TransLink Future - Dream's and Aspirations

[Dane]

1 hour ago, captaintrolley said:

1. Trolleys are the most efficient form of bus out there, and when you consider the cost over the service life of a trolley (not just initial purchase cost) a trolley is still by far the best bang for your buck. 

2. Anybus can get stuck in a blockage, unless it is part helicopter and can fly up and out of the blockage. . With EPU, a trolley can get around most any blockage as well as any other bus. 

3. When there are 'planned' events such as parades, either diesels will be dispatched ahead of time or a route detour will be in effect using alternative wires so the trolleys can maintain service delivery.

4. To operate Battery Electric Buses on any given route, you will need a higher spare ratio because there will always be buses down for charging so 'fresh' buses will need to run in their stead. 

5.  but not to replace trolleys. They are fine for supplementing a trolley system perhaps, however the only bus that can truly replace a trolley, is another trolley.  

1. For sure, especially in BC with our growing hydro resources. And that's why Trolleys have stood the test of time here because the cost still made sense. However with the evolution of technology we need to beware that it continues to be a positive cost proposal, and as trolley technology is less common and the city changes shapes the implimentation and upkeep costs are rising disproportionately to other costs in the system. 

2. EPU in real world use is extraordinarily limited. Trolley routes are messed up all the time. Eight days ago almost every single 20 was backup because of a single vehicle collision; every other road vehicle including buses could get by. It's not a hypothetical, it's a reality that trolleys get stuck. 

3. Special events create a need for a sufficiently large second fleet of vehicles, which you then go to criticize for electric buses. 

4. See above. And the trolley fleet already has the highest space ratio at CMBC by almost double as it is. 

5. Ultimately, why cannot a trolley be replaced by something with a comprable environmental impact? 

I'm not saying get rid of trolleys today, but in seven or eight years when the current fleet comes up for renewal we have some really important questions to ask. 

[martin607]

3 hours ago, Brando737 said:

The other issue to note is Translink is currently on a mission to prioritize and improve customer image and service.  Trolleys can get stuck if there is a major blockage along thier routes and therefore no service.  Having battery buses will enable those routes to provide service using a reroute and maintain the full route with delayed service instead of no service.  

1 hour ago, Dane said:

2. EPU in real world use is extraordinarily limited. Trolley routes are messed up all the time. Eight days ago almost every single 20 was backup because of a single vehicle collision; every other road vehicle including buses could get by. It's not a hypothetical, it's a reality that trolleys get stuck. 

3. Special events create a need for a sufficiently large second fleet of vehicles, which you then go to criticize for electric buses. 

4. See above. And the trolley fleet already has the highest space ratio at CMBC by almost double as it is. 

 

 

Both these posts ignore the fact that trolleybuses have improved immensely since Translink's fleet was delivered. Most trolleybuses being built now are battery-trolleybus hybrids with what is called In Motion Charging. They have a typical battery range of 20 km so they can easily deal with the two points made above: detour routing for planned special events and also emergency blockages. The main function of IMC is to be able to do route extensions without always having to erect wires.

I don't follow your point about space ratio.

But battery buses will take up more space for a number of reasons. First even BEB advocates admit fleet size will need to be larger that the diesel or trolley fleet. The recent strategy document admitted 20% more while other cities have found they need 50% more battery buses. Plus each needs a charging point in the garage.

The main problem in all these discussions is that people are comparing a trolleybus from 2007 not even with a battery bus of 2018 but with how a battery bus MIGHT be in 2025!

[GORDOOM]

My biggest concern with this rumour is that, if it’s a matter of legal liability, we might have the future of the trolleybus fleet discussed and decided in camera rather than in public, which would deny trolleybus advocates the chance to make their case.

[captaintrolley]

47 minutes ago, martin607 said:

I don't follow your point about space ratio.

Somehow someone had changed my 'spare' ratio to 'space' ratio when replying to my post. A spare (not space) ratio is X number of spare buses (to be used for changeovers) per number of buses in service.  Example, if you have 100 buses on the road, you might keep 10 in the garage to send out if a bus breaks down or is involved in an accident, so your spare ratio is 10%. With a BEB fleet, your spare ratio would be high because of buses needing to drop out of service to recharge and the void filled with a spare bus. in addition to breakdowns and accidents.  So, more buses and possibly more operators are required. If there were any savings and benefits - they would soon go out the window.

