|
Post by Steve80 on Aug 24, 2005 22:20:32 GMT
I never seen a trolleybus yet so maybe why I don't see any benefits with them. These trolleys are like buses but are restriced because of the overhead lines and also not as fast as trams. Still I woulnd like to see one implemented in London somewhere.
Despite the problems with the trams, especially the traffic light signals personally for me, as well as accidents, the extension of the Croydon trams almost seems a certainty
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Aug 25, 2005 7:21:39 GMT
Steve80, you don't know what you missed with a trolleybus. they were certainly fast, the stretch from Kingston passed Bushey park, was always the fasted stretch, I remember as a kid watching the speedo nudging 40, and thats in the days when there were fewer cars about. They are certainly cheaper to install than trams, although they did have problems with overtaking, but they survived in London for nearly 30 years, so that should say something.I worked in Croydon when that system was installed, it was a nightmare. as others have said, tram systems only work cost wise, where redundant railway lines are used, as the line to Wimbledon, or they can be built on reserved space as on Blackpool front. The attitude these days seems to be with councils "they've got one, we want one." my borough of Kingston is a classic case, but where they are going to run I just don't know.They are even talking about installing trams on the Uxbridge Road, Ealing and points west are bad enough now, can you imagine the chaos if they ever do build it? There are a couple of trolley bus museums in the UK , well worth the trip, especially to a "mature" fan like me!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2005 14:36:53 GMT
I never seen a trolleybus yet so maybe why I don't see any benefits with them. These trolleys are like buses but are restriced because of the overhead lines and also not as fast as trams. Still I woulnd like to see one implemented in London somewhere. Despite the problems with the trams, especially the traffic light signals personally for me, as well as accidents, the extension of the Croydon trams almost seems a certainty I don't know where you get the idea that Trollybuses are slow from. They are faster then Trams and can accelerate rapidly. Restricted ? Only in that they need overhead lines but modern system use light easilly installed overhead lines its certainly far faster & a hell of a lot cheaper to put a trollybuses in then trams. Modern trollybuses can Overtake as well . A Trollybus can easilly get up to 60mph which given they would be running on roads norally subject to a maximum 40mph is no problem at all. Trams just seem to be the latest In thing with Councils with too much money to waste. If there is a suitable old Railway line trams may be an option but even then the cost is enormous. The idea of putting an extensive Tram system into London is in my view stupid. There is not the road space for them. We al ready have the stupidity of the Bendy Buses causing massive congestion as well as providing a poor service. Imagine how much worse it would be with trams. Trams are not flexible at all. They have to stick rigidly to the track. Trollybuses can make use of the full width of the road
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2006 22:27:01 GMT
Just a quick note on this thread. Trolley Buses have always interested me because I have always felt that their green credentials are impeccable. I not sure if anyone else has been following the development of the Thames Gateway fastrack bus scheme currently being installed in the Dartford – Greenhithe (Bluewater) areas but I have always felt that the dedicated lanes being laid for this service where a prime candidate for a trolley bus service. Found this on Dartford Councils web site and makes for interesting reading. www.dartford.gov.uk/council/Chapter5Fastrack.htmStan.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2006 21:23:46 GMT
Almost shocked to see such an old thread being brought up!
I am certainly a fan of the good old trolleybuses. They are really quick at accelerating although there top speed is limited to around 45mph - but that's more than enough for urban use anyway.
Indeed it is not easy for trolleybuses to overtake. But when there is bunching happening the first trolleybus which is likely to be the most crowded can unofficially become an 'alighting only', so letting the one(s) behind do the work, hence spreading the vehicles back out. The same procedure can be done to ordinary buses really.
Although trolleybuses themselves are cheap to maintain and they last much longer than buses (some parts at least), installing the whole system and maintaining the wires can be quite expensive.
