Here is some summary literature on battery trolleybuses vs other types of
bus, including issues of costs, operation etc.
https://cms.uitp.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Knowledge-Brief-Infrastructure-May-2019-FINAL.pdf
https://www.cegelec.cz/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Trolejbusy-nejlepsi-reseni-elektromobility-EN.pdf
https://www.urban-transport-magazine.com/en/bus-electrification-a-comparison-of-capital-costs/
Did Wellington undertake this extent of analysis, or was it politically
determined as suggested in the original video above?
Tony P
On Saturday 30 March 2024 at 16:14:37 UTC+11 TP wrote:
> The Tallinn video that I posted above is instructive as it shows the
> result of full, impartial professional analysis of possible solutions,
> rather than political whim. Tallinn, as their engineer said, literally
> can't afford to get it wrong. Other European countries are finding the same
> - that trolleybuses are the most cost-effective and reliable mode for bus
> transportation. Australia and NZ, as wealthy countries, are far more likely
> to throw money around without a proper professional process and it's money
> that, as they say, could be better spent on other transport projects,
> schools and hospitals. Australia also has the type of local politicians you
> have in NZ. One or two of them get a bee in their bonnet about some
> "solution" that's been paraded in front of them by salesmen and, if they
> have the political weight, the whole caravan starts rolling over any
> questioning and opposition. This is why we're getting those big battery
> buses in Brisbane instead of the trams they should have chosen.
>
> From the same author, watch this video about the pros and cons of battery
> vs trolley (and battery trolley buses):
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P9S_ZTXseM
>
> The picture that has emerged after about a decade of operating both types
> together around the world is that straight battery buses are OK for minor
> routes, but for heavy duty, high capacity work, trams and trolleybuses are
> superior. So battery bus uptake hasn't been so strong in cities that
> already have tram and trolleybus systems. They've only generally been taken
> up in smaller cities, or in large cities where there is a metro or tram
> system doing the heavy lifting. Of course, still in the background for some
> years to come, there are large diesel fleets doing the lion's share of the
> work (in Wellington too I believe). The really noteworthy fact is that
> nobody is abandoning trolleybus systems (except notably Wellington and
> Moscow, in both cases at the whim of local politicians), but instead
> expanding them and building new systems. Even China - which sells battery
> buses around the world, including to New Xiland - is keeping its trolley
> systems, notably the huge Beijing system.
>
> As for Australia, we've had battery buses in passenger service in Sydney
> since 2016 and there are now over 150 of them in this city alone.
> Personally, I've used both trolleybuses (in Europe in recent years and in
> Tasmania many years ago) and the modern battery buses now in service.
> What's obvious with the battery buses is their markedly reduced passenger
> capacity (from over 80 to about 60) as a result of the weight of the
> batteries on board, a factor that trolleybuses (even battery trolleybuses
> with only a small battery pack) don't have to contend with. Combined with
> the issue of downtime for charging, that means that more battery buses (and
> drivers) are required to accomplish the same level of productivity as
> diesel or trolley buses. Battery buses come at a big cost, but it seems
> that NZ is wealthy enough to support that?
>
> Tony P
>
> On Saturday 30 March 2024 at 11:37:57 UTC+11 Brent Efford wrote:
>
>> But the reality is that Wellington’s trolleybus overhead network was not
>> an “asset’ but a liability, greatly constraining bus operations and
>> reducing bus performance. Freed from wire dependency, several new bus
>> routes, many electric, have been introduced. Including the #25 past my gate
>> – covering the old #9 trolley route plus big extensions which I regularly
>> use. Plus the trolley fleet – cobbled together with critical parts already
>> second-hand – was already expiring, down to about 30 active vehicles in
>> 2017 from its original size of 60.
