The biggest reason I love trolleybuses is when the bus gets bigger, there's no need to put a bigger battery in there because they source electricity from overhead wires. So in my opinion the bi-articulated or even tri-articulated trolleybuses are usually a better investment than the standard size ones.
And as buses with internal combustion engined buses get bigger, there is a need to make the fuel tank bigger, exactly analogous to battery only electric buses. It is not possible for a vehicle to source a liquid or gaseous fuel while moving, only when stationary. That itself puts electric traction at an advantage.
Trolleybuses with batteries give you the best of both: they are lighter, cheaper, autonomous, don't need dedicated chargers, do not waste time on charging, don't require overhanging cables everywhere, are able to reroute
Consider that fact that even buses with internal combustion engines need dedicated fuel dispensers and can only be refuelled while stationary. In-motion refuelling is not an option, in-motion supply of electrical power is and that itself puts electric traction at an advantage.
Environmentally speaking, trolleybusses are way superior compared to battery electric busses, they don't require toxic rare earth metals like BEBs do. That's why, in my opinion, we should be building them whenever possible and sensical. Like, it wouldn't make much sense to build overhead electrical cables for a limited rural bus service.
@@Taladar2003 Of course! Trolleybusses would best perform in somewhere in the middle. In Helsinki regional area, we have many trunk bus lines, which are characterized by orange color from normal blue one. The busiest of them, called line 550, was just upgraded to a tram line. It hasn't opened to the public yet, but will open very soon. Other lines are busy too, but don't justify building tram tracks in the same way. It's those kinds of services that I think should be built to trolley standard. And I do think that every trolley line should be built in a way that would allow a possible future upgrade to a tram line.
i've lived in Arnhem for 15 years now, all maintenance i've known to have been done in this time is when a lorry that shouldn't have been where it was drove into a bridge and smooched the wires. there was also one street that got extensively redone, and in the meantime the poles holding the wires up got redone. both were done within a few days. there is one truly ancient service lorry that is an event when it's spotted, i've seen it twice when a storm made some branches fall on the wires. wires last a long time, but if they need to be changed, the service lorry comes by at night, and changes the wires over at about 2kmh, without any noise that would wake anyone. As stated, the network is about 70 years old and doing just fine. the amount of maintenance seems to be quite minimal, as does the additional outages and delays. the worst thing that seems to happen is that someone pulls the ropes of the fishing poles to be funny, but it seems most people of questionable intelligence think that that is where the electricity is, so it doesn't happen all that often
Trolley buses are unambiguously good. We should definitely have wires put up in our cities and we should also use those wires for other things as well, like the garbage trucks, postal vans, snow plows and such. We should make the batteries in those vehicles relatively small and probably interchangeable as opposed to fitting them with a gigantic battery that mostly just sits there being hauled around. With advances in robotics and sensors, it shouldn't be that difficult to design a system that can put the poles back onto the wires autonomously basically anywhere. However, I have to push back a little bit on the stuff about the mining, most of the stories are overblown and a lot of them are propaganda from oil companies. Oil companies, by the way are the biggest consumers of cobalt, it's used in diesel refining. The fire risk is definitely real, but we're starting to see interesting breakthroughs in sodium ion battery chemistry that has a much reduced fire risk. It's got a lower energy density but as I said we shouldn't be putting multiple ton batteries in the buses anyway. Good presentation overall.
Agree! In general, in my opinion, battery technology is still in the process of development, so it is a bit early for cities to invest millions in something that will most likely become obsolete in just a few years
induction charging. busses stop for a minute at bus stops. level with the road surface at bus stops is an induction charger. under the bus is an induction charge receiver. two types of electricity storage on bus; super capacitors for quick charge and initial motion inertia, plus whatever is most efficient battery cells for traction power between stops. (charge induction is only live when interfaced with charge receiver). for two reasons; no catenary and associated maintenance, and no need for on- board charging generator or the weight of all-of-trip battery capacity. possible multi-use for other electric utility vehicles.
@@GaryGraham-sx4pmbuses and trucks are to heavy for induction based systems, as they're inefficient. Meanwhile cars are not tall enough for overhead wire... On highways we might get both, but in the cities it will be mostly wires
@@jan-lukas. thanx for your reply. induction electrical energy transfer is very efficient, every transformer is an induction energy transfer device. induction suitable for buses because of predetermined and frequent charging positions at bus stops. there are about a dozen examples of viable induction charged city bus systems.
@@GaryGraham-sx4pm The efficiency of inductive charging decreases when an air gap increases. AC transformers are very large and have zero air gap. And therefore they are effective.
Trollybusses are great for citys with a high frequency, battery-electric busses are great for low-frequency longer range routes, like in rural areas or for special services. A Public transit network should always have a few network-indipendent busses, to compensate for big events, accidents and construction on mainlines, evactuations etc. even if it usually only runs trollybusses.
