2021 Battery-Electric Bus Procurement

[Express691]

On 11/22/2022 at 5:33 PM, Thomasw said:

A picture on another group shows the internal number 22101.

This is changed to 23201.

[Transit Guy]

23201 is wrapped in the ugly battery-electric branding with big yellow “100% Electric Bus” text on the side and appears to be ready for service according to TransLink’s latest Instagram post. Wrap work on the windows appears lazier than the 2019 electric buses.

[Phillip]

In service. The operator appeared to be having charging issues.

[981]

6 hours ago, Phillip said:

In service. The operator appeared to be having charging issues.

Classic TL.

[Phillip]

1 hour ago, 981 said:

Classic TL.

The pantograph would not lower, I saw the driver backing up and moving forward several times to position the bus with no luck.

 

I like how they had a big media event this morning, showing the bus off and saying it would be in service today, but the bus only went out for one afternoon round trip on the 100.

 

[captaintrolley]

4 hours ago, 981 said:

Classic TL.

I wouldn't be so quick to blame Translink. They are doing very well with what they have to work with. The reality is stuff happens, and I am sure the problem will be rectified shortly, not weeks or months like some places.

[Transit Guy]

7 hours ago, captaintrolley said:

I wouldn't be so quick to blame Translink. They are doing very well with what they have to work with. The reality is stuff happens, and I am sure the problem will be rectified shortly, not weeks or months like some places.

I agree. I’m glad that they’re not just rushing head-first into this initial phase of battery-electric buses since the technology is still relatively new. They probably knew the technology would improve quickly and only ordered four buses for 2019. They could’ve done what Edmonton did and ordered 50+ long-range electric buses from Proterra or St. Albert with BYD, but they didn’t even though they tested a long-range BYD.

It seems like they really want to get this shorter-range technology right, but I think HTC and PTC should be converted into electric/CNG transit centres instead of having PTC go full-electric and leaving HTC with 19 or so electric buses even after MTC opens. We all know that with current maintenance conditions the 100 will not be running 100% electric buses with 19 units if we can’t even get 100% RapidBuses on RapidBus routes with 110 units and reduced service, so they might as well convert the 104 into an electric route as well, although I’m not sure if 19301-19302 could handle it with no charger on Annacis and their 40km range

I think they should’ve tested 23201 the morning of the media event considering the differences in technology can have technical issues at any time. I believe the MK III trains have clearly proven that when they were timing out during their initial launch, or vice versa with the MK Is timing out on the Lougheed Evergreen tracks. Obviously 1980s/90s Expo tech mixed with 2015/16 Evergreen tech is a bit different from 2018/19 chargers mixed with 2022 electric buses, but the same basic principle applies, test your products every day during week of launch.

Honestly, I’m just glad they didn’t order more XE40s. Typically I like New Flyer more than Nova, but I don’t know what the hell is up with the brakes on 19303-19304 and why they seem stronger than the brakes on any other bus I’ve ever been on.

[981]

6 hours ago, Transit Guy said:

I agree. I’m glad that they’re not just rushing head-first into this initial phase of battery-electric buses since the technology is still relatively new. They probably knew the technology would improve quickly and only ordered four buses for 2019. They could’ve done what Edmonton did and ordered 50+ long-range electric buses from Proterra or St. Albert with BYD, but they didn’t even though they tested a long-range BYD.

It seems like they really want to get this shorter-range technology right, but I think HTC and PTC should be converted into electric/CNG transit centres instead of having PTC go full-electric and leaving HTC with 19 or so electric buses even after MTC opens. We all know that with current maintenance conditions the 100 will not be running 100% electric buses with 19 units if we can’t even get 100% RapidBuses on RapidBus routes with 110 units and reduced service, so they might as well convert the 104 into an electric route as well, although I’m not sure if 19301-19302 could handle it with no charger on Annacis and their 40km range

I think they should’ve tested 23201 the morning of the media event considering the differences in technology can have technical issues at any time. I believe the MK III trains have clearly proven that when they were timing out during their initial launch, or vice versa with the MK Is timing out on the Lougheed Evergreen tracks. Obviously 1980s/90s Expo tech mixed with 2015/16 Evergreen tech is a bit different from 2018/19 chargers mixed with 2022 electric buses, but the same basic principle applies, test your products every day during week of launch.

