# Leeds trolley buses



## andyfromotley (23 Mar 2010)

Leeds is apparently going to get trolley buses. hmmmmn.

Apart from the quite startling fact that this is going to cost £30m per mile of route, (seems an enormous amount of money) my initial reaction is that this cant be great news for cyclists?? Any thoughts and if it is happening should cyclists be pushing for anything in particular to meet their needs in relation to trolley buses?

One of the proposed routes runs down from lawmswood through hyde park into the city. My daily commute and a very popular cycling route nto leeds.

andy


----------



## 661-Pete (23 Mar 2010)

Well, you can't please everyone, and I can't deny having a lot of enthusiasm for the things, but I say, go for it!

How can taking diesel vehicles off the city streets and replacing them with electric ones, be a retrograde step? Even if the power has to ultimately come from somewhere, i.e. a power station, surely that increases our options! Don't we welcome it when our diesel trains are supplanted by electric (when are they going to replace the diesels that still ply out of Paddington I wonder)?

Plus points: many times better and safer than trams, as far as cyclists are concerned: no deadly flush rails to swallow your wheels! And cheaper - I don't know how representative the £30m is, but if it includes supplying the vehicles, well it seems realistic - you don't get Public Transport for nowt!

Minus points: well it does seem that they want to bring in articulated or even doubly-articulated vehicles. Which may be a bit scary. But exactly the same might happen if they stayed with diesel - as we've seen in some cities overseas. The important thing is, if the driver is *properly trained and drives responsibly*, especially when overtaking a cyclist or other vehicle, I don't see a problem any worse than we get with rigid buses (lots of problems with those!).

Silent operation: well, some will see this as a plus, some as a minus. I have seen trolleys overseas that appear to have a noise-making device on them - possibly to alert pedestrians or cyclists. Maybe the answer.


----------



## marinyork (23 Mar 2010)

I've not read it, but if it is double articulated vehicles that's some of the tram problems all over again. If it was the original trolley buses I think it'd be less of an issue.

I don't think the silence will be a problem, tram drivers use their horn (that can be heard a mile away here) illegally and very aggressively.

The main thing is for safety signs, make the trolley buses as small as possible and make sure that any trolley bus gates don't exclude cyclists.


----------



## andyfromotley (23 Mar 2010)

Are they manoeuvrable enough pete? Can they move out far enough to pass cyclists safely or are they limited by the electic hook up?

Will they operate in current bus lanes and will they still allow cyclists in them?

Can they take bikes on board? You obviously have an interest in them and i confess to ignorance, i am just wary of changes that might impact upon us.


----------



## marinyork (23 Mar 2010)

andyfromotley said:


> Will they operate in current bus lanes and will they still allow cyclists in them?



That's what you have to make sure of. There are a number of bus/tram gates here. Two of the tram gates allow cyclists in whereas the other two do not.


----------



## marinyork (23 Mar 2010)

Seen the photo, looks like an FTR version of the trolley bus. Worry like hell.

Also really pull them up on the "prioritised junctions" because this can clobber cyclists too.


----------



## 661-Pete (23 Mar 2010)

Well, most of the arguments that have been put against trolleybuses are arguments against buses in general. Either we abolish buses _in toto_, or we look into ways of living with them. There certainly shouldn't be any *more* problems with bus lanes, than we experience with existing buses.

Trolleybuses are almost as manoeuvrable as diesel buses, as long as they stay on route! (even this last is not necessarily a 'must', some modern vehicles have sufficient battery reserve that they can go off-wire a considerable distance). They can steer quite a long way to either side of the wires without derailing. Unlike trams which are utterly fixed. They cannot overtake each other if they're on the same wires, but that's a minor point.


----------



## marinyork (23 Mar 2010)

661-Pete said:


> Well, most of the arguments that have been put against trolleybuses are arguments against buses in general. Either we abolish buses _in toto_, or we look into ways of living with them. There certainly shouldn't be any *more* problems with bus lanes, than we experience with existing buses.