[martin607]

I agree with @GORDOOM that this topic should be debated in public and if necessary a pro-trolleybus group of serious people should be formed to keep the Planning Department on their toes. I'm worried that there has been a change of personnel and culture in Planning and some of the people with "corporate memory" have been replaced by people who think they just need to read a Proterra brochure and that's their green transit plan solved  

I studied the consultant's report as represented by the slides at a recent board meeting. Some of it seems OK if somewhat one-sided and limited.  Regarding battery buses, you will see the word PROJECTION. In other words the consultants are using the performance level that people like Proterra hope will be there in 2025, not actual proven performance.  For example they project cheaper and cheaper batteries but if everybody is changing to battery electric, demand for lithium will increase dramatically. How can we possibly know that lithium will be 30% cheaper in 2025? It might actually become more expensive.

What is worrying is the consultants made no mention of any study of the latest developments regarding trolleybuses. the decision will have to be made on the basis of a fair comparison: 2025 BEB vs 2025 trolleybus with In Motion Charging. In my "dreams and aspirations" I would have a mixed electric fleet consisting mostly of BEBs but also with a large batch of 400 to 500 trolleybuses with In Motion Charging. The ability to do 20km or more off wire would mean that routes like the B95 and forthcoming B91 could be operated by -battery-trolleybuses.

[captaintrolley]

13 minutes ago, martin607 said:

I agree with @GORDOOM that this topic should be debated in public and if necessary a pro-trolleybus group of serious people should be formed to keep the Planning Department on their toes. I'm worried that there has been a change of personnel and culture in Planning and some of the people with "corporate memory" have been replaced by people who think they just need to read a Proterra brochure and that's their green transit plan solved  

 

I agree.  I do belong to a pro-trolleybus group. And yes, the people in management these days are easily swayed by the 'flavor of the month' bus and all the glitzy promises. It happened in Edmonton. Hybrids were going to replace the trolleys and do a far better job. HA HA to all that.  They compared trolleys from 1982 to (clean ?!?!?) diesel buses of 2007-2008. So not at all fair. They reconfigured many trolley routes, so that parts of the routes had no overhead and had to be operated with diesels.  Or they made 'short turn' routes of longer routes. In doing all this, they shortened the number of trolley kilometers so that on paper, it would look like the trolleys were small and insignificant.  Consultants will say whatever it is they are paid to say.

(I think I read your emails on one of those email groups.)

[Firebrand]

52 minutes ago, martin607 said:

I studied the consultant's report as represented by the slides at a recent board meeting. Some of it seems OK if somewhat one-sided and limited.  Regarding battery buses, you will see the word PROJECTION. In other words the consultants are using the performance level that people like Proterra hope will be there in 2025, not actual proven performance.  For example they project cheaper and cheaper batteries but if everybody is changing to battery electric, demand for lithium will increase dramatically. How can we possibly know that lithium will be 30% cheaper in 2025? It might actually become more expensive.

What is worrying is the consultants made no mention of any study of the latest developments regarding trolleybuses. the decision will have to be made on the basis of a fair comparison: 2025 BEB vs 2025 trolleybus with In Motion Charging. In my "dreams and aspirations" I would have a mixed electric fleet consisting mostly of BEBs but also with a large batch of 400 to 500 trolleybuses with In Motion Charging. The ability to do 20km or more off wire would mean that routes like the B95 and forthcoming B91 could be operated by -battery-trolleybuses.

Don't forget the fact that Proterra is an American company, and Transport Canada forbids any American bus company to sell their buses to Canada (that's the reason there aren't any Gilligs seen in Canadian cities). New Flyer and NovaBus could make their own BEBs, but they won't have the same quality as Proterra buses, so there are things to consider who built the BEBs. 

Even the XT40s in Seattle and the Bay Area have In Motion Charging. The poles on these buses are raised automatically, so the driver doesn't have to disembark to rewire the poles. TransLink should look at what these two cities are managing their trolleybus network, rather than throwing in the towel like ETS did.

41 minutes ago, captaintrolley said:

I agree.  I do belong to a pro-trolleybus group. And yes, the people in management these days are easily swayed by the 'flavor of the month' bus and all the glitzy promises. It happened in Edmonton. Hybrids were going to replace the trolleys and do a far better job. HA HA to all that.  They compared trolleys from 1982 to (clean ?!?!?) diesel buses of 2007-2008. So not at all fair. They reconfigured many trolley routes, so that parts of the routes had no overhead and had to be operated with diesels.  Or they made 'short turn' routes of longer routes. In doing all this, they shortened the number of trolley kilometers so that on paper, it would look like the trolleys were small and insignificant.  Consultants will say whatever it is they are paid to say.