Honestly, I’m just glad they didn’t order more XE40s. Typically I like New Flyer more than Nova, but I don’t know what the hell is up with the brakes on 19303-19304 and why they seem stronger than the brakes on any other bus I’ve ever been on.

I've heard either 19303 or 19304 loves to mess with the overhead chargers from an HTC driver a while ago. Explains why I don't see them out as much as the standard electric Novas.

[Transit Guy]

14 hours ago, 981 said:

I've heard either 19303 or 19304 loves to mess with the overhead chargers from an HTC driver a while ago. Explains why I don't see them out as much as the standard electric Novas.

Don’t they do maintenance on the chargers? Why not just take out whichever unit is screwing with the chargers, tinker with the chargers (or on-board charging equipment depending on the issue) and fix the problem? Lol

[981]

9 hours ago, Transit Guy said:

Don’t they do maintenance on the chargers? Why not just take out whichever unit is screwing with the chargers, tinker with the chargers (or on-board charging equipment depending on the issue) and fix the problem? Lol

I've never understood why some buses are less finicky than others when it comes to overhead charging. It's the exact same protocol (OppCharge) on both the XE40 and LFSe.

Although I did hear somewhere that the charger at Marpole is different than the one at 22nd. Maybe that has something to do with it?

As you mentioned, it is a relatively new technology, and this will obviously get better as the technology is refined.

[ZümmyZüm]

On 2/2/2023 at 8:17 PM, Phillip said:

In service. The operator appeared to be having charging issues.

What’s the reasoning for on route charging if these are LFSe+ models, in theory the bus should be capable of achieving 300+km a day without the need of overhead charging on route. 
 

Obviously they were installed for the older trials of 19301-304 but this seems like a waste of time for the long range batch. 

[981]

7 hours ago, ZümmyZüm said:

What’s the reasoning for on route charging if these are LFSe+ models, in theory the bus should be capable of achieving 300+km a day without the need of overhead charging on route. 
 

Obviously they were installed for the older trials of 19301-304 but this seems like a waste of time for the long range batch. 

From what I know through some media information and off of CPTDB's own wiki, ours are built for 150km on a single charge, which would be consistent with the LFSe+ being advertised as having a modular battery system. This could be done for weight savings if there is any, or it could be done because we wouldn't need all of the range of the LFSe+.

As for the charging, I'm thinking it's so the charging time can be shorter, because logic would have it that charging will take longer if you run it back and forth for several runs without charging.

[SeanNelson]

On 2/6/2023 at 6:44 PM, 981 said:

I'm thinking it's so the charging time can be shorter, because logic would have it that charging will take longer if you run it back and forth for several runs without charging.

Charging time depends on how much energy you use between charges, not on the battery size.   If you've used 100kWh since the last full charge, it will take the same amount of time to fully recharge whether you have a 150kWh battery or a 450kWh battery.  So buying a bus with a smaller battery doesn't directly mean that it will charge faster if you compare it to a bus with a larger battery that's charged just as often.

In fact, the larger battery will often charge faster for a given amount of energy because it may be organized into more parallel cell banks, each of which can be charged at a given rate.  As a hypothetical example, if a 150kWh battery has three parallel 50kW banks and a 450kWh battery has 9 parallel banks then (assuming the manufacturer has provided adequate thermal management) in theory it can accept 3X the charging power.

The main reasons to buy a smaller battery are lower cost and potentially less energy consumption by avoiding the need to drag around battery mass that isn't needed.