Not really. I don't and never had that many problems with standard bus drivers. FTR though I had daily encounters of aggressive driving. Long articulated buses are a very different and threatening kettle of fish. I'd agree if we weren't talking about the fad there is for these sorts of things. Trolley buses of normal length would be fine.

As for bus lanes, like I said you have to make sure new ones include cyclists. Various bits of schemes like this always try to exclude cyclists. If they are excluded make sure they don't have long run rounds, their own facilities if needed etc. Looks like the NGT is going to get a bit of separate stuff, in that case they should probably do some segregated cycleways next to some busy roads if it is needed/wanted.


----------



## StuartG (23 Mar 2010)

The good thing will be less diesel fumes in your face. it might also be a good time to push for cycle provision on the new buses. It has to really be done at spec/build time. Very difficult to retrofit.

Multi-modal transport has to be our long term aim if we are going to really popularise cycling.

But just be thankful for some real investment in public transport. Helps make the car more an option than a necessity.


----------



## andrew-the-tortoise (23 Mar 2010)

We had 'em in Rotherham [well before my time though]. They were known as 'the trackless' for obvious reasons - no lines to slip or get stuck in!


View attachment 5960


----------



## orienteer (23 Mar 2010)

Afraid I'm old enough to remember trolleybuses in London, until 1962. Environmentally preferable due to the lack of noise and fumes, otherwise similar to buses.

Only ever experienced one problem: following one round Highbury Corner roundabout, the trolley booms dewired, shot up and smashed a street lamp, and all the glass came down just in front of me on my bike!


----------



## StuartG (23 Mar 2010)

I used to go home everday on one from Willenhall to Wolverhampton. The roundabout at Willenhall was a complex affair as there were three different routes through it with assorted points etc. The conductor (in these pre H&S universe) would leap off the bus run forward and tug an arm on the lampost to throw the points. If he didn't get it right or bumped into a pedestrian the collectors would come off the wires.

Everything ground to a halt. The long pole used to push the collectors back on was kept under the bus in a tube that looked like an exhaust pipe. It was about 20ft long and could only be removed when all the traffic on the island had backed away to leave enough space. A delicate exercise.

Then one year all the electric buses were swopped for diesel and the diesel trains swopped for electric. I could never quite figure that one out. Except diesel was a lot slower than electric. The acceleration on an old trolley bus was really impressive.


----------



## 661-Pete (23 Mar 2010)

StuartG said:


> I used to go home everday on one from Willenhall to Wolverhampton. The roundabout at Willenhall was a complex affair as there were three different routes through it with assorted points etc. The conductor (in these pre H&S universe) would leap off the bus run forward and tug an arm on the lampost to throw the points. If he didn't get it right or bumped into a pedestrian the collectors would come off the wires.
> 
> Everything ground to a halt. The long pole used to push the collectors back on was kept under the bus in a tube that looked like an exhaust pipe. It was about 20ft long and could only be removed when all the traffic on the island had backed away to leave enough space. A delicate exercise.
> 
> Then one year all the electric buses were swopped for diesel and the diesel trains swopped for electric. I could never quite figure that one out. Except diesel was a lot slower than electric. The acceleration on an old trolley bus was really impressive.


Well remembered. The long pole you refer to was known as a 'fly-shunt' and the pull (rather like a loo-chain) which the conductor had to operate to change the points, was known as a 'frog' (though that term was also used to refer to the points mechanism itself).

The busier points ('frogs') were electrically operated by a relay, rather than a hand-pull. Whether the relay actuated or not, in other words whether the bus took the left or right branch, was controlled by the driver depending on whether his bus was drawing current or coasting as it approached the junction.

