You must log in or register to comment.
I think someone else mentioned that San Francisco has these. I also wanted to throw in that Seattle has got them too. Maybe it’s a West Coast thing in the USA? I’d be curious to know if other parts of the country have them too.
Vancouver, Canada has them as well
There’s a few in Philadelphia I think
We had trolley busses here in Wellington NZ for decades. The network needed an upgrade so our shortsighted council ripped it down while promising battery buses to replace the trolleys. We ended up with old, dirty, diesels chugging round our city for years, an I’m not sure we’ve gotten rid of them all yet. It was a disaster.
I hate that they were taken out. I rode on the as a kid regularly, it was always a little adventure when the driver had to reset the runners
Same in Dunedin!
Honestly, for growing places, or places with bad public transit, diesel busses are the way to go. They are the cheapest and require almost no new infrastructure so it can offset car emissions quicker than the other options. Established bus routes that are popular should be converted to tram lines or BRT.
Diesel busses should be considered the last alternative though, out of all the mass transit options they are still the worst for the environment. Not unless a city has exhuasted all other options should they look into them, or truly have no money for alternatives.
Downtown areas can easily be canternaried for electrified busses, and battery busses are great for trips within cities.
If a city is growing then it’s the perfect time to lay down rail and plan it out properly before road infrastructure gets in the way, and rail always pays off in the long run.For longer trips then fine, diesel, but only if 1) It’s out of range for electrified busses and 2) there is not ridership enough for rail. (but even then, look at the UK’s request stop numbers and I’d say that argument is pretty flimsy)
I honestly disagree. If you can get 5 car users on a diesel bus, you are making a positive impact on the environment. And you can deploy way more diesel busses than electric ones. Once you build demand, you can skip busses altogether and replace with trams. The batteries in busses are a cool technology, but still exploit child labor and extended neocolonialism in the same way oil does. Also battery fires are much worse than normal fires.
I think we should electrify fleets as soon as possible but I think adding a few battery busses here and there won’t do anything but pander to environmentalist
I use them every day for commute. Trolley buses are absolute pieces of shit. Slow, drivers understand mash the throttle like it’s on and off button and in cold winters their electrical cables overhead freeze and you get delays.
Btw their electrical cables make the city look like garbage. The only ones who think trolleys are a good idea are those who don’t use them.
here in Santiago we have more than 1000 Electric Buses In operation, they work great.
Trolleys can’t divert trough an alternative route if the original route got blocked somehow (for example it got barricaded.) wich is a common occurrence here in Santiago.
I’m Czech and my city has a trolleybus network. Every single trolleybus has either a) diesel engine or b) battery backup, depends on their age. Hell, there are even entire lines where 1/3rd they run on batteries. But, they can be smaller, so the vehicle is lighter.
non contiguous catenary is the best solution imo
The what? I’m not Bri*ish enough to understand that
that still doesn’t adress the cost of implementing it on the more than 300 bus routes there are in Santiago or how probable is that the infrastructure would get damaged or destroyed every time there are protests.
its not that costly tonimplement. Why do you think they were implemented back then, instead of running everything on diesel engines?
The upfrontninvestment might be higher, but the running costs are lower, since the electricity is far mor energy efficient and electric engines need way less maintenance than IC-engines.
This number, 300, doesn’t say anything. How many miles is that, excluding duplications? The inner city is easy and cheap to cover in power lines for trolleys to replace busses here, and everything other may be best kept on diesel.
What protests, lol? Repairing power lines is easy and fast and I doubt someone would target them.
My city only really has trolleybus lines in the city center where it is cheaper and means no localized pollution
Mine – too. It’s just rational to do that for most popular and short routes.
Oh for sure people target them, just as they target buses and metro stations.
I wouldn’t even know how to find said information, there isn’t even an up to date map I could find, but here is this heavily outdated map
Fortunately riots aren’t an issue in my city
yeah, but how many routes?
9 trolleybus lines, 3 of which I know have about 1/3rd without trolley wires at the end so buses go on battery/diesel
Santiago has 300 hundred lines of bus. all of them potentially serviceable by EBs.
Even if we electrified the main corridors, we would still need a lot of buses able to run the entire length of the rout independently.
and Santiago being Santiago that kind of infrastructure would be damaged on riots or something.
Okay? Doesn’t mean Trolleybuses aren’t the best compromise. Infrastructure costs money, so lets make the same argument about roads shall we?
Let’s face it: in most US cities there probably isn’t much aesthetic for the power lines to spoil. Just like in the grey Soviet cities where they come from
Greetings from Winterthur, a pretty nice, human-friendly, town in Switzerland which bunch of old buildings. Also called the bike-city of switzerland. It turns out that the trade off is worth it. I rather have power lines than cars or fuel powered busses.