The main reason to buy a larger battery is because you need the range.  You may need more range if you're trying to minimize the cost of deploying on-route charging (and therefore only place one charger on a route, for example) or if your schedule doesn't allow adequate time to fully recoup enough charge during the day.  You have to factor in worst-case scenarios when you make this calculation - for example having to skip a charging opportunity in order to get back on schedule, or not being able to charge at some point due to conflicts at the charger or a charger issue.  And having all this happen in subfreezing weather where the buses have to use extra energy to plow through snow and they've lost a significant amount of battery capacity because of the temperature and the fact that they're now 10 years old.

[Cathay 888]

23201 @ 100~~

23201 on charging~~

[981]

On 2/12/2023 at 12:33 PM, SeanNelson said:

Charging time depends on how much energy you use between charges, not on the battery size.   If you've used 100kWh since the last full charge, it will take the same amount of time to fully recharge whether you have a 150kWh battery or a 450kWh battery.  So buying a bus with a smaller battery doesn't directly mean that it will charge faster if you compare it to a bus with a larger battery that's charged just as often.

In fact, the larger battery will often charge faster for a given amount of energy because it may be organized into more parallel cell banks, each of which can be charged at a given rate.  As a hypothetical example, if a 150kWh battery has three parallel 50kW banks and a 450kWh battery has 9 parallel banks then (assuming the manufacturer has provided adequate thermal management) in theory it can accept 3X the charging power.

The main reasons to buy a smaller battery are lower cost and potentially less energy consumption by avoiding the need to drag around battery mass that isn't needed.

The main reason to buy a larger battery is because you need the range.  You may need more range if you're trying to minimize the cost of deploying on-route charging (and therefore only place one charger on a route, for example) or if your schedule doesn't allow adequate time to fully recoup enough charge during the day.  You have to factor in worst-case scenarios when you make this calculation - for example having to skip a charging opportunity in order to get back on schedule, or not being able to charge at some point due to conflicts at the charger or a charger issue.  And having all this happen in subfreezing weather where the buses have to use extra energy to plow through snow and they've lost a significant amount of battery capacity because of the temperature and the fact that they're now 10 years old.

I think I meant it would not take as long to specifically charge it to full from near-empty because there's less battery to charge on our units compared to an LFSe+ with the longest range, but I understand where you're coming from.

On the topic of range, I wonder if they studied hydrogen as a possible option. According to CPTDB's own wiki, the XHE40, compared to a fully decked out LFSe+, can drive for around 100km longer.

[SeanNelson]

On 2/17/2023 at 1:51 AM, 981 said:

On the topic of range, I wonder if they studied hydrogen as a possible option. According to CPTDB's own wiki, the XHE40, compared to a fully decked out LFSe+, can drive for around 100km longer.

Given that the impetus to convert to electric is to reduce carbon emissions, TransLink would have to find a source of green hydrogen that's competitively priced.  Almost all hydrogen that's currently on the market is produced from fossil fuels.

Given a source of green hydrogen, using it to power a fleet could make a lot of sense given that you have centralized fueling.   But for private vehicle use it seems like a solution in desperate need of a problem because of the cost of building out a North American fueling infrastructure.  It's hard to compete with electricity which is available essentially everywhere.

[981]

3 hours ago, SeanNelson said:

Given that the impetus to convert to electric is to reduce carbon emissions, TransLink would have to find a source of green hydrogen that's competitively priced.  Almost all hydrogen that's currently on the market is produced from fossil fuels.

Given a source of green hydrogen, using it to power a fleet could make a lot of sense given that you have centralized fueling.   But for private vehicle use it seems like a solution in desperate need of a problem because of the cost of building out a North American fueling infrastructure.  It's hard to compete with electricity which is available essentially everywhere.

Electric vehicles don't reduce carbon emissions as much as everyone claims they do. Battery production is EXTREMELY toxic and unethical, often using child labour, and then there's the question of where the power for charging those BEBs comes from. BEBs are more of a political move than to actually save the environment. There's much better fuels out there and the emissions will always come from somewhere else

As for the source of the hydrogen, the cleanest method of producing it (from my research) is probably electrolysis since it can be done with our existing and rather clean power in BC, but as you mentioned, TL would have to find a good source for it

 

[SeanNelson]

7 hours ago, 981 said:

Electric vehicles don't reduce carbon emissions as much as everyone claims they do. Battery production is EXTREMELY toxic and unethical, often using child labour, and then there's the question of where the power for charging those BEBs comes from.