>> Expenditure on trolleys actually reduced bus electrification because the
>> overwhelming majority of the fleet was diesel and there was no way that any
>> substantial replacement of diesels by trolleys could occur. Spending the
>> many millions required for overhead and substation refurbishment on
>> bridging the cost difference between BEBs and diesels instead will
>> (eventually) enable a 100% electric fleet that will perform far better and
>> range further than trolleys could ever manage. What’s not to like (unless
>> you are a gunzel with a wire fetish)?
>> Brent Efford
>>
>> On 30/03/2024, at 12:55 PM, Mark Skinner eme...@...> wrote:
>>
>> I think the point is that economically it's usually far better to utilise
>> assets to the end of their economic life.
>>
>> Obviously, one reason is it's less costly, the other is that electric
>> bus technology is still improving.
>>
>> That means that if those new buses had been delayed until say 2029, it's
>> almost certain they'd be cheaper and more efficient.
>>
>> So, sure, if Wellington's trolleybuses had been at the end of their
>> economic life, electric buses would have been a valid option.
>>
>> An alternative could have been to keep the trolleybuses till they had to
>> be replaced, use the capital money saved to build trams from the railway
>> station, then buy better in 2029 or whenever those assets expired.
>>
>> Having a tramway plus more modern buses for the same money seems a better
>> outcome.
>>
>> Not only that, but options involving mixed battery and trolleybus
>> operation provide huge flexibility without the need for overhead wires in
>> sensitive areas.
>>
>> Mark Skinner
>>
>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2024, 10:26 am 'Brent Efford' via TramsDownUnder, <
>>tramsdo...@...> wrote:
>>
>>> Truly risible, Tony. It appears that battery electric buses have yet to
>>> be introduced in Australia, and so you have no actual experience. I suggest
>>> you visit Wellington sometime and experience our growing electric bus
>>> system – far larger, better performing and more reliable than anything the
>>> old trolleybus system could ever aspire to. I once thought and argued as
>>> you do, before the battery buses were introduced, but on the spot user
>>> experience beats gunzel nostalgia every time.
>>> Other, smaller, New Zealand cities have already achieved 100% electric
>>> fleets, which we expect to get to about 2030. Do you suggest that they
>>> should have wired their bus routes instead?
>>> Brent Efford
>>>
>>> On Saturday, March 30, 2024 at 1:46:08 AM UTC+13 TP wrote:
>>>
>>>> The decision to close Wellington's trolleybus system is obviously going
>>>> to live on as a lesson around the world. The author of this excellent
>>>> transport channel covers all the issues well. Talking of costs, ironically
>>>> Wellington got rid of a system that had the lowest whole-of-life costs of
>>>> any electric transit system and replaced it with one (battery buses) with
>>>> higher costs and less reliability. If only they'd made that modest
>>>> investment in maintaining the infrastructure over the years, they would
>>>> have saved themselves a lot more cost later.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxqnkLcMn4g
>>>>
>>>> Here, by contrast, from the same author, an interview about how the
>>>> city of Tallinn, Estonia, decided to keep and expand their trolleybus
>>>> system instead of close it. Note the comment that trolleybus substations
>>>> can be used by a future tram system if required (vice versa also applies,
>>>> e.g. in Prague).
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nm6eBzV0SU
>>>>
>>>> Tony P
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "TramsDownUnder" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email totramsdownunde...@....
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/8e64e7d6-e343-4132-a893-9d4523dc03bcn%40googlegroups.com
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/8e64e7d6-e343-4132-a893-9d4523dc03bcn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
>>> .
>>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "TramsDownUnder" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/tramsdownunder/8lkJTZrmfyw/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>>tramsdownunde...@....
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/CAPUC4X810_NA9aEYL-MO3Kc6yM3MdWH0dhbfRVj5xqaASM_7qQ%40mail.gmail.com
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/CAPUC4X810_NA9aEYL-MO3Kc6yM3MdWH0dhbfRVj5xqaASM_7qQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
>> .
>> <20230618_114546.jpg>
>>
>>