus. Passengers loved them. As well as being quiet, smooth and fume-free, they had a very high power to weight ratio compared with diesel or battery vehicles. On hilly routes, this gave much quicker journey times than the diesels that replaced them. On roads shared with diesel routes, the trolleybuses had additional stops but still kept up with the diesels because of the rapid acceleration (you had to hang on tight if standing)!

A battery-only bus cannot match the performance or capacity of a trolleybus, because of the weight of the batteries. And the manoeuvrability of a trolleybus enables it to use existing roads that would be unsuitable for a tram line.

That's why they would really work well on the hilly routes in Brighton, for example. Diesel buses really struggle that you might as well build a new trolleybus route there.

They'd also work in other hilly UK towns or cities, such as Sheffield, Hastings, Plymouth and many others...

 

[edwin_m]

As a schoolkid in the 1960s I regularly used to ride on the Nottingham trolleybuses. These were mostly 3-axle double deckers, with significantly higher capacity than a modern day diesel or battery bus. Passengers loved them. As well as being quiet, smooth and fume-free, they had a very high power to weight ratio compared with diesel or battery vehicles. On hilly routes, this gave much quicker journey times than the diesels that replaced them. On roads shared with diesel routes, the trolleybuses had additional stops but still kept up with the diesels because of the rapid acceleration (you had to hang on tight if standing)!

A battery-only bus cannot match the performance or capacity of a trolleybus, because of the weight of the batteries. And the manoeuvrability of a trolleybus enables it to use existing roads that would be unsuitable for a tram line.

That was true in the 1960s but all forms of technology have advanced in the meantime so a comparison made then doesn't necessarily still apply. And if there are so many advantages to the trolleybus, why aren't lots of cities that don't already have them proposing to introduce them?

 

[dm1]

That was true in the 1960s but all forms of technology have advanced in the meantime so a comparison made then doesn't necessarily still apply. And if there are so many advantages to the trolleybus, why aren't lots of cities that don't already have them proposing to introduce them?

I think that's an interesting question. There are a couple of cities that have done or are planning to do exactly that (Prague and Berlin).

Mainly the answer is political I think. For the most part, trolleybuses would be suitable where they were historically and where they link existing development (i.e. you probably won't be able to build lots of new houses just because you build a trolleybus).

To make a trolleybus system work economically, you need a certain element of stability, which is good for passengers, but very difficult to arrange in a deregulated environment. They're also not all that "shiny" compared to a tram, a trolleybus is still a bus at the end of the day, despite the delusions in Leeds.

That said, there are various projects of new or extended trolleybus systems , but they tend to be local and therefore not as high profile as light rail lines.

Technology has developed significantly, but battery technology and in particular battery weight has developed very slowly - large capacity batteries are still extremely heavy.

 

[edwin_m]

I think that's an interesting question. There are a couple of cities that have done or are planning to do exactly that (Prague and Berlin).

That's interesting, and suggests that there may be a niche for the trolleybus in the right conditions. Both cities have extensive tram and bus networks and prior to these initiatives no trolleybuses for many decades. So their decisions were probably based on a good understanding of the merits of those existing modes and despite the diseconomies that arise from introducing something new and incompatible.

However, as some have mentioned, the bus deregulation laws in the UK make trolleybuses much more difficult to justify.

 

[Greybeard33]

That was true in the 1960s but all forms of technology have advanced in the meantime so a comparison made then doesn't necessarily still apply. And if there are so many advantages to the trolleybus, why aren't lots of cities that don't already have them proposing to introduce them?

In the 1960s the British trolleybus networks were killed off by a combination of economic factors, which were considered to outweigh the vehicles' superior performance relative to diesel buses. These factors included the availability of cheap oil from the Middle East and the increase in the cost of labour for OLE infrastructure maintenance. Above all, lack of routeing flexibility and the capital cost of wiring new housing estates and remodelled city centre streets during the '60s building boom.

The infrastructure cost/inflexibility issues remain a deterrent to the reintroduction of trolleybus technology, particularly with a deregulated bus industry. Nevertheless, there has been investment in dedicated busway/guideway infrastructure in several English cities. Perhaps wiring of such busways, to enable the use of In Motion Charging (IMC) trolley/battery buses, might be a first step towards more widespread wiring of radial arteries?

As others have said, IMC technology offers a compromise between the performance of a trolleybus and the flexibility of a battery bus.

 

[DDB]

I think a key question is what you ate trying to achive? If you are trying to decarbonise buses, trolleybuses are fine. But if you are trying to decarbonise all transport, what will get people out of thier cars? I belive that it has been shown that there is a sizable proportion of car users who will use trams but who wouldn't use buses. What would they think of a trolleybus?

 

[bluenoxid]

I belive that it has been shown that there is a sizable proportion of car users who will use trams but who wouldn't use buses. What would they think of a trolleybus?

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

 

[dm1]

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

All of which can be provided by a bus, trolleybus, tram or anything inbetween.

I'm lucky enough to live in a city where I don't think twice about taking a route requiring several changes between bus, tram and trolleybus because they all run like clockwork.

Whereas in my hometown I'm lucky if the one bus I need to get to the neighbouring town shows up at all.

 

[Killingworth]

I grew up in a city with trolley buses. They seemed far smoother and quieter than the buses of that time. However they suffered from three basic disadvantages.

1. The network of routes running through the city centre conflicted causing long delays. If I wanted a 31 I could bet there'd be five 33s in a row before one came. If I wanted a 40 there'd be five 33s and five 31s!
2. As has been said above, the redesign of city centres (especially wide roundabouts and one way systems) and widely spaced new housing estates needed extensive and expensive rewiring.
3. The trolley booms had a habit of springing off the wires causing mayhem in traffic as the conductor waved his long pole to recover them and get them back on with the trolley bus usually stuck in the middle of a busy junction!

Electric wiring is the issue. The advantages of a bus, but with the inflexibility of trains and trams when it comes to overtaking.

The answer has to be wire less electric vehicles. It can and is being done, but battery charging is the big drawback. So far the vehicle needs to recharge too often and too long to be practical for most routes, but it will come.