TransLink Future - Dream's and Aspirations

[Firebrand]

9 minutes ago, Dane said:

PThat 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. 

 

You do know that the poles are raised automatically on the newer trolleys, right? You don't need extra staff to dewire/rewire the poles from/to the overhead. 

[captaintrolley]

5 minutes ago, Dane said:

Dewiring a trolley on every trip of a bus route is really impractical;

There are trolley routes in Europe that have unwired portions on their route and do this all the time. With IMC and automatic dewiring and rewiring there is nothing impractical about it.

[Dane]

I've seen them in action! 

But they still need someone to get them back up, practically speaking - no doubt that could be overcome easily. 

However, that still doesn't solve the problem of frequent detours, reroutes, etc. At the end of the day TL is buying 37 buses that can be redistributed to other parts of the fleet five to six years from now. Seems like a win for all involved. 

Not every decision made is the victimization of the trolley system. You guys need to chill. 

[Firebrand]

1 minute ago, Dane said:

I've seen them in action! 

But they still need someone to get them back up, practically speaking - no doubt that could be overcome easily. 

However, that still doesn't solve the problem.if frequent detours, reroutes, etc. 

Then fly a jet if you don't like to be stuck in traffic. EVERY bus is prone to this, no matter the technology type, unless they are completely separated from car traffic.

[captaintrolley]

2 minutes ago, Dane said:

But they still need someone to get them back up

No they don't. This is in Seattle..

 

[Dane]

33 minutes ago, Firebrand said:

Then fly a jet if you don't like to be stuck in traffic. EVERY bus is prone to this, no matter the technology type, unless they are completely separated from car traffic.

No. A diesel doesn't dewire and rewire. Nor, during an active construction project, do any other technologies require the movement of overhead. 

[Firebrand]

Do I really need to repeat this?

[Mark Walton]

2 hours ago, captaintrolley said:

No they don't. This is in Seattle..

 

The  inverted V shapes in the wires re rewiring pans.

[Dane]

1 hour ago, Firebrand said:

Do I really need to repeat this?

Yes. 

Honestly the love of trolleys here is so intense it's bypassing rational reasoning. TransLink is a huge trolley supporter. Their 2019 budget includes huge dollars to improve trolley infastructure pan-system. The fleet is well maintained. The planners are looking to positively use additional capacity. Stop the fake "oh the end is coming TransLink hates us" narrative. 

[martin607]

2 hours ago, Dane said:

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. 

 

Sorry but you are out of date on this. Trolleybuses that run on a mix of battery power and then rejoining the wiring system can do so quickly. easily and accurately.  For this regular changeover you install rewiring pans at a bus stop at the changeover point. The driver controls everything from his/her seat. This example is from Seattle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W0AcsCJ4ac&t=0s&list=PLWyv_ThRS1j5MvyqDSWbx6o1Ld0820wY-&index=20

Note that the time taken between the bus stopping and the poles being reconnected to the wires is about 15 seconds - less than the time taken to load a bus at a stop.

It's this ease of changing from wire to battery and back to the wires that makes the use of battery-trolleybuses on regular service possible.

[martin607]

10 minutes ago, Dane said:

Yes. 

Honestly the love of trolleys here is so intense it's bypassing rational reasoning. TransLink is a huge trolley supporter. Their 2019 budget includes huge dollars to improve trolley infastructure pan-system. The fleet is well maintained. The planners are looking to positively use additional capacity. Stop the fake "oh the end is coming TransLink hates us" narrative. 

Yes the system is well maintained. Obviously there is money in each annual budget for system maintenance and repairs. Is there anything special in the 2019 budget? I'm intrigued by your reference to use of additional capacity. Apart from returning the stopping service on the 41 to trolley, is anything else planned? As the 41 will be every 15 minutes, it's unlikely to need more than about 10 trolleys, from the current surplus of 40 ft etbs.  Then they are going to dieselise the whole of the 9. Were there no possibilities of diversions or at least maintaining a service between Broadway/Commercial and Boundary?

People are concerned because they can see warning signs and hear the mood music.  The Low Carbon Fleet Strategy presentation waxes lyrical about BEBs, based on unprovable projections. There was virtually no information about the potential of battery-trolleybuses. Do you think the consultants would have written the report in such a one-sided manner if that wasn't the steer from Translink management? On the smaller scale,  I have had a tweet from somebody inTranslink Planning telling me BEBs will be better than trolleybuses "Because no wires"!