Those wires are only there if you are looking for them.
This is in my city. It looks this way because it is the biggest public transport intersection, with trolleybuses going all 4 directions meeting a tram line.
Seriously, after a while you just ignore those wires.
Yes! I used to live there for most of my childhood, and thus have always considered those power lines to be a normal part of any city as a kid. Growing older and starting to visit other cities (without either trams or trolleys) I was surprised to see them missing and thought it looked strange, like a crucial piece of infrastructure was missing.
add some steel wheels then its perfect
And connect them together.
Choo choo
… on tracks. Steel wheels would destroy the wheels, blacktop, and concrete.
I heard we tried that in some German Cities way back in the 80ies or even late 70ies, but the technology wasn’t that far yet and the overhead cables would get damaged when the buses engaged them, sometimes leading to complete outages of the tram network, and as such it was scrapped again. Glad to see that other places took it on later, we could really need that right now.
You can also find them in North America, in Vancouver!
Trolley Buses are over 100 years old as a technology. They were super wide-spread in the entire eastern block and now cities in hungary, the czech republic and romania introduce a lot of newer (better) models: For example, Skoda has one that can easily integrate with exsisting tram infrastructure and has batteries to bridge smaller distances in places where there are no overhead lines.
They’re also fairly popular in China! When I was visiting family in Shanghai, a sizeable chunk of the bus service consisted of electric trolley busses.
They are still in use in Stuttgart/Esslingen since 1944. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/TrolleyBusEsslingenVanHool_P1010048.JPG/624px-TrolleyBusEsslingenVanHool_P1010048.JPG
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberleitungsbus_Esslingen_am_Neckar
They are pretty nice and if you are on your bike in traffic behind one, the feeling of not being dieselized is amazing …
People need to learn the difference between „Doesn’t catch fire“ and „Doesn’t burn AS EASY AS gasoline“.
The problem with battery fires is that most batteries are made out of lithium which reacts with pretty much everything and is extremely difficult to put out.
In addition obtaining the rare earth metals for these batteries ecologically is a real challenge and it will only get worse the more we use.
I’m not saying we should abandon electric cars but we should know the benefits and drawbacks of each option before making a decision.
I didn’t mean batteries, I was talking about diesel. Should have made that clearer, my bad.
Depends on battery tech. LFP batteries dont use cobalt and manganese, and have have much less chance of fire when punctured for example
Obviously diesel burns and batteries don’t really explode, but the only way to put out an EV fire is to dunk the car for a few days in a tub of water. And how many of those will a fire department have? 1-5?
i actually like the aesthetic.
I hate to see misinformation being spread.
First off, Diesel Busses Are equally environmental friendly as electric trains. (On long distance trips) this is due to infrastructure emissions, which are far higher for train infrastructure.
Furthermore looking at batteries: Batteries are expensive and very sensible to temperatures. They are virtually unusable in some climate zones. Furthermore a battery burns much hotter than gasoline. Much much hotter. So hot in fact that the damage to roads is immense. In addition to that, battery driven cars and buses are extremely heavy and damaging asphalt infrastructure as well.
The best solution is to shift mobility towards Diesel driven Busses and facilitate car sharing. It’s flexible, mich more flexible than other solutions. This makes it adaptable to many environments and situations. And it does not force people to give up achievements of mobility.
The example in the meme is extra problematic, because steel cables and train infrastructure is heavily reliant on coal. And replacement of coal with hydrogen is not to be seen in the foreseeable future.
The whole thing about trolleybuses is that they don’t pollute inside of the city. Obviously that pollution still happens somewhere, but it isn’t under your nose.
Trolleybuses can use renewable electricity from wind and solar. This works today, right now. Diesel is still fossil carbon coming out of the ground and burned. It would be a different story if we could synthesize diesel using electricity, or used 100% biodiesel, but currently we can’t and we don’t.
Or better than solar panels is cheap, clean and safe uranium nuclear power :3 And even if that power is made from diesel, the pollution happens outside of the city
What sort of “infrastructure emissions”? That doesn’t really make sense to me, once you build the infrastructure it already exists, so it doesn’t just emit on its own. Also rail infrastructure being worse than road infrastructure doesn’t makes sense. Electric trains have extremely negligible emissions (I dare say practically none in normal operation). Electric road vehicles (of any type) still have tyre emissions (and make them worse because they are heavier). Electric trains are over all the best way forward dice intercity transport.
And those emissions that exist happen outside of the city
What sort of “infrastructure emissions”? That doesn’t really make sense to me, once you build the infrastructure it already exists, so it doesn’t just emit on its own.