In Vancouver Canada there's lots of trolley buses. I rode the number 19 which takes you to Stanley Park and I got to say, trolley buses accelerate fast! They're definitely one of my favourite type of buses second only to double deckers.
Can't believe you didn't mention Mexico City, the system was fully renovated with brand new Yutong trolleybuses and many new kilometres of this service have been or are being created.
With the current anti-china sentiment, probably doesnt want to cover chinese products.. everything chinese is evil, even if its the worlds largest green energy producer
Thanks for highlighting at the end, that trolley buses are also electric buses. I prefer to speak of battery buses and trolley buses to mark the real difference of both power systems. And overall, a really good video of course :-)
Great video! Here in Bratislava (Slovakia), the trolleybus network is about to be significantly expanded, and I'm really looking forward to the double-articulated vehicles which should enter operation sometime this year! However, the city still feels the need to tinker with battery electric and even hydrogen buses as well, for some reason.
I really appreciate that there are a variety of options for people getting around. Different circumstances call for different solutions. Thanks for this in depth look at these modes!
Pretty good video! Some additional comments: • Switzerland has 13 active trolleybus systems; all of them use either single- or double-articulated vehicles. There are no more standard size trolleybuses in operation in Switzerland. This can be understood in the way that trolleybus (especially the bi-articulated kind) is in the top range for the operation field of buses. If you have to get beyond the feasible capacity, you have to go rail-based. • The results of the research with the SwissTrolley Plus lead to the development of a sophisticated energy/battery management system, which takes into account the topography of the line, in order to get all energy created with regenerative braking into the battery (instead of braking resistors or the overhead wires). So, it makes sure that the battery is sufficiently discharged before a downhill section of the line, and that it is becomes fully charged at its end. The effect of this system is that the energy consumed from the overhead wires can be reduced by about 25%. • It took VBZ only a few thousand franks in infrastructure investment to electrify a specific line from diesel to BTB with IMC operation (well, this line ran under wire for about half its length already). • The video mentioned it already, the manufacturers never list range in unrestricted mode (meaning that all consumers are active), but always in restricted (or emergency) mode, where all non-essential consumers are switched off. A rule of thumb by VBZ is that you design the vehicles around unrestricted mode with 2.8 kWh/km (single-articulated). • In St. Gallen, extending the overhead line network by 20% allowed to double the network length operated with electric vehicles. So, it should be a no-brainer for systems having already trolleybuses in operation to expand with BTBs with IMC.
Mexico City has a 203km trolleybus network served by 290 units on 9 lines, with two more lines under construction. Latest acquisitions have included simple and articulated units with supporting batteries and are regularly used as a support whenever the subway or other systems fail, having a ~80km battery autonomy.
Not all batteries use cobalt and much more is used in oil refining and combustion engines, and you can only use the fuel once. Also some battery types are safer than others.
that's incorrect - cobalt in refining is almost - but not quite ever lasting - The equation is around 660.000 gals of fuel per ounce of cobalt used up. You are right about LFP being much safer, however at a much lower energy density
The way to go is to combine the two, like shown with your Solingen example: Until recently, some trolley buses had auxiliary diesel motors to maneuver around bus yards, parts without overhead wires or obstacles on their regular lines. Now, these auxiliary motors can be replaced by batteries that can be recharged via the overhead wires. These batteries are rather small and lighter than an auxiliary motor with fuel, and usually don't have a wide range, but they allow the buses to reach the next functioning power lines. Unlike diesel motors they don't need start-up time nor an additional fuel supply. What makes these systems additionally attractive is their ability to recuperate energy when braking, which saves both energy and break pads abrasion. The size of the battery packs can be adapted to the specific needs of a system. In Salzburg, for example, one trolley line extends far beyond the city overhead wire system into a suburb. The bus runs and recharges first under the wire system of the city and then runs autonomously on the country road out to the suburb for a total of more than 20 km. Employing these dual mode buses offers easy solutions for example when it comes to opening routes that cross a railway line with conflicting overhead wires, or underneath low bridges with insufficient clearance to install overhead wires.
You now could argue: “Well actually copper for the wires too is not renewable”. A Copper wire is comparable much easier to recycle, melt it down and cast it again, recycled it is. I agree with you about trolley omnibusses. I would add to the argument. The electric bus is more or less still a development platform, there are a lot more improvements to be done, meanwhile the trolley omnibus is a decades proven technology. Because we need green transport now not tomorrow, spending the extras upfront is in my opinion just worth it. Furthermore if you City also operates a tram network you could always argue that the trolley omnibuses is a 15% down payment for a tram. When the demand increases to a thresholds put in rails, remove one of the wires and you have a tram.