(I think I read your emails on one of those email groups.)

Former Edmontonian here. I moved to Surrey in 2008, and when I came back to Edmonton for the first time since I moved away, I was quite disappointed that Edmonton got rid of its trolley infrastructure, all in the name of "convenience". Now the neighborhoods that were covered by a trolley route now has to deal with the noisy diesels emitting noxious gases near the sidewalks. I remember living close to one (I can't remember the route number, but it was near Londonderry Mall).

It's most likely political will that is the reason someone at management wants to get rid of the trolleys. I see a bit of parallelism between now and what happened at ETS nine years ago, only it's with BEBs instead of diesels. I won't be surprised if the head of the Planning Department is from Burnaby.

[captaintrolley]

48 minutes ago, Firebrand said:

Former Edmontonian here. I moved to Surrey in 2008, and when I came back to Edmonton for the first time since I moved away, I was quite disappointed that Edmonton got rid of its trolley infrastructure, all in the name of "convenience". Now the neighborhoods that were covered by a trolley route now has to deal with the noisy diesels emitting noxious gases near the sidewalks. I remember living close to one (I can't remember the route number, but it was near Londonderry Mall).

It's most likely political will that is the reason someone at management wants to get rid of the trolleys. I see a bit of parallelism between now and what happened at ETS nine years ago, only it's with BEBs instead of diesels. I won't be surprised if the head of the Planning Department is from Burnaby.

I live in Edmonton, although I did live in Vancouver for four years (2012-2015 inclusive).  Where I live now used to be exclusively served by trolleys. The decision to decommission is always a political one. Many were hoping that common sense would prevail in the fight to retain the trolley system, but in the end, the will to do what was easy instead of what was right won over. To run a trolley system, one must WANT to run a trolley system. You invest in it, you keep it ship shape, you train drivers properly, and above all, you maintain a positive attitude towards trolleys.  When management shows pride and dedication towards its system and operations, it naturally has a trickle down effect.  Sadly, this is not how it is any more. By decommissioning the trolley system, ETS has (possibly unknowingly) set a dangerous precedent for other trolley cities that may be 'on the fence' about keeping their trolley system. 

[jmward]

1 hour ago, captaintrolley said:

I live in Edmonton, although I did live in Vancouver for four years (2012-2015 inclusive).  Where I live now used to be exclusively served by trolleys. The decision to decommission is always a political one. Many were hoping that common sense would prevail in the fight to retain the trolley system, but in the end, the will to do what was easy instead of what was right won over. To run a trolley system, one must WANT to run a trolley system. You invest in it, you keep it ship shape, you train drivers properly, and above all, you maintain a positive attitude towards trolleys.  When management shows pride and dedication towards its system and operations, it naturally has a trickle down effect.  Sadly, this is not how it is any more. By decommissioning the trolley system, ETS has (possibly unknowingly) set a dangerous precedent for other trolley cities that may be 'on the fence' about keeping their trolley system. 

Were you there when we sent over the E40LFR demoes? I wonder well were those received by public (and ETS), I think we are altogether pretty happy with the E40LFR design, did the ETS consider buying some for themselves at some point?

[captaintrolley]

22 minutes ago, jmward said:

Were you there when we sent over the E40LFR demoes? I wonder well were those received by public (and ETS), I think we are altogether pretty happy with the E40LFR design, did the ETS consider buying some for themselves at some point?

Yes, I was in Edmonton then. Lived here all my life except the four years in Van (which I miss so much). It was only one demo. 2242 which ETS renumbered 6000. It was very well received by the public, but somehow it got lost amid all the media hype over the hybrids. The hybrids got ad wraps and tons of media attention.  A market research group was at Westmount Transit Center (bus exchange) to do a survey regarding the E40LFR, but somehow even those employed by the market research firm were somehow under the belief that the E40LFR was a hybrid. To most people, a bus is a bus. (Maybe this was even intentional) but they were asking how people liked the new hybrid (meaning the E40LFR) so of course all the feedback pointed to positive public responses to the hybrids.   2242/6000 sat in the garage quite a bit, because as usual, there is always construction, and instead of showcasing the EPU, they would put a diesel out on that run, along with the rest of the route.  And of course they had to train drivers on it, so again it lost valuable time 'in school' rather than on the road showcasing her stuff. The morning driver, Bill, and the night run driver, Janice, absolutely LOVED the bus and spent quite a lot of time speaking to passengers about all the wonderful positive aspects of the bus and encouraging people to phone council to advocate for the retention of the trolley system and the purchasing of new trolleys.