Let me rephrase it: infrastructure maintaining emissions. You have to think about all the people involved in organising train infrastructure each day. It’s immense. I can’t find the source anymore. But a german agency once published a calculation, that on a 100 km trip, the train was still emitting less, including every emissions connected to this one train ride. But the difference to a diesel Bus became basically unmentionable. Just a few kg CO2 more. But not much. And keep in mind that a bus is much more flexible than a train.
Also rail infrastructure being worse than road infrastructure doesn’t makes sense. Electric trains have extremely negligible emissions (I dare say practically none in normal operation). Electric road vehicles (of any type) still have tyre emissions (and make them worse because they are heavier). Electric trains are over all the best way forward dice intercity transport.
Not quite. As every city is dependant on road infrastructure. It starts with the building of houses and the transport of material. You cannot use rail infrastructure for every house. It does not bring the needed flexibility. Same goes for emergency services, police, firebricks, ambulance, craftsman,… asphalt based infrastructure is irreplaceable. Might as well use it for public transport instead of creating a second infrastructure to care for. One little new building project and a rail route in a city is blocked for 1-2 years. Car infrastructure is flexible and can evade this problem.
This seems too unbelievable for me to take your word for it. Find the source or stop spouting nonsense.
Repairing asphalt roads causes a huge amount of emissions, and the more traffic those roads see, the more often they need to be replaced.
In what world does maintaining a rail line even come close to the emissions produced by maintaining buses, trucks, and the road itself?Asphalt is a byproduct of oil refinery. It’s literal main component is production waste. There is a ton of it.
Steel on the other hand must be produced in the so called blast furnace process. It’s the reduction of iron oxide with carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas. But the hydrogen is it added separately. It’s a byproduct of the process that reacts as well reductive towards iron oxide. You need to burn immense amounts of coal to create elemental iron.
And trails are equally time consuming and resources consuming with maintenance as asphalt streets are.
I don’t know what kind of source you want there. Do you need a link towards Wikipedia? Or can you find the production of iron and asphalt yourself?
For sure a car cannot compete with a trains emissions. But a diesel driven bus can. Here is a source. You might need a translator. It’s a German article. link to a german news agency. citing a study by the Umweltministerium (ministry for Environment)
I am in fact not spouting nonsense. I am merely stating the truth.
The article you linked makes no mention of maintenance and infrastructure emissions. There’s just a single table that seems to be based on fuel emissions at the time of travel. It’s also specific to existing rail infrastructure, which is fine, but for the purposes of argument and comparison, it would be ideal to compare the most efficient bus/roadway system with the most efficient rail system. Zero-emissions trains exist, yet somehow just maintaining the rail line would completely offset that according to your argument?
Asphalt is an oil product, yes, but it still needs to be processed and turned into asphalt. That also emits pollution. So does transporting it to the destination, and all the other environmental factors with building up a road surface. You can’t just hand wave that away “because we already made a ton of it”. That’s not how sustainability works. We’re explicitly trying to reduce our reliance on oil.
You also seem to be ignoring that rail lasts orders of magnitude longer than asphalt, and don’t constantly have to be patched and repaired for pot holes. Steel is also one of the most recycled materials on the planet. (Nearly 70% of all steel here in the US is recycled). Melting down old cars or whatever into new rail tracks uses significantly less energy than refining new metal.
The article you linked makes no mention of maintenance and infrastructure emissions. There’s just a single table that seems to be based on fuel emissions at the time of travel.
I cannot look everything up. Soooooo … trust me bro.
It’s also specific to existing rail infrastructure, which is fine, but for the purposes of argument and comparison, it would be ideal to compare the most efficient bus/roadway system with the most efficient rail system. Zero-emissions trains exist, yet somehow just maintaining the rail line would completely offset that according to your argument?
There also exist zero emission cars. So this argument doesn’t work so well. We are talking about real life applications. And that’s why it is absolutely reasonable to compare existing infrastructure. Germany has invested heavily into both, automobile infrastructure and Railroad infrastructure. So the comparison seems to be alright.
Asphalt is an oil product, yes, but it still needs to be processed and turned into asphalt. That also emits pollution. So does transporting it to the destination, and all the other environmental factors with building up a road surface.
And so does steel and concrete.
You can’t just hand wave that away “because we already made a ton of it”. That’s not how sustainability works. We’re explicitly trying to reduce our reliance on oil.
I can hand wave this off completely fine, since it would be technically possible to frac bitumen into synthesis gas as well. So asphalt is still bound carbon. And that’s alright that way.
You also seem to be ignoring that rail lasts orders of magnitude longer than asphalt, and don’t constantly have to be patched and repaired for pot holes.