[captaintrolley]

2 hours ago, martin607 said:

Yes the system is well maintained.

I do agree the trolley infrastructure is very well maintained, and all the buses in general are also well maintained. In addition to the funds, it takes a pride and dedication to do this. All the money in the world wouldn't make a whit of difference if the pride and dedication weren't there. A one person 'tweet' is not the whole department. I hope this person is just one of the desk jockeys in planning, and not the person that makes any kind of important decisions.

[Dane]

8 hours ago, martin607 said:

Yes the system is well maintained. Obviously there is money in each annual budget for system maintenance and repairs. Is there anything special in the 2019 budget? I'm intrigued by your reference to use of additional capacity. Apart from returning the stopping service on the 41 to trolley, is anything else planned? As the 41 will be every 15 minutes, it's unlikely to need more than about 10 trolleys, from the current surplus of 40 ft etbs.  Then they are going to dieselise the whole of the 9. Were there no possibilities of diversions or at least maintaining a service between Broadway/Commercial and Boundary?

People are concerned because they can see warning signs and hear the mood music.  The Low Carbon Fleet Strategy presentation waxes lyrical about BEBs, based on unprovable projections. There was virtually no information about the potential of battery-trolleybuses. Do you think the consultants would have written the report in such a one-sided manner if that wasn't the steer from Translink management? On the smaller scale,  I have had a tweet from somebody inTranslink Planning telling me BEBs will be better than trolleybuses "Because no wires"!

Yes, 2019's budget is different in that the allocation to trolley infastructure is about double it's usual. Nothing too special per say, but a lot of investment in keeping things going. 

I don't think the whole 9 is actually being diesalized, at least in one shot... Will be interesting to see what actually happens there. I didn't hear this from a discussion about trolleys, but rather, the buses needed to free up capacity from the trolley system probably couldn't arrive on time for the start of M Line work. Watch & shoot on this I suspect. 

Capacity is the utilization of the fleet to reduce the spare ratio of the fleet. It's easy to say the 41 isn't a big deal, but it really is. It's trolley-izing a route that doesn't need trolleys.... The alternative would be do nothing which would allow some E40s to be retired. The changes to the 6 should also improve fleet use. 

Whenever CMBC / TL gets audited, as an aside, the poor utilization of the trolley fleet is invariably brought up, that's why I'm so happy to see the 41 change!

The consultants where from the BEB industry weren't they? 

[martin607]

1 hour ago, Dane said:

Yes, 2019's budget is different in that the allocation to trolley infastructure is about double it's usual. Nothing too special per say, but a lot of investment in keeping things going. 

I don't think the whole 9 is actually being diesalized, at least in one shot... Will be interesting to see what actually happens there. I didn't hear this from a discussion about trolleys, but rather, the buses needed to free up capacity from the trolley system probably couldn't arrive on time for the start of M Line work. Watch & shoot on this I suspect. 

Capacity is the utilization of the fleet to reduce the spare ratio of the fleet. It's easy to say the 41 isn't a big deal, but it really is. It's trolley-izing a route that doesn't need trolleys.... The alternative would be do nothing which would allow some E40s to be retired. The changes to the 6 should also improve fleet use. 

Whenever CMBC / TL gets audited, as an aside, the poor utilization of the trolley fleet is invariably brought up, that's why I'm so happy to see the 41 change!

The consultants where from the BEB industry weren't they? 

The spare ratio isn't the fault of trolleybuses per se. It's simply a question of the increase in the last order for the E60LFRs. Unfortunately this soon turned out to be an oversupply of trolleys compared with demand. Presumably as ridership demand on existing routes grows, plus the restoration of trolleys on the 41, the excessive spare ratio will decrease. But then the dieselisation of the 9 (in 2020?) is just going to send the spare ratio soaring again. 

The 41 was a long standing trolleybus route. At least the infrastructure will now be used for passenger service - I appreciate there was always extensive deadheading along the line but this is a restoration of a historic route.

[captaintrolley]

Vancouver has excellent use of it's fleet compared to Edmonton. Go into a garage in Edmonton after the am rush and it is at least half full of buses, if not more. The most expensive thing is a bunch of costly equipment sitting around not earning revenue. 

[GrandeWest_B35G]

Just started following this thread. When was the 41 dieselized?