My local suburb recently got a bunch of electric buses, seemingly out of the blue. You now see them everywhere and the transition has been almost unnoticeable except for seeing them drive around. While Trolley buses may be the better form of technology, they require quite a bit of political shenanigans and dealing with residents before you can even start to build a network. On the other hand it appears that battery electric buses can just be rolled out under our noses without any fanfare. At the end of the day, while it would be nice to see more trolley buses, I feel like by the time that anyone gets their act together to even consider them, we will see practically all our networks run by battery buses. Note: the buses they are using do not have quick charge capability, they simply run their route then charge back up at the depot when they run low. That doesn't work for all routes but it works for at least 75% of them. While more complex solutions will be required for the other routes, I feel as if we have just entered the mass adoption stage of battery buses where they will soon be everywhere, and cities will only have to try and solve the long routes problem in a few years.
I see Trolleybusses every Day at Work, Our little Trolleybus system survived because Esslingen was once Test-City for the Mercedes-Benz Duobusses of the O 305 and O 405 GTD Type. Starting next year, the currently 10 Overheadwire/Battery Duobusses will be joined by 46 more Overheadwire/Battery Duobusses and the Wires will be extended in some locations. The SVE even bought back the last ever Build O 405 GTD as an historic Trolleybus. After 11 Years No. 327 was back home.
I would love to see more of these trolleybuses along regional roads in my city in Canada. We recently developed a tram line down the centre of the whole city. I personally would love to see more tram lines or even mass passenger rail service along regional roads, especially since you don't have the micro particles from rubber tires. However, if trolleybuses can get more cars off the road the better. Reduce the micropollution with one bus but removing many cars is a step in the right direction.
if you can have the trolleybuses link in to the tram network on the parts they already exist. you could have one of those more semi trolly systems. like lines above when available but you don't need lines all the time. reducing the cost of building them all at once.
Vancouver still has 13 trolley bus routes, with a fleet of 262 units, including 74 articulates. The latest of which were purchased in 2016 from Winnipeg based New Flyer Industries. Vancouver also has an extensive autonomous electric light rail system. Toronto has 9 tram lines on an 82kn network throughout the city, as well as a metro system. And Montreal also has a metro system. Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa all have light rail.
@@dougbrowning82 The current fleet of trolley buses in Vancouver came into service around 2006/2007 and should be reaching retirement by the latter half of the decade. And if I’m not mistaken, there are ~14 routes lol
We have trolleybuses in Naples (Italy) and we are one of the very few places in the whole world to actually be expanding our system! For example, we converted route 604 (now 204) from diesel to trolleybus, and routes R5 and 168 are shortly to follow (to be renumbered 205 and 206 respectively). Definitely think trolleybuses are the way to go. Problem with batteries is the intense amount of production required, and not environmentally friendly at all
...one city in the States that uses dual mode trolleybuses (electric/diesel) is Seattle. Sadly their neighbour to the south where I live (Portland) dismantled it's trolleybus network decades ago and plans to go all battery electric. by 2035. The city does have a fairly extensive LRT network (particularly for its size) as well as two street tram lines. Sadly only a handful of cities in the country here still have trolleybus networks, the largest being San Francisco followed by Seattle.
Small correction: For Switzerland, I count not 11, but 14 operating trolleybus network systems. One of which is debatable (La Chaux-de-Fonds), because it's just re-opening this year after a 10 year intermediate period of closure. These trolleybuses indeed see a revival in recent years, with a large ridership and many technical innovations. One line just passes by my house, and I don't mind the noise at all; they are more quiet than some of the cars passing. Here's the list: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trolleybus_systems_in_Switzerland
One downside of trolleybuses, they are two quiet sometimes. I almost got killed by one in Goldbrunnenplatz when I first moved to Zurich as I was going to step out onto the street but was looking the wrong way (due to being from downunder) and couldn't hear it coming. Luckily my mate grabbed me and prevented me stepping out in front of it.
Well, actually, we have to count 13 systems; while La Chaux-de-Fonds is phasing in, Schaffhausen is phasing out… Schaffhausen obviously fell for the Irizar eye candy… Somehow fortunate that La Chaux-de-Fonds left the wires up after taking them down in the city centre because of big style rebuilding. And with only very limited effort, they could re-energise them, and run tests with a vehicle borrowed from Biel. Together with the need for renewal of the more than 30 years old vehicles in Neuchâtel, transN could stitch together a substantial order, where deliveries are supposed to start later this year.
@@tintin_999 Them being quiet can also be looked at as an asset, but yes, not if you''ve recently moved from the British Isles or down-under... glad you survived the first few months on Zürich's streets!
I live in the Boston area, where the MBTA has been gradually removing trolleybus lines and replacing trolleybuses with diesel buses (with a vague promise of one day replacing them with battery-only electric buses). I wish I knew any way we could prevent them doing that.
Fully agree! I have lived in Arnhem for 4 years and I know them from Budapest. And so I kept asking myself the same questions. The combo of trolleybus and battery was new for me but makes all the sense. Thank you for making this video!