Many people are comparing trolleybuses to trams, which I don't think is suitable. Trolleybuses are just a replacement for buses, suitable for routes that stop at every stop, whereas trams are more like tube, for longer distance journeys. Trams can be quite successful when there is enough priority i.e. separated track as opposed to on road, and where building a tube system would be unviable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2006 20:40:02 GMT
Almost shocked to see such an old thread being brought up! I am certainly a fan of the good old trolleybuses. They are really quick at accelerating although there top speed is limited to around 45mph - but that's more than enough for urban use anyway. Indeed it is not easy for trolleybuses to overtake. But when there is bunching happening the first trolleybus which is likely to be the most crowded can unofficially become an 'alighting only', so letting the one(s) behind do the work, hence spreading the vehicles back out. The same procedure can be done to ordinary buses really. Although trolleybuses themselves are cheap to maintain and they last much longer than buses (some parts at least), installing the whole system and maintaining the wires can be quite expensive. Many people are comparing trolleybuses to trams, which I don't think is suitable. Trolleybuses are just a replacement for buses, suitable for routes that stop at every stop, whereas trams are more like tube, for longer distance journeys. Trams can be quite successful when there is enough priority i.e. separated track as opposed to on road, and where building a tube system would be unviable. Trams are not at least in the UK any different to Buses or Trollybuses. I suspect you are confusing Trams & Light Railways. Modern Trolly buses can run at upto 70mph its highly unlikely they would though as trollybuses are only really suitable for Urban areas. Modern overhead lines for trollybuses are lightweigh and easilly and quickly installed , there is an experimental system that does not use overhead lines at all. Overtacking is no longer a problem with modern battery technology. The driver just lowers the pickup at the press of a button overtakes and then raises the pickup I dont have the cost per Km to hand but Iits in the region of 10 to 50 times more expensive to put a tram track in. Its a Major Engineering undertaking taking years to complete. Ask the people of Croydon about the years of chaos they endured. The other advantage of Trollybuses are they are near silent. Ask people in Croydon that live near the track what they thing of having the trams rumble past there door every 5 minutes. With a Trollybus you would hardly hear it. In fact in some case they delibrately make them nosier so people can here them coming. Trollybuses are a much more envrionmentally friendly vehicle and are much better for use in residential areas which means most of London.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2006 21:52:41 GMT
I'm talking about modern trams here, the new systems installed in Manchester, Sheffield, Croydon and Nottingham and so on. Many sections of the routes run on separate tracks as opposed to on road and are much faster than buses, and are designed for longer journeys (although the Croydon trams are a bit weird).
As for highest speed, that for Skoda 22TR is only 65 km/h, that is about 40ish mph. I have never heard of any trolleybuses with a speed higher than that.
Overtaking isn't that easy. To raise the poles you need special pick-up points - the poles need to be directed to the wires.
As far as cost is concerned, it gets cheaper per km as the system gets bigger. It is usually really viable to run trunk routes with trolleybuses, really good for the environment as well, and trolleybuses offer much smoother and quieter rides.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2006 12:45:24 GMT
I'm talking about modern trams here, the new systems installed in Manchester, Sheffield, Croydon and Nottingham and so on. Many sections of the routes run on separate tracks as opposed to on road and are much faster than buses, and are designed for longer journeys (although the Croydon trams are a bit weird). As for highest speed, that for Skoda 22TR is only 65 km/h, that is about 40ish mph. I have never heard of any trolleybuses with a speed higher than that. Overtaking isn't that easy. To raise the poles you need special pick-up points - the poles need to be directed to the wires. As far as cost is concerned, it gets cheaper per km as the system gets bigger. It is usually really viable to run trunk routes with trolleybuses, really good for the environment as well, and trolleybuses offer much smoother and quieter rides. Trollybuses would mainly be suitable for the longer trunk routes. It also keeps cost down in that the overhead lines will be shared with other routes. Modern overhead lines are a lot simplier and a lot lighter then the old trollybus systems used. In general few new poles will be needed for the overhead lines they would use existing lamposts and in some cases building to attach the lines. Cost should be quite low TfL though seem biased against trollybuses and seem to be loading the costs up. They are assuming the cost of a Trollybus to be £440,000 against a bus at £140,000. I would suspect a more realistic cost to be about £200,000 to £250,000. Maintinance costs are also a lot lower for Trollybuses. They also seem to be loading in a cost of £220K per km for a buried guidence wire. That cost is higher then a realistic cost. Its also debatable as to whether that is the best method. You could actually use the overhead lines as a part of a guidence system. Lowering & Raising the overhead pantagraph should not cause any problems. Modern systems do not clip onto the power rail but run along it pretty much like a train. Lazer beams ensure it stays on the overhea line.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2006 21:54:08 GMT
The cost of an ORDINARY trolleybus, e.g. Skoda and Solaris etc are quite similar to that of a bus, although slightly more expensive. They are cheap in terms of maintenance indeed. However, I wouldn't put them on long routes - as the fact that they can't overtake eachother EASILY might be a cause of bunching and delay.