[GORDOOM]

3 minutes ago, Jaymaud0804 said:

Just started following this thread. When was the 41 dieselized?

When the route was extended to UBC. There’s a section of Marine Dr. with an 80 km/h speed limit, and AIUI WCB considers it unsafe for drivers to go out and put poles back up after a dewirement in a >60 km/h zone.

[martin607]

3 hours ago, GORDOOM said:

When the route was extended to UBC. There’s a section of Marine Dr. with an 80 km/h speed limit, and AIUI WCB considers it unsafe for drivers to go out and put poles back up after a dewirement in a >60 km/h zone.

This wouldn't be a problem using the battery-trolleybuses that we have been discussing above. This section of route would be a battery operated section. Imagining a battery-trolleybus operation on the forthcoming B91, Translink would need a different specification not only for batteries and IMC, but also to permit higher speed running than normal. Because they were so simple and robust the old Brills regularly used to be able to do well over 80 km/h,  say on night-time back to the yard runs. But the Flyers are governed to 65 km/h to protect the electronics etc. A new fleet for a route for the B91 might need a slightly different ratio in the differential to allow for higher speed running. 

[9924]

The thing with a trolley system is that it relies on two components, the vehicle and the overhead.  A problem with either component can cripple an entire system, stranding passengers.  Just like yesterday in Vancouver:

https://www.straight.com/news/1179366/bus-delays-vancouver-due-downed-trolley-lines-granville-street

Diesels, hybrids, EVs only have to rely on the vehicle itself, can be rerouted on a dime if required, trolleys simply cannot.

Diesels, hybrids, EVs are self sufficient, the only costs involved are for the vehicle themselves, trolleys require extra costs involved in maintaining the overhead system.

Trolley buses running on EPUs have very limited range (and air pressure), the only answer is to install bigger and better batteries and then it gets to the point where batteries are good enough to get around town and don't require any overhead components so the argument for a trolley is nil and void.

EV buses with express chargers located around in town is the future of green public transportation.  Express chargers aren't prone to frost, poles getting tangled in them, branches falling on them nor can they cause a whole system to be crippled.

[martin607]

3 hours ago, 9924 said:

The thing with a trolley system is that it relies on two components, the vehicle and the overhead.  A problem with either component can cripple an entire system, stranding passengers.  Just like yesterday in Vancouver:

https://www.straight.com/news/1179366/bus-delays-vancouver-due-downed-trolley-lines-granville-street

Diesels, hybrids, EVs only have to rely on the vehicle itself, can be rerouted on a dime if required, trolleys simply cannot.

Diesels, hybrids, EVs are self sufficient, the only costs involved are for the vehicle themselves, trolleys require extra costs involved in maintaining the overhead system.

Trolley buses running on EPUs have very limited range (and air pressure), the only answer is to install bigger and better batteries and then it gets to the point where batteries are good enough to get around town and don't require any overhead components so the argument for a trolley is nil and void.

EV buses with express chargers located around in town is the future of green public transportation.  Express chargers aren't prone to frost, poles getting tangled in them, branches falling on them nor can they cause a whole system to be crippled.

The same old, same old.

1. The wire problem affected some routes, not "the entire system". 

2. Battery buses also require substantial investment in grid connections, traction substations and charging stations. The capital cost of these is very substantial though obviously not as expensive as a complete overhead wiring system.

3. Yes, I wish the EPU on these 12 year old trolleys were up to current standards.

4. The argument for battery-trolleybuses is not "nil and void". Systems in Europe that use these with In Motion Charging would have a 20km range which is much smaller and lighter than the batteries used on opportunity charging BEBs. There is absolutely no charging downtime because this is done on the move.

5. There are plenty of problems with BEBs using opportunity chargers: Long/unpredictable charging downtime; poor schedule adherence because of charging delays; low productivity - in Moscow they have found BEBs can only travel 60% of the shift time while diesel and trolley achieve 90% - therefore the fleet has to be 50% larger.

 

Having said all that, given that everybody has said above that the overhead system is well maintained, how did this problem arise and why di it take so long to fix?

[captaintrolley]

2 minutes ago, martin607 said:

how did this problem arise and why did it take so long to fix?