ETS never ever considered buying any E40LFRS. They only demoed an E40LFR because it was a council directive to do so. And still 2242/6000 did not see as much service as the six hybrids that ETS trotted out at every opportunity.

Their minds were totally made up even years before demoing the E40LFR. They had an agenda, and that was to totally decommission the system, by hook or by crook, they were going to do it.  They hired a manager and a GM with a previous history of having a desire to eradicate electric traction. (One of them tried to get rid of the streetcars in TO). They would lie to the media, trot out all the old myths, fudge the numbers, pay consultants to draw up schemes pointing to how the trolley system is out dated and insignificant. They purposefully undermaintained the overhead causing more dewirements so that operators, car drivers, passengers would get increasingly frustrated at 'those antiquated trolleys' . ETS fuelled such a hate-on for the trolleys, us pro-trolley advocates had a real chore on our hands. It was more than just building a case to retain the trolley system, but we also had to fight the hate.

The sad part is even if council had voted to retain the trolley system, ETS would not run a new fleet any better than they did the old ones.  The modern ETS (1997 to the present) has no desire to run a stellar system. They just want to run a bare bones system. As little frequency as they can get away with, with as few buses as possible. They don't want to put in the effort.

[Firebrand]

12 minutes ago, captaintrolley said:

Yes, I was in Edmonton then. Lived here all my life except the four years in Van (which I miss so much). It was only one demo. 2242 which ETS renumbered 6000. It was very well received by the public, but somehow it got lost amid all the media hype over the hybrids. The hybrids got ad wraps and tons of media attention.  A market research group was at Westmount Transit Center (bus exchange) to do a survey regarding the E40LFR, but somehow even those employed by the market research firm were somehow under the belief that the E40LFR was a hybrid. To most people, a bus is a bus. (Maybe this was even intentional) but they were asking how people liked the new hybrid (meaning the E40LFR) so of course all the feedback pointed to positive public responses to the hybrids.   2242/6000 sat in the garage quite a bit, because as usual, there is always construction, and instead of showcasing the EPU, they would put a diesel out on that run, along with the rest of the route.  And of course they had to train drivers on it, so again it lost valuable time 'in school' rather than on the road showcasing her stuff. The morning driver, Bill, and the night run driver, Janice, absolutely LOVED the bus and spent quite a lot of time speaking to passengers about all the wonderful positive aspects of the bus and encouraging people to phone council to advocate for the retention of the trolley system and the purchasing of new trolleys.

ETS never ever considered buying any E40LFRS. They only demoed an E40LFR because it was a council directive to do so. And still 2242/6000 did not see as much service as the six hybrids that ETS trotted out at every opportunity.

Their minds were totally made up even years before demoing the E40LFR. They had an agenda, and that was to totally decommission the system, by hook or by crook, they were going to do it.  They hired a manager and a GM with a previous history of having a desire to eradicate electric traction. (One of them tried to get rid of the streetcars in TO). They would lie to the media, trot out all the old myths, fudge the numbers, pay consultants to draw up schemes pointing to how the trolley system is out dated and insignificant. They purposefully undermaintained the overhead causing more dewirements so that operators, car drivers, passengers would get increasingly frustrated at 'those antiquated trolleys' . ETS fuelled such a hate-on for the trolleys, us pro-trolley advocates had a real chore on our hands. It was more than just building a case to retain the trolley system, but we also had to fight the hate.

The sad part is even if council had voted to retain the trolley system, ETS would not run a new fleet any better than they did the old ones.  The modern ETS (1997 to the present) has no desire to run a stellar system. They just want to run a bare bones system. As little frequency as they can get away with, with as few buses as possible. They don't want to put in the effort.