Why do you need guidance anyway - I don't see any problem with buses who have no guidance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2006 13:19:31 GMT
The cost of an ORDINARY trolleybus, e.g. Skoda and Solaris etc are quite similar to that of a bus, although slightly more expensive. They are cheap in terms of maintenance indeed. However, I wouldn't put them on long routes - as the fact that they can't overtake eachother EASILY might be a cause of bunching and delay. Why do you need guidance anyway - I don't see any problem with buses who have no guidance. Trollybuses are best suited to trunk routes. The high frequency & sharing of the overhead track keeps the costs down. Whilst I agree that with the old LT Trollybuses overtaking was not really a practicable possibility as the conductor would have to find a pole if the bus did not carry one. Lower the pickups. Let the driver overtake on battery power and the raise the pickups and put the pole back. New trollybuses do not have this problem. The pickups do not clip on to the overhead line as with the old trolly buses but run along it in the same manner as an Electric train. This is the reason for needing a guidence system but having a guidence cable in the road is over kill. You could just use an optical system on the pantagraph to keep it on the overhead line. The pantagraph can be lowerd by the press of a button by the drive and also raised at the press of a button. Raising & lowering might take about 30 seconds. The modern Trollybuses can run at about 15 to 25 mph on their batteries. The old trollybuses would struggle to do much more then 5mph. So ovetaking is no longer an issue. Its probably as well that points would no longer be needed. The old trollys at junction would have to have the points changed manually depending on what route the bus was taking. If it was forgot the trolly would derail & possibly damage the track
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2006 22:12:46 GMT
It's not as easy as that. Most trolleybus systems throughout the world require specific pick up points. It is like an upside down V on each wire that draws the poles up, and it is not always accurate - sometimes you get two poles trapped to one wire. However most of the times trolleybuses can manage to get their poles up successfully even at speed.
And I'm quite sure that the design of poles and wires has not changed much judging by most trolleybus systems in the world. The poles still clip onto the wires.
At junctions where routes and wires split, all you need is an electromagnetic (IIRC) system to direct the poles onto a new set of wires. Trolleybuses need to slow down to about 20mph, but that is not really a problem.
Indeed trolleybuses are suited to trunk routes - your point about hight frequency and sharing lines is excellent. It is just not as suitable if a trolley route is too long. Most of the 13km-ish routes in London can consider trolleybus operation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2006 21:52:59 GMT
It's not as easy as that. Most trolleybus systems throughout the world require specific pick up points. It is like an upside down V on each wire that draws the poles up, and it is not always accurate - sometimes you get two poles trapped to one wire. However most of the times trolleybuses can manage to get their poles up successfully even at speed. And I'm quite sure that the design of poles and wires has not changed much judging by most trolleybus systems in the world. The poles still clip onto the wires. At junctions where routes and wires split, all you need is an electromagnetic (IIRC) system to direct the poles onto a new set of wires. Trolleybuses need to slow down to about 20mph, but that is not really a problem. Indeed trolleybuses are suited to trunk routes - your point about hight frequency and sharing lines is excellent. It is just not as suitable if a trolley route is too long. Most of the 13km-ish routes in London can consider trolleybus operation. It’s unfortunate that more investment is not being made in further development of trolleybuses. They are a far better solution in urban areas then trams. Trams are really only suited where they can largely run over old railway lines. Most of the modern tram system are more a light railway then a tram. Trams are very very expensive at least three planned schemes in the UK have failed due to massive costs overruns looking highly likely to occur and that’s on top of the massive initial estimated costs. They are particularly ill suited to London where there is no real way to put them in without major disruption to existing shopping and residential areas. They are also pretty noisy and cause a lot of disturbance. Trolleybuses on the other hand other then some visual impact from the overhead lines are not disruptive. They are also very quiet quieter then even a bus. They have pretty much Zero emissions. There will be of cause some imissions from the power stations but that would be far less then from a hundred odd diesel buses which put out some pretty nasty pollutants. Trollybuses can also be put in far quicker then trams and at a fraction of the cost.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2006 0:57:25 GMT