I have heard there was quite the wind storm yesterday. A tree branch could have easily fallen on the overhead. I read somewhere (collisions and incident thread) a tree branch fell at a skytrain station and injured a lady.  Sometimes wire problems are caused by careless drivers  misjudging a switch or a switch failing to work. Still, comparatively speaking, Vancouver's overhead is indeed well manicured and maintained to the highest degree from what I have experienced in Edmonton.

[Dane]

15 minutes ago, martin607 said:

 

2. Battery buses also require substantial investment in grid connections, traction substations and charging stations. The capital cost of these is very substantial though obviously not as expensive as a complete overhead wiring system.

4. The argument for battery-trolleybuses is not "nil and void". Systems in Europe that use these with In Motion Charging would have a 20km range which is much smaller and lighter than the batteries used on opportunity charging BEBs. There is absolutely no charging downtime because this is done on the move.

Having said all that, given that everybody has said above that the overhead system is well maintained, how did this problem arise and why di it take so long to fix?

I do think Point 2 you have here is overlooked, a lot. The type of things planners realize and others gloss over. Some batteries require significant charging infastructure that would require a huge one or two time investment into downtown Vancouver - not a cheap place to build. TransLink is already obviously alive to this, but it could be one of those logistical points which swings the whole discussion. That's where trolleys like you've described at Point 4 could be incredibly competitive in the early 2020s when this becomes a real conversation. 

Repair times lengthy on days like today because there is two separate but not mutually exclusive problems. Hydro is down. And the lines are physically down. So one cannot be solved without the other. Wires go up. BC Hydro recharges the grid. Wires go live. Obviously on a manic day like today both BC Hydro and TransLink need to decide where to move limited resources. 

[martin607]

9 minutes ago, Dane said:

I do think Point 2 you have here is overlooked, a lot. The type of things planners realize and others gloss over. Some batteries require significant charging infastructure that would require a huge one or two time investment into downtown Vancouver - not a cheap place to build. TransLink is already obviously alive to this, but it could be one of those logistical points which swings the whole discussion. That's where trolleys like you've described at Point 4 could be incredibly competitive in the early 2020s when this becomes a real conversation. 

Repair times lengthy on days like today because there is two separate but not mutually exclusive problems. Hydro is down. And the lines are physically down. So one cannot be solved without the other. Wires go up. BC Hydro recharges the grid. Wires go live. Obviously on a manic day like today both BC Hydro and TransLink need to decide where to move limited resources. 

Yes, people don't realise how much the infrastructure for battery buses will cost. DC rapid chargers can cost $1.5m each and just to replace the existing trolley fleet with BEBs, you would need about 90 chargers dotted around the city. So that's $135m just for the chargers, by the time you add in grid connections and transformer substations you could easily be talking of $300m plus. Before you have bought a single bus. Obviously rebuilding the trolleybus system would cost even more but in terms of cashflow there is no need to do that, you would gradually upgrade the system as needed over a number of years, with much lower annual spending.

Another interesting fact I learnt from Kiepe Electric is that the amount of installed power is much less for trolleybuses than it is for either opportunity chargers or overnight chargers. This is because trolleys draw their energy continuously during a say 18 hour day, but BEBs draw the same amount of energy in "bursts" and for overnight chargers the peak load occurs in a three hour window. So for 100 articulated buses (of any kind) trolleys need installed power of 3.5MW, opportunity charging needs 7 MW of installed power and overnight charging requires 14MW. Each additional MW costs more money in terms of the size of the electrical equipment and the charges made by the electrical utility.

in the mid 2020s the advent of In Motion Charging could mean the trolleybus overhead would be much simpler and cheaper to erect and maintain. Effectively plain straight wire only, no crossings and switches. For example at Granville and Broadway you could retain plain north South wires but nothing else. 9, 14 and 16 would de-pole and the re-pole either side of the junction, using the automatic system shown in the video above.

[cleowin]

Hey guys, out of curiousity, let's assume that BC Transit never got replaced by Translink, how would our system look like today? In terms of fleet, etc? Input your ideas!

I would guess that BC Transit would have continued its numbering system for the Vancouver area, and would have ordered mostly Nova LFS / CNG variant buses, but the trolley's would have still been the same. Can you imagine any of our E40LFR's in BC Transit livery?

[8010]

If the 301 was to be made into a FTN route would it be best to convert it into a B-Line/RapidBus route with less stops and shortened to end at Scottsdale rather than Newton to reduce duplication with the Scott Road routes (B-Line/RapidBus and 319)?