They were that desperate to get rid of them? The sheer incompetence of running its trolley network is astounding, and it may be a catalyst to what will happen here. TransLink is eerily heading into that direction, as they don’t even acknowledge the latest trolley bus technology, and just go with the propaganda approach (like giving out one-sided comparisons to the hypothetical BEBs a decade from now to TransLink’s mid-2000s trolley orders, not even to the most recent trolleys and BEBs) as ETS did. They don’t even look at Seattle’s XT40s, which have drastic improvements over their older trolleys. I think what @martin607 is most likely true; the political atmosphere in TransLink’s management has become more anti-trolley, and they’ll do anything they can to get rid of them. Hell, they even have a plan to order 37 diesels to replace some of the trolley fleet once the new TC in Marpole opens.

[captaintrolley]

1 minute ago, Firebrand said:

They were that desperate to get rid of them? The sheer incompetence of running its trolley network is astounding, and it may be a catalyst to what will happen here. TransLink is eerily heading into that direction, as they don’t even acknowledge the latest trolley bus technology, and just go with the propaganda approach (like giving out one-sided comparisons to the hypothetical BEBs a decade from now to TransLink’s mid-2000s trolley orders, not even to the most recent trolleys and BEBs) as ETS did. They don’t even look at Seattle’s XT40s, which have drastic improvements over their older trolleys. I think what @martin607 is most likely true; the political atmosphere in TransLink’s management has become more anti-trolley, and they’ll do anything they can to get rid of them. Hell, they even have a plan to order 37 diesels to replace some of the trolley fleet once the new TC in Marpole opens.

I know what you are saying. It's crossed my mind too, but I am denying it. I hope you are wrong. The nefarious underhanded deeds that undid the ETS trolley network still haunt me.

[Firebrand]

12 minutes ago, captaintrolley said:

I know what you are saying. It's crossed my mind too, but I am denying it. I hope you are wrong. The nefarious underhanded deeds that undid the ETS trolley network still haunt me.

Denial won't change anything. If I were you, I would dig deeper and negotiate with management. They will not directly say it, but they'll hint it. But after what happened to the trollies at ETS, I can see it a mile away. They clearly want to get rid of them by using BEBs under the banner "clean energy of tomorrow". Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

[captaintrolley]

7 hours ago, Firebrand said:

Denial won't change anything. If I were you, I would dig deeper and negotiate with management. They will not directly say it, but they'll hint it. But after what happened to the trollies at ETS, I can see it a mile away. They clearly want to get rid of them by using BEBs under the banner "clean energy of tomorrow". Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

I know denying it won't change anything. It is only protecting my sanity for the moment. I am still not over the Edmonton fiasco and still have nightmares. I don't live in Vancouver, and until this becomes a real issue (not just one that you can 'see' in the cards but the cards are not on the table yet). Although the scenario 'sounds' familiar, there are many more pro-trolley drivers and pro-trolley people in general in Vancouver. The hate isn't there as it  was in Edmonton. Vancouver trolley advocates will have to form a group (like Edmonton did with the Edmonton Trolley Coalition). This group will have to hold meetings with councilors, transit management, stakeholders etc. The group must also meet regularly and formulate a game plan to 'save the trolleys'. When this 'game plan' is in place I will definitely play along. The game plan should include which councilors to hit up with emails or phone call, accumulating data from other systems that have or had trolleys, printing brochures outlining positive aspects of trolleys / negative aspects of BEBs and appeal to the public to bend some council-ears, and even posters to retain the trolley network. (Some cool phrases like ' Trolleys, the original plug 'n' play'   or 'Trolleys, keeping you connected'  along with your groups website address etc.  It will be a lot of work, but there is safety in numbers. Form a group and when the threat becomes more imminent you will be ready.

"Trolleys, cleaner energy worth keeping"  <==  There is your counter slogan, now run with it !!!

[GrandeWest_B35G]

Imagine having to charge your bus

this post was brought to you by trolley gang

[Dane]

22 hours ago, GORDOOM said:

My biggest concern with this rumour is that, if it’s a matter of legal liability, we might have the future of the trolleybus fleet discussed and decided in camera rather than in public, which would deny trolleybus advocates the chance to make their case.

I haven't read this whole thread yet - looks interesting! So onto that soon LOL. 

 

But for this specific reply, procurement decisions are already closed door, albeit not in camera. Moreover even if there's a tinge of liability to the decision, the laws the dictate public procurement of buses demands that the process be public, there's nothing about a bus that get's even close to the requirements for a figuratively "closed door" process. Heck even new warships have their specs all out there! 