Trolleybuses should always be retained, Battery buses should only supplement them, and should be equipped with trolley poles too so they can charge while the fully charged ones can go off grid. the highest demand systems should have their lanes made exclusive or be converted to Trams like we have in Melbourne, Australia. i wish we had more trolleybuses here instead of buses, suburban/intercity ones would be amazing
@@cityforalli know its better to stick with proven technologies, but the 2 wire systems are still clumsy, theres a reason why trams quickly adopted pantographs, and while yes they have the tracks that they can use for return current, hopefully we discover some reliable way that trolleybuses (or maybe they'll be called trambuses) can use tram catenary systems
@@xymaryai8283 One advantage of trolley buses over trams is their ability to move to the curb to load/unload, and move around other road traffic. The swivelling trolley poles are adept at these manoeuvres.
1:15 Lugano, Switzerland… That’s a sad story. What looked like a great idea eventually lead to the trolleybus system’s demise. They picked a 1 kV system. That’s great, because it requires less copper (i.e. thinner cables) compared to the common 600 V or less common 750 V systems. Sadly, the world evolved to a point at which there was no manufacturer capable of making new 1 kV trolleybuses for Lugano and so they didappeared in the early 2000s. The last overhead wieres in Viale Castagnola survived until approximately 2014, but had not been used since ~2002 anyway.
Sadly, the trolleybus network, or trackless trolleys as we call them, has only shrunk since 2003. Only 3 routes remain today, based out of Frankford Depot. All the overhead wires in South Philly were cut down years ago, and Septa has no plans to restore any trackless routes, let alone establish new ones, saying it would be too "cost prohibitive". Not to mention all the streetcar lines that have been "suspended" and the rails paved over. Needless to say, public transit in Philadelphia is in a bit of a sad state right now. If only we had the proper funding for a world class transit system befitting of a major city...
Something that, if you mentioned it, you really glossed over it, the battery buses weight really wear down roads a LOT faster than trolley buses or even diesel buses (which are already heavier than trolley buses). My local city never had a trolley bus system, but in an effort to go green has been heavily investing in (battery) electric buses. Not only did they not save nearly as much as they thought they would on up front costs due to the high costs of the vehicles and the charging infrastructure, but they aren't saving overall on maintenance, they've just swapped maintaining overhead wires for extra maintenance on the roads from extra wear and tear from super heavy buses. Also, and this is a very important thing for cities to factor in, battery buses kind of suck, let me rephrase that, they really really suck. The heater doesn't keep up in the winter, the air conditioning doesn't keep up in the summer, all because the manufacturer had to skimp on the HVAC system to maximize the range of the bus, the acceleration isn't as fast as a trolley bus, it isn't even as fast as a diesel bus, and while part of this is that it is a new tech still, they are so unreliable that our city has had to take some of our old diesels out of retirement (not even our hybrids, just straight diesels) because so many of the electrics are out of service at any given time. Of course, we've learned nothing and we're doubling down on not investing in overhead wires and instead investing in hydrogen fuel cell buses and a hydrogen electrolysis station. Oh well, at least the buses will be lighter and won't damage the roads as quickly.
@@cityforall Reno Nevada. The most recent example of the road wear and tear was a $3.25 million project that, in fairness did also include a new rather large bus shelter and sidewalk improvements, to build a multiple feet thick concrete pad at a busy bus stop because of the damage the bus sitting there while passengers were boarding did to the asphalt. I can't find anything in the public records on how much of the project cost was the bus shelter and sidewalk improvements and how much was the roadway repairs, however the funding source is listed as being from fuel taxes, so I'm fairly certain that legally the majority of the project expense had to be road repairs.
Actually, buses are always among the vehicles with the highest axle load (especially when they go into sardine can mode…). As there are (at least in the civilised world) relatively strict limitations on total vehicle weight (in Switzerland 30 t for a single-articulated and 40 t for a double-articulated), it is a tradeoff between passenger capacity and battery capacity… this translates to 200 kWh corresponding to 12 passengers capacity - which in a single-articulated vehicle is about 8% of the capacity. Therefore you will need more BatteryElectric Buses to handle the same line capacity (we talk between 15 and 30%!). And this can easily compensate the additional cost for overhead lines…
In-Motion-Charging (IMC) trolleybuses are the real game changers! Coming from a city where we used to have trolleybuses, and we will have them again next year with IMC-trolleybuses, I can tell for sure that you end up not paying attention anymore to overhead wires. For decades, companies specialized in overhead wires have been developing technologies enabling these wires to remain discrete. Most disturbing could be those "spider webs" implied by switches. But again, with IMC trolleybuses, we could remove these and cross these sections in battery mode like they do in Beijing next to the Tiananmen Square.