I remember watching - in Bradford - with admiration, the skill with which one trolley-driver got his bus out of an awkward situation. He had come to one of these junctions and stalled just at the crossing-point. There has to be an insulated section just where the positive and negative wires cross, of course, to avoid a short-circuit. Anyway his bus was completely immobilised and without battery support it was stranded. Out hopped the driver, grabbed the fly-shunt and transferred the pole which was on the insulated section, to the outer wire of the junction, which was not insulated. He now had his poles on wires going different ways, one left and one right, but was able to advance the bus a few yards as his poles 'did the splits'. Then out he came again and transferred the errant pole to the correct wire, no longer insulated. I felt like bursting into applause. His passengers probably did, too. But I suppose it all comes in the training.

Meanwhile, here's a link for those wanting to wallow in nostalgia.


----------



## StuartG (23 Mar 2010)

661-Pete said:


> Meanwhile, here's a link for those wanting to wallow in nostalgia.


10 minutes across west London and not a single roadworks and it seems a virtually pothole free paradise.

Our Wolverhampton or Walsall corporation trolleybuses were only 4 wheel (some of the Walsall ones did have concertina doors). I do remember under heavy load the relays sometimes popped out on the hills. No problem - the handle was just behind the driver's head. He would hold the lever down to re-engage the relay with both arms while steering the bus with his knee. And I don't think they had power steering ... this is the type: 
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bGaOPrl0vM


Of course only posh cyclists had sturmey-archer 3 speeds to get them up the same hills ...


----------



## chap (23 Mar 2010)

Sorry I still don't get it. So the only difference between a trolley bus and a tram is the lack of rails? Or are there rails? If so, why not use a tram? It won't derail


----------



## 661-Pete (24 Mar 2010)

chap said:


> Sorry I still don't get it. So the only difference between a trolley bus and a tram is the lack of rails? Or are there rails? If so, why not use a tram? It won't derail


No rails. Ordinary wheels with tyres, and the vehicle is steered with an ordinary steering wheel. As I said, it can be steered quite a long way to either side of the overhead wires before the risk of de-wiring. I have even seen a film (not seen it in real life) showing how a trolley _could execute a 3-point turn in the road_, even without the aid of a turning circle built into the wires. It sounds unbelievable, but it can be done! Of course this was not normal operation on a scheduled route: normally at the end of a route a turning circle would be installed...

Certainly I don't recall any broken-down trolleybus causing significant obstruction in the city centre - no more so than any other large vehicle. The buses were very reliable.

Whereas: I recall coming across the aftermath of a *tram* becoming de-railed in a busy city centre street. This was in Budapest, but could have happened in any city in the world which operates trams. Snarled up all the traffic over a large part of the city, whilst they had to bring in cranes and heavy lifting gear to shift it. And bear in mind: this brought *all* the traffic to a halt, not just the tram traffic...


----------



## StuartG (24 Mar 2010)

Trolleybuses have so many advantages over trams. Starting with the much lower infrastructure costs since they only have to add the overhead cable. All the other infrastucture is shared. No changes at road level are necessary. I believe the buses are cheaper and simpler than diesel so displacing diesel buses is easy.

Rubber tyres mean little sound - not the earsplitting metal on metal screeching on tight curves of trams. And no tram tracks to get caught in. Financially new trams (cf Croydon/Nottingham) have been generally regarded as disasters. Even the construction phase is traumatic.

Trolleybuses offer a much better passenger experience than diesel buses. Quieter, faster, vibration free. They give no on-street pollution and the CO2 emissions are much lower in electricity production than diesel burning. The disadvantages are the difficulty of temporary re-routeing in case of road works (doesn't seem to have been a problem 50 years ago!) and the complexity of interchanges of multiple routes. Which is why you may never see them again in central London but appear to be the public transport of choice in many smaller european cities today.


----------



## skrx (24 Mar 2010)

StuartG said:


> Trolleybuses have so many advantages over trams.



It's probably worth mentioning advantages of trams: smoother ride, longer vehicles possible (presumably a higher capacity), and a little more efficient.

I think trolleybuses are only positive to cyclists: no on-street pollution, nicer than diesel buses (so hopefully less cars).