We're extremely fortunate here in BC because virtually all of our power is hydroelectric.  When we power our transportation system with electricity, it's pretty much as green as it can be.

And while it's true that battery production has a big greenhouse gas footprint, but it's not as big as the lifecycle (including extraction, refining, transportation and consumption) for fossil fuels.  The average EV contributes less than half as much greenhouse gas as a gasoline vehicle over its lifetime, and electric buses are even better because they have far higher utilization rates than the average car.

But wouldn't it be great if we could come up with a way to build electric buses that don't need batteries?   We'd get the best of both worlds.   Hmm....  I wonder how we might do that...

[981]

16 hours ago, SeanNelson said:

We're extremely fortunate here in BC because virtually all of our power is hydroelectric.  When we power our transportation system with electricity, it's pretty much as green as it can be.

And while it's true that battery production has a big greenhouse gas footprint, but it's not as big as the lifecycle (including extraction, refining, transportation and consumption) for fossil fuels.  The average EV contributes less than half as much greenhouse gas as a gasoline vehicle over its lifetime, and electric buses are even better because they have far higher utilization rates than the average car.

But wouldn't it be great if we could come up with a way to build electric buses that don't need batteries?   We'd get the best of both worlds.   Hmm....  I wonder how we might do that...

Expand the trolley network. Easier said than done. But oh wait! That doesn't rake in all the political fanfare that TL loves so much!

On a serious note, I'm all for trolleys, and I can think of a lot of good places for trolleys, mainly the R4

[SeanNelson]

15 hours ago, 981 said:

Expand the trolley network. Easier said than done. But oh wait! That doesn't rake in all the political fanfare that TL loves so much!

I wonder if some sort of analysis has been done to compare the added costs of equipping electric buses with batteries versus erecting overhead for various routes and using trolleys instead.  That would require inputs like:

• Difference in acquisition and operational costs between trolley and battery-electric buses
• Expected lifespan of a trolley vs. battery-electric bus
• Per-km cost of overhead installation and maintenance
• Installation and operational costs of any on-route charging infrastructure that would be needed
• Reliability and availability differences between the two types

It seems obvious that this would have been done at some point, but if so I haven't heard of it.

A reasonable strategy might be to convert a route that would likely be more expensive to convert to trolley operation to fully battery electric right up front in order to get a better handle on the costs before making a final decision on other routes that might have better potential for trolleys.  And perhaps that's what's going on right now with route 100.

[GORDOOM]

1 hour ago, SeanNelson said:

I wonder if some sort of analysis has been done to compare the added costs of equipping electric buses with batteries versus erecting overhead for various routes and using trolleys instead.

Part of the problem right now (especially in North America) is that, because trolleybuses are such a niche product, there's no economy of scale to their production. They basically have to be custom-made, and so the cost per vehicle is higher than a battery-powered bus even though they should be somewhat cheaper. (And there's also the fact that erecting the double-line overhead needed to power trolleybuses gets the NIMBYs out in full force.)

[madog222]

From the March Translink board meeting

Quote

Construction for the electrification of two tracks for battery-electric buses at Hamilton Transit Centre began in Q1 2023. The installation of the additional overhead charger for the bus loop at 22nd Street is anticipated to occur in Q3 2023.

 

[FL04DIFN]

19303, 19304, and 23201 have been removed from HTC property. Pretty sure 19303 and 4 are done.

[buizelbus]

1 hour ago, FL04DIFN said:

19303, 19304, and 23201 have been removed from HTC property. Pretty sure 19303 and 4 are done.

23201 is a permanent unit IIRC, not trial. They're probably just in a maintenance yard somewhere.

[Express691]

"I took the 340/410 and didn't see them outside where the charging station is" doesn't count unfortunately