[GORDOOM]

4 hours ago, Dane said:

[P]rocurement decisions are already closed door, albeit not in camera. Moreover even if there's a tinge of liability to the decision, the laws the dictate public procurement of buses demands that the process be public, there's nothing about a bus that get's even close to the requirements for a figuratively "closed door" process. Heck even new warships have their specs all out there! 

But it wouldn’t be the actual tender for the purchase of new buses that would be handled in camera; rather, it would be the decision to decommission the trolleybus overhead and thus to put out a public tender for battery-electric buses to replace the trolleybuses. (There’s lots of requirements for public procurement to protect businesses, but none for broader public-policy issues to protect the interests of people. Funny, ne?)

[Dane]

Yes I suppose on that angle I agree. Honestly, I think it's all very hypothetical at this point - unless there's a viable trolley alternative then I think the fleet is totally safe. So we are, potentially, in that middle ground where an alternative is present but not quite where it needs to be yet. 

I don't think the public cares about trolleys at all, I also think the constant references to ETS in this thread are spurious (TransLink is run nothing like ETS, and the political climate here is even more dramatically different) - that said I do think the public is pretty attune with environment so they may care about trolleys in the event that any change generates emissions. 

[Dane]

On 12/17/2018 at 9:39 PM, Firebrand said:

They were that desperate to get rid of them? The sheer incompetence of running its trolley network is astounding, and it may be a catalyst to what will happen here. TransLink is eerily heading into that direction, as they don’t even acknowledge the latest trolley bus technology, and just go with the propaganda approach (like giving out one-sided comparisons to the hypothetical BEBs a decade from now to TransLink’s mid-2000s trolley orders, not even to the most recent trolleys and BEBs) as ETS did. They don’t even look at Seattle’s XT40s, which have drastic improvements over their older trolleys. I think what @martin607 is most likely true; the political atmosphere in TransLink’s management has become more anti-trolley, and they’ll do anything they can to get rid of them. Hell, they even have a plan to order 37 diesels to replace some of the trolley fleet once the new TC in Marpole opens.

Where is this coming from about TransLink? The trolley system has been, on the whole very well supported, and as recently as ... now ... there's active discussion about how to better utilize the bus fleet (namely trolley conversion of the 41). 

TransLink cannot ignore something they're not doing. Trolleys aren't due for replacement anytime soon.  What does "they don't even acknowledge the lastest technology" mean? 

The 37 bus diesel order is to supplement the system where trolleys lack flexibility to manage construction - getting to a major weakness of the trolley system that also created issue during Canada Line. 

[Michael Marriott]

One thing I will say is Translink is not ignoring new technology.  The E40LFR fleet did have the EPU batteries replaced a couple years ago, and when the BHA got a tour of VTC in 2017 it was mentioned that they considered upgrading to newer battery tech like the Seattle XT's have, but found it wasn't worth the extra cost since it would require more modifications to other components to properly integrate them.  For the time being, Translink is committed to maintaining the existing trolley network, if there was some deep anti-trolley bias you wouldn't see things like the plan to put trolleys back on the 41, the 5/6 Yaletown extension and the budget to string up new wire to maintain trolley service on the 14, 16 and 17 during Broadway subway construction (the 37 buses will cover the 9 only, which uses 27 buses during the PM rush hour, plus spares and extras for padded running time during construction).

[Firebrand]

41 minutes ago, Dane said:

Where is this coming from about TransLink? The trolley system has been, on the whole very well supported, and as recently as ... now ... there's active discussion about how to better utilize the bus fleet (namely trolley conversion of the 41). 

TransLink cannot ignore something they're not doing. Trolleys aren't due for replacement anytime soon.  What does "they don't even acknowledge the lastest technology" mean? 

The 37 bus diesel order is to supplement the system where trolleys lack flexibility to manage construction - getting to a major weakness of the trolley system that also created issue during Canada Line. 

Those are just assumptions from the document I read on BEBs. As @martin607 said earlier, most of it is mostly on the projections of BEBs 7-8 years from now, but almost non-existent on the latest trolleybus technology; the comparisons are between the BEBs then vs the 2006-09 trolleybuses, not Seattle’s XT40s, which are battery-trolley hybrids that have the flexibility of diesels and efficiency of trollies. With these latest trollies, you could extend trolley routes like the 8, 16 and 20 to Marine Drive without having to erect wires.

Those diesel orders defeat the purpose of TransLink’s Low Carbon Fleet strategy. They could’ve order (or plan to order) those same XT40s Seattle have, which, like I said, are very capable of off-wire routing. They typically have a range of 20km when not wired.