I don't know Leeds, but can you take a bike on the current buses anyway? And would it ever be faster? (Round here it's 'no' and 'no'.)


----------



## 661-Pete (24 Mar 2010)

StuartG said:


> Financially new trams (cf Croydon/Nottingham) have been generally regarded as disasters. Even the construction phase is traumatic.


My wife can testify to that! She had occasion to visit Croydon several times in the 1990s when the tramway was being built, she told me it was absolute mayhem. Of course, now that the tramway has finally been built and is in operation...



> The disadvantages are the difficulty of temporary re-routeing in case of road works (doesn't seem to have been a problem 50 years ago!) and the complexity of interchanges of multiple routes.


They can get round most roadworks so long as they don't entirely block the street. And complex unsightly junctions will probably be replaced in the next generation, by battery-backed buses able to run short distances off-wire, with automatic seek mechanisms to re-wire.



> Which is why you may never see them again in central London but appear to be the public transport of choice in many smaller european cities today.


And not only smaller cities! The main urban transport system in Beijing (no trams) and Moscow (very limited tram network).


----------



## andyfromotley (24 Mar 2010)

skrx said:


> It's probably worth mentioning advantages of trams: smoother ride, longer vehicles possible (presumably a higher capacity), and a little more efficient.
> 
> I think trolleybuses are only positive to cyclists: no on-street pollution, nicer than diesel buses (so hopefully less cars).
> 
> *I don't know Leeds, but can you take a bike on the current buses anyway? And would it ever be faster?* (Round here it's 'no' and 'no'.)



Dont know if you can, possibly a liitle quicker in quiet times. I was thinking about people who arent into cycling so much, perhaps taking a bike to complete the last mile of their journey.

currently when i use the cycle lane down headingly to leeds i dont get overtaken by buses, usally the opposite in fact. mainly due to how many stops they make. But if there were to be fewer stops then that may change. If they are determined to speed up these trolley buses i can see cyclists being excluded on the grounds...well theyre holding us up!


----------



## 661-Pete (24 Mar 2010)

Probably the trolleybuses will be used on routes with frequent stops placed close together, because that's where they score over other vehicles. They do not have a high cruising speed but can out-accelerate both trams and diesel buses.

They're also very good on hills.


----------



## jonesy (24 Mar 2010)

StuartG said:


> Trolleybuses have so many advantages over trams. Starting with the much lower infrastructure costs since they only have to add the overhead cable. All the other infrastucture is shared. No changes at road level are necessary. I believe the buses are cheaper and simpler than diesel so displacing diesel buses is easy.



Yes, this is a huge cost saving. Not only do trams require the installation of expensive track into the road surface, but services below the tracks need to be diverted out of the way, which I believe often costs more than the cost of laying the track.




> Rubber tyres mean little sound - not the earsplitting metal on metal screeching on tight curves of trams. And no tram tracks to get caught in. Financially new trams (cf Croydon/Nottingham) have been generally regarded as disasters. Even the construction phase is traumatic.


Rubber tyres aren't as energy efficient of course, and tracks restrict the vehicle to a much narrower corridor so it can be easier to accommodate trams into pedestrianised areas for example, or to find space for segregated routes on verges, central reservations, disused railways etc. And there is the potential for conversion of heavy rail routes, or shared-use tram-train running, which can't be done with buses. I wouldn't agree that existing systems are regarded as financially disastrous- Nottingham's system has been very successful and they are going to extend the network; likewise Manchester. 



> Trolleybuses offer a much better passenger experience than diesel buses. Quieter, faster, vibration free. They give no on-street pollution and the CO2 emissions are much lower in electricity production than diesel burning. The disadvantages are the difficulty of temporary re-routeing in case of road works (doesn't seem to have been a problem 50 years ago!) and the complexity of interchanges of multiple routes. Which is why you may never see them again in central London but appear to be the public transport of choice in many smaller european cities today.