It's not as easy as that. Most trolleybus systems throughout the world require specific pick up points. It is like an upside down V on each wire that draws the poles up, and it is not always accurate - sometimes you get two poles trapped to one wire. However most of the times trolleybuses can manage to get their poles up successfully even at speed. And I'm quite sure that the design of poles and wires has not changed much judging by most trolleybus systems in the world. The poles still clip onto the wires. At junctions where routes and wires split, all you need is an electromagnetic (IIRC) system to direct the poles onto a new set of wires. Trolleybuses need to slow down to about 20mph, but that is not really a problem. Indeed trolleybuses are suited to trunk routes - your point about hight frequency and sharing lines is excellent. It is just not as suitable if a trolley route is too long. Most of the 13km-ish routes in London can consider trolleybus operation. It’s unfortunate that more investment is not being made in further development of trolleybuses. They are a far better solution in urban areas then trams. Trams are really only suited where they can largely run over old railway lines. Most of the modern tram system are more a light railway then a tram. Trams are very very expensive at least three planned schemes in the UK have failed due to massive costs overruns looking highly likely to occur and that’s on top of the massive initial estimated costs. They are particularly ill suited to London where there is no real way to put them in without major disruption to existing shopping and residential areas. They are also pretty noisy and cause a lot of disturbance. Trolleybuses on the other hand other then some visual impact from the overhead lines are not disruptive. They are also very quiet quieter then even a bus. They have pretty much Zero emissions. There will be of cause some imissions from the power stations but that would be far less then from a hundred odd diesel buses which put out some pretty nasty pollutants. Trollybuses can also be put in far quicker then trams and at a fraction of the cost. Bring on the Trams! It's only the last few NIMBYs, members of a very small and ill-informed anti-tram brigade, and geographical outsiders that can't understand why Sutton, Tooting, Mitcham, Crystal Palace, etc. are crying out to receive an extension of the hugely successful Croydon Tramlink. The Croydon trams have been an outstanding success for the people in the areas they serve. I live there: I know. I often stand, because I can't find an empty seat. We really need to be able to run two-car sets in peak hours. The thought of returning to being stuck in a (trolley)bus among all the other road-users would be enough to drive most Tramlink users to despair (or back to their cars).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2006 17:03:09 GMT
In most urban areas in London it would be pretty hard to run trams. Running them on-street would obviously be a nightmere, but then off-street require some demolition, unless there are strips of empty space, in which case trams will be more than suitable, except that the cost will be relatively high.
Sutton, Tooting and Crystal Palace are IMO a bit tricky to put a tramline - some substantial disruption will be caused during construction, putting the cost up. I would suggest improving the current bus network by putting in more bus lanes and widening roads where possible, and improving the current NR network by putting in more trains so to make it turn-up-and-go.
Trolleybuses on the other hand, are just replacements for buses - not particularly suited for long distance journeys, which would be better made by trams or trains. This is purely environmental. Really current technology can enbale a trolleybus system to run very smoothly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2006 17:38:14 GMT
It’s unfortunate that more investment is not being made in further development of trolleybuses. They are a far better solution in urban areas then trams. Trams are really only suited where they can largely run over old railway lines. Most of the modern tram system are more a light railway then a tram. Trams are very very expensive at least three planned schemes in the UK have failed due to massive costs overruns looking highly likely to occur and that’s on top of the massive initial estimated costs. They are particularly ill suited to London where there is no real way to put them in without major disruption to existing shopping and residential areas. They are also pretty noisy and cause a lot of disturbance. Trolleybuses on the other hand other then some visual impact from the overhead lines are not disruptive. They are also very quiet quieter then even a bus. They have pretty much Zero emissions. There will be of cause some imissions from the power stations but that would be far less then from a hundred odd diesel buses which put out some pretty nasty pollutants. Trollybuses can also be put in far quicker then trams and at a fraction of the cost. Bring on the Trams! It's only the last few NIMBYs, members of a very small and ill-informed anti-tram brigade, and geographical outsiders that can't understand why Sutton, Tooting, Mitcham, Crystal Palace, etc. are crying out to receive an extension of the hugely successful Croydon Tramlink. The Croydon trams have been an outstanding success for the people in the areas they serve. I live there: I know. I often stand, because I can't find an empty seat. We really need to be able to run two-car sets in peak hours. The thought of returning to being stuck in a (trolley)bus among all the other road-users would be enough to drive most Tramlink users to despair (or back to their cars). Trams are totally unsuited to most of London. With our narrow twisting & turning roads with lots of junctions and traffic its just not possible to put trams in. Most of Croydons System runs on old railway lines where it shares the road with traffic there have been lots of problems. Trams also are environmentaly unfriendly they cause a lot of noise disturbance. Cost is another enormous problem to put in quite a small system your are looking at about a Billion pounds. Maintainence costs are also high. You also have the problem of finding somewhere to build a depot. This has to be more or less on the route. This usually means demolishing existing buildings to make way for one. Trollybus are very smooth and quiet relatively cheap and have very low maintainance costs and zero emisions. They can usually as well use existing bus depots.
|
|