This is wrong. They need to be ground down regularity, they need to be replaced regularity due to material fatigue, railroads need intense care - freed from plants regularity, much more frequent in fact than asphalt, due to its open structure. In Addition to rails, there is need for electrical wiring above the train. This wiring is also needed to replace regularity due to material fatigue, constant rubbing of the metals onto each other. Then we also have further infrastructure for people, so called train stations. Especially larger train stations must be heated in winter with immense amounts of gas and train stations made of glass in summer are in desperate need of cooling. You just have to take a look at the prices for a ride. If it compares financially, then it most likely compares in emissions as well.
Steel is also one of the most recycled materials on the planet. (Nearly 70% of all steel here in the US is recycled). Melting down old cars or whatever into new rail tracks uses significantly less energy than refining new metal.
While this is correct, it is still very inefficient to melt down steel and then clean it up to recreate the requested alloys. Asphalt on the other hand can be recycled much easier. It is in fact a thermoplastic material. It needs much lower melting temperatures and is not dependant on reductive agents.
When the argument is emergency vehicles and “rail infrastructure for every house” it is clear that you are talking with an American that has no idea what they are talking about
You are talking with a European. A German in fact.
And I was not talking about rail to every house, I was mentioning the absolute necessity for asphalt streets. And that this infrastructure is far more flexible and adaptive than all the alternatives. Something irreplaceable in fact.
Apologies for misidentifying you then.
On the topic, the debate was never regarding if streets would exist or not. This is a moved-goalpost argument made by people who are trying to fight the pro public transport movement.
Supporting and promoting public transport doesn’t require to demolish the streets or make cars illegal. Or cars cease to exist at all. This is an irrational fear of such peopke and it is actually funny when this is the counterargument.
Apologies for misidentifying you then.
No offence was taken.
On the topic, the debate was never regarding if streets would exist or not. This is a moved-goalpost argument made by people who are trying to fight the pro public transport movement.
I am not against public transport. But the pro public transport movement often leans into the extreme. Asking for the removal of individual transport (well only cars, not bicycles). But from my standpoint, it is clear that an infrastructure, that is irreplaceable and an absolute necessity, must be used to the fullest extend. This means that the primary objective in planing transport in a city must be to fill the streets with busses, cars and bicycles. Rail comes secondary.
Supporting and promoting public transport doesn’t require to demolish the streets or make cars illegal. Or cars cease to exist at all. This is an irrational fear of such peopke and it is actually funny when this is the counterargument.
Well, I might be a little sensitive, but some people here support a movement against individualistic solutions rather than a positively conotated idea of feasible reasonable, not ideological solutions.
Also overhead wires are hideous
Modern OHLE standards are significantly less messy than they were 100 years ago. And if they really are still that bad, conductor rails work almost as well.
Conductors are always connected to energy loss. I don’t mind the cables. They are not looking good, but I can live with them.
“Conductors” as in any piece of metal that conducts electricity? Those overhead wires are also conductors, and will see some energy loss over their length like any other conductor.
OHLE is a conductor too. The issue with conductor rials is that they use DC rather than AC, which means that voltage is lower, meaning substations need to be more frequent. However, the conductor rail takes up no additional space in the loading gauge compared to OHLE, so for underground systems, or systems that need minimal clearance, conductor rails are better.
And that’s the take of the people without any knowledge of what they are rankling about.
Switzerland runs a lot of these buses. Also trams, normal buses , trains. For those people in the U.S., it’s a very effective and efficient system called public transport.
Yeah literally, what is this post even saying
Yes Switzerland is famous for its public transport
Meanwhile on the Autobahn:
Holy shit
Is this a trial or is it getting installed all over? It’s the best solution to electrify goods transport by road. Only a small battery required for off grid to delivery point and back
It is a trial atm. On 5 highways in different areas, a few trucks.
Steel rails have even less friction
Not from nimbys
This is a very nitche application. Tom Scott did a video on it.
I’m very aware of that Tom Scott video, don’t worry. It is an okay middleground, but look at the people in comments pointing out the wear on the trolley.
More about this from Tom Scott
WTF Germany how did I not know this was a thing and why aren’t we doing it here in the US?
Question though. Obviously the wires can’t cover every road and the truck sometimes has to drive off the wired road. Do they have small batteries to carry them between the wires?
We’ve had these in Boston since I was a kid, but recently they’ve been taking down the wires.
Aren’t those fro the T though? Or did bus routes use them too?
The busses out of Harvard station used them (71, 73, 75? and some others).
Silver line to the airport too, right?
The wires aren’t for propulsion, but for recharging electric trucks.
There are 5 testing areas for this atm and only a handful of trucks which use that. These are hybrid trucks having batteries and electrical engines besides the main traditional diesel engine. So it’s far from an widely adopted tech right now.
If they can get that to work this can be massive, assuming we don’t want to improve our rail infrastructure. It will also keep trucks from the passing lane
My grandfather ran a printing press using old trolley bus motors, reliable and powerful shit.
that rocks
Im also waiting for hydrogen to take off!