Well, as ever the short-sightedness of 1960s Britain is so apparent here, isn't it; and sadly the current approach to transport policy still insists that the rest of Europe (and indeed parts of the US) is wrong and that investing in good public transport is poor value for money...

One interesting development that is becoming apparent is the technological convergence between different public transport modes: diesel buses are starting to incorporate hybrid technology which offers many of the benefits of the trolleybus, while trolleybuses are starting to use back-up power sources so they can run of the wires like conventional buses. And for all types of bus there are bus priority and guided-bus technologies, helping them to avoid traffic congestion and so provide an advantage over car travel. There's even the bus that runs on rails...

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/05/half-bus-half-t/


----------



## 661-Pete (24 Mar 2010)

I vaguely remember reading, in the _Telegraph & Argus_, one or two oh-so-confident remarks from Bradford city councillors or officials, uttered in the final months before the network closed down in 1972. Approximate quotes:

_"They are prone to de-wiring, re-routing is complex, and spare parts are unobtainable".
"They're not really in keeping with the image of the modern Bradford we want to put across, now, are they?"_

And so the diesel replacements came in. At the time motor fuel was ridiculously cheap - IIRC petrol was about 30p a gallon (7p/litre ) and diesel even less. A little over a year later we had a major international oil crisis on our plate (anyone remember Sheikh Yamani?) and a Middle-east war. Petrol shot up astronomically, there were queues at filling stations, and threats of rationing.

Eating their words, perhaps?


----------



## Bromptonaut (26 Mar 2010)

I also fondly remember Bradford's trolley buses. Never rode on one there but have a distant memory of using one in Stalybridge or Aston u Lyne aged about 5 in the mid sixties. Silent, smooth and very rapid initial acceleration.


----------



## ColinJ (26 Mar 2010)

Bromptonaut said:


> Silent, smooth and *very rapid initial acceleration*.


That'll be even more pensioners falling over before they can get to their seats then!


----------



## StuartG (26 Mar 2010)

Errr ... no. Trollies don't have gears so you get steady acceleration and not that kangaroo feeling which is what whips you off your feet. Well that and the Mackeson secreted in every pensioners thermos ...

May be that's why I keep falling off my Brommie. The hub gears, not the thermos


----------



## 661-Pete (26 Mar 2010)

ColinJ said:


> That'll be even more pensioners falling over before they can get to their seats then!


I was once, many years ago, sent sprawling in a bus - but not a trolley, an ordinary diesel bus. I'd rung the bell for my stop and was walking forwards to the door, then the bus driver realised he was pulling up at the wrong stop for his route, the correct one was about fifty yards further. So he accelerated away from the stop again.

Meanwhile a van had overtaken the bus, and the driver, believing that the bus was stopping, had pulled in sharply in front of the bus. The bus rammed the back of the van and I was flung to the floor. I was not best pleased, to put it mildly, and had 'words' with the bus driver. I was a young student in those days and wasn't hurt: if I'd been a doddery old pensioner it'd have been a hospital trip and a hefty lawsuit against the bus company to boot.

I gave my name as a witness, to the white van man, on that occasion my sympathies were with him. But I never heard from him again.


----------



## chap (27 Mar 2010)

So how would you rate trolley buses against biofuel driven ones, like those in Sweden?


----------



## jonesy (27 Mar 2010)

chap said:


> So how would you rate trolley buses against biofuel driven ones, like those in Sweden?



Biofuels...?? Aargh! 

Trolley buses: quiet, comfortable, good acceleration and performance on hills, low maintenance, zero emission at point of use, ability to use renewably generated electricity.