Thank you for giving some attention to my hometown Arnhem. Being born and raised here, I can’t imagine my city without the trolleybus network. And over the past 25 years the city and the province did a lot to invest in the quality and future of the network. Can’t wait for the hybrid trolleybus service to Wageningen to start next year. Unfortunately we also had some closures. Some disused trolley wiring in the south part of the city finally has been removed (after hanging there for more than 20 years without any trolleybus service), so chances any conventional trolleybus lines will run along the roads in question there are very slim now. The trolleybus line to Hoogkamp was cancelled back in 2017 (after they rebuilt the line only 7 years earlier), but the wiring is still there and active. If the new hybrid line to Wageningen will be a succes, I have high hopes Hoogkamp will get trolleybus services again in a similar hybrid form. I was really impressed with the speed, frequencies and reliability of the Zürich trolleybus system. Their system seems to be more focused on connecting outer areas of the city, whereas the tram is the main connector of the outer areas with the city center. And they work perfect together, also when it comes to interchangeability.
Great video! You didn't mention Hungary (only 3 cities have trolley busses), but Budapest has a pretty good trolley system as well, so it's worth checking out, if someone is interested. The terminus of line 74 even had a little cameo at 4:20
The first city to operate trolleybusses (with trolley poles) was not Leeds, but Königstein(Sachsen) in Germany in 1901, but operations closed in 1904 already. The second one was the Industriebahn Wurzen (1905 - 1928), which interestingly was transporting goods, not passengers.
I remember we had electric trolley busses in Toronto then one year they did away with them and just put regular busses on the routes. Now just a memory from the past.
Very interesting and good video! I'm so glad I live here in Arnhem (The Netherlands) because I really like trolleybuses and visit Solingen very often, which is only 2,5 hours by train from Arnhem. Keep up the good work! 🙌
Actually the best one is a hybrid of the two that uses super capacitors instead of lithium ion batteries! So it can operate like a trolley bus on dedicated busway parts of their routes while being able to run off wire for a significant amount of their routes where they may have to share the road with other traffic! ::
You forgot to mention that trolley busses have the big advantage of high acceleration. the 750 VDC network (also used in tramsystems) can deliver a lot of power.
The two technologies can be combined it's called in motion charging a battery electric bus can charge using the overhead wires 750v DC or 600v DC in addition to its battery charge on the Depot side. Vossloh Kipe has this.
Thank you for telling me about that if you are looking for a system in the United States that has the diesel for emergency detours it's Philadelphia @@cityforall
The advantage of buses is that you can easily reconfigure lines. That is lost when switching to trolleybuses. Trams are the best for fixed medium-capacity routes, as they are more efficient (reduced wheel friction, mostly dedicated right-of-way, at least outside city centers). Also, tram can be considerably longer than trolleybuses and have a higher capacity per vehicle.
Busses are bumpy as you can see at many points in this video and the more busses there are the more the road wears out and makes the problem worse and expensive to fix. Tram rails are smooth and last a lot longer which is much more comfortable for passengers. Trams require less energy, because steel on steel has much less friction and although trolley/battery busses aren't spewing out diesel fumes tyres still produce particle pollution and make the air in cities worse. If a route is used enough to make it worth building the infrastructure for a trolley bus then perhaps it's worth putting in tram lines. On top of that a trolley bus requires two cables: a tram only one. Which one is the future? Trams. Trolley busses are at best a budget option.
where I live in the US the state has been working on getting all city buses over to electric and they have been moving pretty quickly to do it and its nice to see especially in the bigger cities and even highway rest stops using solar panels its pretty cool.
Van Hoole is testing a double decker, battery electric motor coach on a long distance, intercity run from California to Florida. Their won't be any paying passengers, just invited company officials on this run. The bus will be charging at standard, Tesla supercharging stations along the way.
Trolley buses and electric buses are different concepts with different economics. Trolley buses make sense on trunk routes, with frequent services and enough paying customers. Just like trams and metros, it requires an investment for each piece of route or track you want to run. For example, Amsterdam has a network of metros and trams to cover the trunk routes. There is a vast network of complementary buses that serves the city, the airport and its suburbs. It wouldn't make economic sense to build wires on all these dozens of routes. Battery-powered buses made it posdible to switch from diesel to electric, which otherwise would have remained diesel. It costs infrastructure at the hubs only, which is shared between many different routes.
Good video! Still, you didn't mention Hungary it only has 3 cities. Now days it uses hybrid "trolley" and "battery" bus which it is more efficient to take detour and less consume battery.
One of the best videos I've seen on this topic! It would be great if we could get some trolleybuses back in the UK, but there seems to be no will for it unfortunately. London is all-in on double decker hybrid and battery electric buses for some reason. By the way, I would not use the word "autonomous" because it makes me think of "driverless", which is a totally different thing to what you were talking about.
Trolley buses are VASTLY superior to battery buses for regular service. Battery buses are good for use as Peak Hours supplemental service and School supplemental service only.
I wonder if a different kind of trolley bus could avoid overhead wires - instead using light poles with nearly "invisible" electric contact bars. Each electrode arm holds up the end of a wire; the other ends of the wires are held up by a drone. The point is, the wires slide against the contact bars, allowing the bus to receive power for some time as it drives past a light pole. This way, the battery only needs to provide enough power to get from one light pole to the next, and there's no visual impact on the scenery. The drone makes some noise, but I don't think it will be much noise in the big scheme of things. It might also lower infrastructure costs, because existing light poles have power supply suitable for older less efficient lights.