11 minutes ago, Michael Marriott said:

One thing I will say is Translink is not ignoring new technology.  The E40LFR fleet did have the EPU batteries replaced a couple years ago, and when the BHA got a tour of VTC in 2017 it was mentioned that they considered upgrading to newer battery tech like the Seattle XT's have, but found it wasn't worth the extra cost since it would require more modifications to other components to properly integrate them.

Where does it say that? How did Seattle (and the Bay Area) got away with that with their older Škodas and Gilligs?

If this was ETS they would never want the 41 to be a trolley route. They would’ve gotten rid of it. Or maybe I am still salty that Edmonton took a step backward by decommissioning its trolley network with diesels back in ‘09. I just don’t want the same thing happen here.

[Brando737]

11 hours ago, Michael Marriott said:

One thing I will say is Translink is not ignoring new technology.  The E40LFR fleet did have the EPU batteries replaced a couple years ago, and when the BHA got a tour of VTC in 2017 it was mentioned that they considered upgrading to newer battery tech like the Seattle XT's have, but found it wasn't worth the extra cost since it would require more modifications to other components to properly integrate them.  For the time being, Translink is committed to maintaining the existing trolley network, if there was some deep anti-trolley bias you wouldn't see things like the plan to put trolleys back on the 41, the 5/6 Yaletown extension and the budget to string up new wire to maintain trolley service on the 14, 16 and 17 during Broadway subway construction (the 37 buses will cover the 9 only, which uses 27 buses during the PM rush hour, plus spares and extras for padded running time during construction).

Even if there was some sort of anti trolley thing going on, all those things you mentioned would still happen.  Currently there is a bit of a surplus of trolley's which is one reason why the 41 will be trolley's when the 41st B-Line comes into service.  Also they must retain as much trolley service as possible during the Broadway Millennium Line extension construction simply due to the equipment available and they won't replace buses that still have at least 5 years of service life left.  And the Yaletown extension of the 6 needed to be done regardless of trolley's having a future or not.

[cleowin]

17 minutes ago, Brando737 said:

Even if there was some sort of anti trolley thing going on, all those things you mentioned would still happen.  Currently there is a bit of a surplus of trolley's which is one reason why the 41 will be trolley's when the 41st B-Line comes into service.  Also they must retain as much trolley service as possible during the Broadway Millennium Line extension construction simply due to the equipment available and they won't replace buses that still have at least 5 years of service life left.  And the Yaletown extension of the 6 needed to be done regardless of trolley's having a future or not.

Speaking of the Trolley network, I've always been in support of extending the Trolley service all the way to Edmonds Station. That being said, they could just do the XTE40 so that no overhead needs to be installed in Burnaby

[Firebrand]

53 minutes ago, cleowin said:

Speaking of the Trolley network, I've always been in support of extending the Trolley service all the way to Edmonds Station. That being said, they could just do the XTE40 so that no overhead needs to be installed in Burnaby

Exactly. They don't have to be restricted to wires, especially in NIMBY cities like Burnaby. The 19 could de-wire itself and run on batteries to Edmonds from Metrotown and back, and the wires can recharge the batteries when the poles reattach.

[Dane]

12 hours ago, Firebrand said:

Those are just assumptions from the document I read on BEBs. As @martin607 said earlier, most of it is mostly on the projections of BEBs 7-8 years from now, but almost non-existent on the latest trolleybus technology; the comparisons are between the BEBs then vs the 2006-09 trolleybuses, not Seattle’s XT40s, which are battery-trolley hybrids that have the flexibility of diesels and efficiency of trollies. With these latest trollies, you could extend trolley routes like the 8, 16 and 20 to Marine Drive without having to erect wires.

Those diesel orders defeat the purpose of TransLink’s Low Carbon Fleet strategy. They could’ve order (or plan to order) those same XT40s Seattle have, which, like I said, are very capable of off-wire routing. They typically have a range of 20km when not wired.

That document, assuming we are talking about the same thing, is to present an evolution of technology for a private company. You're putting wayyyy too much weight on it. 

 

Dewiring a trolley on every trip of a bus route is really impractical; I certainly don't want to be on that bus, it would add several minutes a trip and create a need for additional staff almost 24/7 for literally years as they extend SkyTrain - the procurement of non-trolley buses was a logical decision that doesn't undermine TransLink supporting the network.