Biofuels: no advantage over diesel in noise, emissions, vibration, maintenance etc, often little or no CO2 benefit over fossil fuel diesel because of the energy involved in fertilising and producing the crop. Worse still: biofuel production competes with food production and biodiversity, with the criminal absurdity of Indonesian rainforest being cut down to grow palm oil to meet European biofuel targets, even though the net result is increased CO2 emissions. Sadly biofuels were seized upon by politicians and the car industry as a way to cut CO2 without requiring anyone to change their behaviour, encouraged by a farming lobby always keen to find new ways to get subsidies, and have become a major threat to food supplies and biodiversity while distracting resources from real measures to cut CO2:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7007238.ece

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/11/06/an-agricultural-crime-against-humanity/


----------



## ASC1951 (1 Apr 2010)

StuartG said:


> I used to go home everday on one from Willenhall to Wolverhampton.


Yes, I can remember using the trolley buses in Walsall bus station too - I think we had some of the last ones in the country, didn't we Stuart? They weren't very popular in the 60s.

Many years later I worked for the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive and they were always twining on about trams. Not trolleys, which were far more sensible - it was the rails that obsessed them. It was rather depressing how many of the Board had their attics converted to trainsets.


----------



## 661-Pete (1 Apr 2010)

ASC1951 said:


> It was rather depressing how many of the Board had their *attics* converted to trainsets.


Do you mean that literally, or metaphorically? 

I see what you mean: I don't recall ever seeing a kid's toy in the form of a trolleybus, but toy trains (and tramways) abounded - I think when I was a lad every boy's bedroom (except mine ) was kitted out with the old Hornby-dublo...

Mind you, I did have a Meccano set, and among the models in the book was a working double-decker bus which I lost no time in assembling. I soon converted it to a trolleybus by adding a couple of metal rods, but I never figured out how to power it from overhead wires...


----------



## StuartG (1 Apr 2010)

The major disadvantage of electric bikes is the heavy batteries on hills. Now if we simply attached a big pole to the rear rack - then the future could be trolleybikes!!!!

And the saddest thread on CC


----------



## mangaman (1 Apr 2010)

I wouldn't fancy cycling here ( pic from 661-Pete's link of what a Leeds trolleybus would look like)


----------



## ASC1951 (1 Apr 2010)

661-Pete said:


> Do you mean that literally, or metaphorically?


I kid you not. It was a few years before my time, but they still talked about the Head Honcho of one PTE who had the whole attic boarded out and lit (these guys were on serious money, so we aren't talking 3 bed semi) and trains whizzing about all over the place.

So far, so normal, but he also had a rack of stationmaster's jackets and hats in obsolete liveries for his guests to wear. The tale was that on this occasion they spent so long talking about grimple-rivets or whatever that they had to stay up past midnight to get all 50 locos back on timetable.


----------



## 661-Pete (1 Apr 2010)

mangaman said:


> I wouldn't fancy cycling here ( pic from 661-Pete's link of what a Leeds trolleybus would look like)


The point of this thread.

But I don't really agree. Having had several 'brushes' with the London bendy-buses (so derided by Boris, but which are only singly articulated), I agree, they are scary at first encounter, and certainly not a vehicle to be filtered past - but you get used to their presence.

I certainly felt unease at the prospect of doubly-articulated buses. But we had a link posted on the [post=1153216]other thread[/post], showing these type of buses (diesel powered) operating in Holland apparently without problems. In a country where safety of cyclists is certainly at the forefront, albeit mostly by the means of segregated tracks.

I think it's largely down to the skill and consideration of the drivers. To drive a trolley vehicle they're going to need special training anyway - over and above the standard PSV training. And to drive an articulated bus - likewise. As long as they have it firmly drummed into them - overtaking a cyclist on a left bend is not on - and so long as they know how long their vehicle is so that they give an overtaken vehicle plenty of space - I think it ought to work out fine. At the same time, surely cyclists must be made to realise that filtering inside one of these vehicles is utterly and emphatically a no-no. Warning signs on the back of the bus maybe.

I know for one thing, if I had to wait behind one of these buses in a traffic queue because it was unsafe to filter past it - I'd sooner it was an electric vehicle than a diesel one.