The problem with Cobalt is confined to a single type of batteries, Lithium-Nickel-Manganese-Cobalt batteries. Those are mostly used in mobile devices, because they allow for the most compact built. In car batteries. Cobalt use is far lower than 10 years ago, and now, you can get the same energy density with only a tenth of the Cobalt usage. Other battery types like Lithium-Ironphosphate don't use any Cobalt all, and no Nickel either. All they use is Ironphosphate, which is quite abundant everywhere and so harmless, that you can literally pour a teaspoon full of Ironphosphate in your morning coffee and drink it without fear of poisoning. Ironphosphate batteries don't burn. They will of course melt down if heated up, but so will the whole bus anyway. And they are mechanically stable. Drive a nail through a Lithium-Ironphosphate battery, and it will lose some of its capacity, but still be working. Biggest disadvantage: Lithium-Ironphosphate batteries have a foamy structure, making their size larger than Lithium-NMC. Thus they won't be used in mobile devices. And in low-floor busses, you have to find a place to store the large (but not necessarily heavier) batteries inside the bus. The water usage in Lithium mining is also more complex. The grade of water purity you need is far less than the quality necessary for agriculture or drinking water. You can use industrial waste water for instance. In Chile, there are legal limits on the usage of waste water, which forced the mining operater to use fresh water instead.
It makes nothing but sense. In some places they have the trolley bus run partly on the tram network. I went to the trolleybus museum in the midlands and I was told that the UK government has closed their mind to it. I would combine some of the routes with kerb sided steering, which, as with trams, allows much smaller gaps between vehicles. Kerbside guided tracks have the advantage of a tram, that they can run through a large park, making impossible for ordinary vehicles to use the track and the gap in the middle can be greened with vegetation and low growth flowers. The making of the tracks can be cheap as large scale 3d printing can be employed on a seemless operation with a choice of materials like concrete or suitable plastics
Several trolleybus routes can share the same corridor on busy streets, which makes the investment better. There is only one issue: if diffrent trollrybus routes split at intersections, the cables can get very complicated. A solution is preserve the cables for the main line and remove the else. Routes on the brach line is required to cross the intersection using backup battery with poles down. This can ensure the main line routes run without slowing down, but branch line routes will need an additional stop to reconnect the poles to the cables. This is a trade-off.
if you need to move 1500 people per hour (point a to point b) use bus(capacity 120) . if you need to move 3600 people per hour use trams or articulated buses (capacity 300 with 3 cars). but if you need to move 28,800 people per hour use the metro (capacity 2400 with 8 cars)
You skipped 7.200, 10.800, 14.400, 21.600... ;) For 30k a full metro is overkill, AGT or monorails are more economical to build and operate, and a higher frequency is better for passengers than higher capacity lower frequency trains.
Trolley buses are so much better than Electric buses because if that battery on the Electric bus catches fire it'll be impossible to put out and claim that bus.
Trolleybuses or battery buses: why not both? In my city (Saint-Petersburg) the battery buses are operated by the enterprise that runs buses and they replace regular buses on their routes. Trolleybuses, on the other hand, are run by a different operator and have their own routes (they often have the same number as a bus that they intersect with, but a completely different route, so an unsuspecting tourist can confuse them)
The smallest US city to have trolleybuses was Wilkesbarre which had its positives but was partly used as a way to end trolley service when national city lines took over. They only continued to run the trolley buses till 1958 when they managed to get a hold repealed that forced them to continue using them. Some routes that had trolleybuses are no longer served today due to tight curves and steep grades as the modern natural gas buses struggle on these lines. Tho compared. The big downside that both electric and diesel busses suffered was the lack of private ROW which the streetcars had across 90 percent of the system. The buses are always stuck in traffic.
I guess there is a mistake in the video about world biggest trolleybus network: it should be Minsk, Belarus, not Kyiv, Ukraine. Minsk took the 1st place after Moscow removed its network in 2019. BTW, Minsk Trolleybus Network modernizes regularly and consist of both trolley buses and battery buses.
We should make battery busses that are easily convertible for trolleys. If you are a growing City you will first use batteries, then if you get a particularly busy area you can have them charge as they go and even operate 24/7 while charging. Once the network gets large enough they should be replaced with articulated and/or DD busses that have small emergency batteries if they have one at all.
Great video and I fully agree with your conclusions. With a smaller battery required by the trolley buses for limited off wire-excursions, different chemistry might be employed that is not focussed entirely on maximum capacity/kg; some of these alternatives have better charge cycle life, can charge quicker and are less prone to fire than typical car derived cells. I noted a few years ago that Moscow made the mistake of abandoning what had been the largest network in the world. Their hoped for total replacement by battery buses has proved over-optimistic and diesel vehicles are now being used in many cases. Quite insane, like some other recent Russian decisions!
Why not both? In Lublin, Poland there are new trolley buses with batteries. They are able to go for a few kilometers only on battery where there is no electric line. When it goes back on track it connects to the line again.
I live in Salzburg, Austria and here they have a trolleybus system since the 1950s or maybe even earlier. Today they use 4 different types of Trolleybusses - Van Hool, Solaris (2 different ones) and Hess - the Hess ones are used on lines with limited overhead lines (on at least one line the last 1-2 km don't have overhead wires, so the bus runs of its built-in batery. And by the way - the electricity is won by water energy plants in the local river Salzach. And there's one electric bus since last year to run on a local line out of the city. at 19:55 we can see one of Salzburg's old trolley busses sold to the Ukraine, because of the coloration and the bus number (197) on the side - trolley busses in operation here start at the 200 numbers... I always wondered what the 100s were like.
That old trolleybuses are now operating in Ivano-Frankivsk. And as far as I remember they also have some vehicles from other Austrian cities. I have to check which exactly.
In my city, Mendoza Argentina, we operated trolleybuses until 2016 when, due to very unfortunate political decisions, the service was suppressed and replaced by electric buses that cover 8% of the total network that El Trole used to cover, in addition, the network itself was always renewed and expanded, not counting the environmental and operational cost of battery electric buses, the example is Solingen and we also have good memories of that system since the old double-axle Trolleybuses made in the 60s in Solingen arrived almost entirely and helped to modernize the network and expand it in 1989 (our rez had only 3 lines and was operated by Nissan Toshiba units from Japan from the 60s and ZIU units from the Soviet Union but insufficient for expansion and modernization) This month elections are being held for Governor and both candidates from the Opposition to the current management that closed the service propose to reopen it and prevent the cable line from continuing to be roamed as in Dorrego or the Barrio San Martín, in addition to the fact that the maintenance of the cables is accompanied by the maintenance of the public trees of the city, something that no mayor in the area does and that on days of Zonda wind (warm wind typical of this area of Argentina) is essential for the safety of passers-by cars public transport TV lines internet electricity circulation of vehicles in case of emergency and the operation of the trolleybus itself
In my opinion that most cities could run trolleybuses with few overhead cables if you have trolleybus with battery for ~100km range. Cheaper and easier than trying to go electric on battery only. Especially if you already have a tram system so 750v infrastructure already exist. Charge on bigger roads where multiple lines go down the same road and on big interchanges. If needed some charging infrastructure on the outskirt final stops when there's some turn around time. Also you save money on brake discs and pads. Also no need to dedicate time, work force and infrastructure for refueling. Also no oil changes etc.
What is better? idk. But the real solution is promoting public transport and getting rid of unnecessary car usage. Whether the bus, trolleybus or battery bus in question may have its positives or negatives, they are all better solutions to the car problem AND potentially better for pollution. Im european and I know the public transport is good but definitely an area which the US needs major improvements on.
Trolley busses do not rely on batteries , which do not require Lithium and other minerals . the minerals are being mined and create a lot of pollution . Trolley busses also can be fed from a variety of sources generating electricity
Haven't watched yet since it's a silly question, it really depends on the local situation which suits best, furthermore it's very easy to engineer a bus that can operate in either mode & switch between them as needed.
Battery buses have a lot more use cases than trolleys (which in most cases should've just been trams in my opinion). There's a rural route in my area, 50 km round trip. Way too long and too fast for a trolley bus, not to mention putting wires over rural highways would be a logistical nightmare. But for a battery bus? It doesn't need any infrastructure, it just drives its route, and when it reaches the final stop, it gets a 5-10 minute boost from a charger while the driver has their legally mandated break. With those little boosts, it can drive the entire day without stopping for charging, doing hundreds of kilometres that would otherwise burn diesel. Multiply that by the 4 buses that serve this route, multiply that by hundreds of lines serving the suburbs and nearby villages, and you've got massive, massive benefits for the environment, and potentially the company running them, with electricity being so much cheaper than fuel. Trolleys would just entangle every road in the area in hundreds of kilometres of wires in constant need of maintenance.
Cool video, although some of your information about batteries is a little out of date. Modern battery technologies are both more energy dense and less reliant on things like cobalt. Also worth noting that when batteries reach the end of their life, they are usually converted to large batteries for the home (like the Tesla PowerWall) where they can go on serving useful lives for many, many years.
I believe that short distance city public transport should be abolished all together . As long as the energy used for this short distance city public transport is non green , meaning it results from the production of fossile CO2 in the athmosphere or nuclear waste , then this transport must not be used or at least kept to a bare minimum . The short distances in a city are not impossible to cover by foot or bycicle . Foot and bycicle are green transport methods . They are not always pleasant , do require effort , but are therefore healthy and also green . Public city transport bycicle parks are much more sensible , in terms of fighting global warming , than non green driven public city transport busses , trolleys or trams . Busses for public transport should only be used on long distances , where foot and bycicle cannot cover them decently , like from city to city . However , if the driving energy for public city transport would ever become 100% green , then i fully agree with the video , that trolleys combined with battery is the best economical solution .