----------



## marinyork (1 Apr 2010)

661-Pete said:


> The point of this thread.
> 
> But I don't really agree. Having had several 'brushes' with the London bendy-buses (so derided by Boris, but which are only singly articulated), I agree, they are scary at first encounter, and certainly not a vehicle to be filtered past - but you get used to their presence.



Why are you comparing them with London bendy buses? It's out of order comparing something for London where you know very well Londoners have an almost completely opposite view to the rest of the UK and then applying it to somewhere else when there's a local version. We already know Leeds and York have the bus 'versions' of these bendy buses the FTR, it's why they want to introduce them. The FTRs are intimidating because they are on unsuitable roads and driven with extreme aggression.


----------



## 661-Pete (1 Apr 2010)

All right, you have the advantage of me there, I was not aware that there was more of a problem with these "FTR"s than with the London version. So maybe we do have a problem. The Dutch examples seem to be driven impeccably.

Incidentally I am in no way a "Londoner". I cited the London example because my nearest big city (Brighton) does not use these artics AFAIK, and because I have some experience of cycling across London. But I'm not a London commuter...


----------



## marinyork (1 Apr 2010)

Ah so Brighton is sensible . I don't have a problem with trolleybuses I have an uncle who is a real enthusiast about them down your way, but this just sniffs to me as a carbon copy of the FTR. It's just silly gimmick stuff from First again - impractical vehicle, extortionate bus fayres, all the spin about how efficient it is. Maybe they'll learn, but I doubt it somehow. A lot of that silliness would never happen in London because there is regulation.

Not everyone disliked the FTR, I think two people on here thought they were all right but they didn't interact with them often enough to make their lives a misery on the bike. They did only cover very small bits of the city.


----------



## mr_cellophane (5 Apr 2010)

mangaman said:


> I wouldn't fancy cycling here ( pic from 661-Pete's link of what a Leeds trolleybus would look like)


That must be difficult to drive. You have to keep the back under the wires.


----------



## The Evil Rock DJ (11 Apr 2010)

You have to see this






This is an underground section of the Essen O-bahn where bendy hybrid buses (known as duo-buses) ran along a track on modified tram lines, underground. They ran into the guideway on diesel, the engines went off then the trolley poles went up and they ran along the tram lines (which were metre gauge too).


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH6Sc3fUfLM


Unfortunately it was built with federal money and when it wore out ther money wasn't available. The trolley buses still run and a lot of the system is still there (including bus-track in the tunnels) but the buses stay above ground now.

Just goes to show what a bit of joined up thinking will do


----------



## dellzeqq (11 Apr 2010)

trolley buses in Vancouver had fantastic accelleration - pensioners did indeed hurtle to the back of the bus. And I always enjoyed that end of the line ceremony when the pantograph (?) was hauled down and switched over to another track.

Vancouver's trolley buses didn't cause me any kind of grief, either as a cyclist or a pedestrian.

In defence of trams - Croydon's move people at a fantastic rate. And Croydon really has done the deed when it comes to town centre transport - cars are shoved out of the way by trams and buses, and movement within the town centre is swift. I do pray as I go over the tramlines at anything other than a right angle, but I'm afraid that we have to get this in some sort of proportion.


----------



## The Evil Rock DJ (11 Apr 2010)

661-Pete said:


> my nearest big city (Brighton) does not use these artics AFAIK




...yet!

Brighton and Hove have four which are being converted (ie middle doors ripped out and plated over and wheelchair ramps moved to the front). they'll only be used at peak times. Two have gone for painting.


----------



## Riverman (12 Apr 2010)

How do people find the Manchester metro? Whenever I visit Manchester the thing freaks me out a little, as I keep accidently walking onto the track unawares. I wouldn't like to be walking around there with a pair of headphones on.


----------



## postman (13 Apr 2010)

I will be surprised if it ever gets done .

Whoever gets in power ,they will cut and slash .

And if it's going through to Stourton /Hunslet .

Most of it will get pinched anyway .For scrap .He he he .


----------