Modern battery buses can easily cover a full day of operations, even when the battery is degraded. The problem is the environmental impact of the battery itself. But it's not that terrible, and technology is progressing fast. So, trolley buses can be a good stopgap, but the future is 100% battery. If i was a city boss, i would not dismantle existing catenaries yet, but i also would not invest in new ones.
To cover a full day, you have to have a lot of batteries on board and that increases the weight, thus the axle load - which in turn leads to reduced passenger capacity. In Australia where they prefer all-day charge, the capacity of 12 metre buses is reduced from about 80 passengers to about 60 passengers, which means you need more buses and drivers to carry the same number of people. In Europe, they prefer to retain passenger capacity, so they use less batteries, thus there is less range and the bus has to stop to recharge regularly. Altogether, the trolleybus with in-motion charging is a much better deal.
@@tonyhworks Not allowing bus companies to pack passengers like cattle is a positive thing, in my book. Yes, ideally, charge on the go is preferable. But, practically, it means embracing the negatives described in the video, and more. Battery buses are already a good option. And, as technology progresses, I have zero doubts that they will dominate the near future.
@@My-Opinion-Doesnt-Matter A reference is actual typical operation in Australian cities, usually up to 300-400 km on one charge covers the whole day. But, as a result, the passenger capacity is pathetic because of weight of the batteries. Perhaps the next invention should be a trailer to carry the batteries!
@@My-Opinion-Doesnt-Matter ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eXEPWuqr0ck.html It's in Italian, but the takeaways are: - bus was the MAN Lion's City-E - 2720kg of payload to simulate roughly 40 passengers - Realistic urban operations, including stops - 24h of continuous drive, worth 451km - Some 10% of battery energy still available at the end of the 24h By the way, that bus is rated for 104 passengers. @tonyhworks
I agree, trolleybuses may require an infrastructure investment, but the buses will be cheaper due to the lack of, or smaller, batteries. I think the ideal would be to install overhead wires on trunk lines where a lot of buses go, and then use smaller batteries to serve branch lines that only see buses every ten minutes or so. Buses that only go in the inner city may do without a battery (or with smaller batteries) whereas suburban buses would require somewhat larger batteries. In general due to the lack of batteries and the giant task of electrifying the world, we should be conservative with where to use batteries and where to use other solutions. (and that of course also applies to making electric cars smaller, why waste so many precious battery cells on giant trucks when the same cells can power two or three smaller cars?)
The problem with trolleybuses is, that there is no standard for voltage, the different cities applied different voltages, therefore they could not be manufactured cheap. There is no design, that would fit each city.
I disagree! Standard is 600 VDC, but upgrades to 750 VDC is planned for various places (and does not need much, if anything at all infrastructure-wise). There may be different potentials in the wires, but this can easily be dealt with. From the point of view power train, systems are all the same, with some need of configuration (but not customisation). The individual requirements for the features and anemities of the vehicles do vary way more, and demand customisation. This can, however, be relieved with an intelligent modular vehicle design.
@RMTransit mentions in his video on trolley vs battery buses that trolleybuses have lower speeds due to the risk of de-wiring. I think the future will be interesting as Solid Oxide Fuel Cells might improve enough to become viable. It will then be a question of whether it is cheaper to maintain a network of overhead wires, or run buses on (probably) green Butanol (produced using cheap nuclear heat from 4th gen reactors). I read somewhere (might not be true) that a large part of the cost of an overhead wiring network is the crossover wires/shunts etc at intersections and curved bits of road. DiaLOGIKa are making a machine vision rewiring system to enable the bus to automatically dewire and rewire in motion without any input from the driver. Or even just have one set of overhead wires on a two way street and have one bus automatically put it pulls down as they pass each other. This could perhaps lower the cost of the overhead wire network (if it actually works outside a rendering). Here is a video of it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-uPejgdyiXZ4.html
About the speed - as far as I saw in Zurich or Geneva trolleybuses are seem to have the same speed, as another traffic, they are not slower at all. I guess it depends from the quality of catenary wires and road traffic organisation.
Excellent presentation. However, there is one statistical mistake. There are about 350 trolleybus systems in the world, of which about 250 are in Europe. I don't think there are any systems that have closed in the 21st century, except Moscow and Wellington. However, in the same time, there are a few new systems, including Prague, that have opened. Another thing that can be mentioned with battery electric buses is that in many jurisdictions, the passenger capacity is severely reduced because of their weight.
Trolleybuses with low loss catenary (with much thicker wires by its cross-section) - will be the most energy effective city transportation system, right after trams.
