WHY NOT THE TROLLEYBUS?

LJ Brunton BSc AMIEE

The term ‘electric vehicle’ to a UK audience today will certainly bring to mind an electric vehicle on rubber tyres, silent, non-polluting and vibration-free - but it will probably be a milk float. The technically-aware will go on to think of recent developments in battery-powered or fuel-cell-powered cars, vans and small PCVs. However, not many will think of the trolleybus, unless they have just been on holiday out of the UK. Why is this? From its introduction to the UK in primitive form from Germany in 7971, the trolleybus quickly developed into a sophisticated, non-polluting, silent, fast and popular means of urban transport, achieving in its heyday a total count of over 4000 vehicles in 35 of our towns and cities. Then in the UK short- term economics fumed against the trolleybus, leading to wholesale slaughter (as had already happened to tramways) in the 1960s, and final total abandonment in 1972. Not so elsewhere in the world, where over 300 trolleybus systems not only survive, but continue to develop with new technology. Recent attempts to revive interest in the mode in the UK have all failed, leaving one to consider how such an obviously desirable and civilised form of public transport can possibly be so dismissed. This paper suggests some reasons for this failure.

EARLY ELECTRIC STREET TRACTION PIONEERS

Michael Faraday’s early work on the practical application of electromagnetism in 1821 undoubtedly led to a ser ies of electric traction experiments and to the invention of the tram and the trolleybus.

In 1840, Robert Davidson of Aberdeen equipped a light two-person carriage with eight electromagnets and a commutator; powered by batteries, the carriage attained 4 mph. However, owing to t h e long development period of practicable generators, it w a s another 40 years before the propulsion mode became a serious contender to horse, cable and s team traction on tramways. The first electric railway w a s demonstrated by Werner Von Siemens on a circular track a t the Berlin Industrial Exhibition of 1879; a small four-wheeled locomotive operating on 150V from a third rail drew a number of open carriages, carrying a total of 100 000 passengers during the exhibition period. This w a s quickly followed by the opening in 1881 of a n electric tramway by Siemens and Halske a t Lichtetfelde, near Berlin; 180V from a dynamo delivered 5hp to the tram, which achieved a speed of 24 mph. In the UK, Magnus Volk opened his electric railway in Brighton in 1883 and Blackpool introduced electric trams in 1885. Both systems have - under their rather special circumstances - survived to this day.

Meanwhile in 1882, Siemens demonstrated a novel concept of a n electric vehicle deriving its power from a fixed source, but capable of being steered like other road vehicles. His vehicle, the ‘Electromote’, w a s a light wagonette which ran without rails along the Kurfiirstendamm in Berlin. Its rear axle w a s driven by two motors each of about 3hp; a small eight-wheeled contact trolley, running on two stranded copper wires supported from wooden poles a t the roadside, w a s connected to the vehicle by a flexible cable. The trolleybus was born.

From these nearcoincident beginnings the two modes developed, but, as w e shall see, a t different rates. The trolleybus remained in a primeval s ta te until the mid 1920’s; by then the tram had firmly established itself as the prime people-mover for towns and cities, bringing for the first time cheap and reliable transport for the m a s s e s and precipitating urban expansion and social change.

EARLY TROLLEYBUS HISTORY

The 1882 Siemens ‘trolleybus’, and its immediate successors , were little more than converted hay- carts. Developments in Germany soon produced practical vehicles and a handful of small systems opened. The first UK trolleybus w a s a Railless/Milnes and Voss vehicle demonstrated in September 1909 by the Metropolitan Electric Tramways within the confines of Hendon Depot. Bradford and Leeds were the first cities to inaugurate trolleybus services, doing so (in true Yorkshire style) o n the s a m e day - 26 J u n e 191 1. By 1914 a few more systems had opened (for example Dundee, Rhondda and Aberdare) but none of these early pioneers survived long. Teesside and Bradford were exceptions, being the last two systems to close, in 1971 and 1972 respectively.

These early ‘tracklesses’ (as they became known) attempted unsuccessfully to combine omnibus coachbuilding with tramway technology. The resulting unhappy melange of heavy motors, chain drives, solid tyres, poor road surfaces and rudimentary suspension, yielded a slow, heavy, unreliable and uncomfortable vehicle. Most shook themselves to destruction very quickly, and doubtless their passengers would soon have suffered the same fate. The driver had no easy task either, having not only to steer his charge but also operate a hand-operated tramcar-type drum controller and a virtually non-existent braking system.

These first trolleybus routes all served as feeders to tramway systems, many located well away from Depots. In some cases, trolleybuses were towed to and from their routes by trams. Elsewhere the trolleybuses ran over the tram routes (which were not equipped with a negative) using a fearsome trailing ‘skate’ in the tram rails to complete their negative return circuit; Bradford even developed a ‘steering skate’ - an early example of guided bus technology! Teesside produced another early pioneer, this time a duo-bus: the Tilling-Stevens petrol-electric trolleybus of 1922.

On the subject of power supply, it seems strange that the under-running trolley pole - invented by Frank Sprague in 1882 and subsequently established on tramways -was not immediately applied to the trolleybus. Many of the early pioneers used ingenious contrivances involving a four-wheeled trolley running on top of twin wires (horizontal on the Cedes-Stoll system and vertical on the Lloyd- Kohler), stabilised by a pendulum and connected to the bus by a rope, a cable and a plug. As only one set of wires was provided per road, vehicles passing had to exchange trolleys - while the conductors held our red flags to warn other road users! Crossings with conventional tram wires were horrendously complex. It was soon realised that under-running trolley poles were the best solution and these became the standard, initially with concentric bases to aid the execution of three-point turns!

A significant upturn in the fortunes of the trolleybus occurred in 1922 when Birmingham used them to replace its trams on the Nechells route -the first such conversion. As others followed, trolleybus development suddenly accelerated, led by another Midlands town - Wolverhampton.

THE TROLLEYBUS DEVELOPS

The 1920s represent the heyday of the UK tram, with over 14 000 cars in service. However, the trolleybus was seen as a potentially attractive alternative for some systems where outdated cars, worn-out tracks, archaic legislation and ‘fashion’ had conspired to prompt replacement. Trolleybuses were perceived as improving flexibility whilst retaining a valuable load on a city’s electrical infrastructure. As we have seen, the vehicles available at that time were not up to the challenge.

Wolverhampton took the initiative in trolleybus development under the inspired guidance of C Owen Silvers: within a space of 5 years, a metamorphosis had taken place which had been described as a step-change transition from ‘trackless tram’ to ‘electric bus’. Due partly to the shaking off of tram technology and the application of fast-evolving bus technology, combined with a total re-think of the traction control equipment, the trolleybus of 1928 could boast pneumatic tyres, streamlined bodywork and comfortable interior trim. Pedal-operated contactor control gear and single-motor cardan shaft drive at last afforded smooth acceleration and electric braking.

As this new generation of trolleybus emerged, it quickly gained a reputation for comfort, reliability and speed, outshining contemporary motor buses and all but the most modern trams.

Urban congestion and trolleybus development grew together through the 1930’s, and it became fashionable to criticise the tram for causing the congestion, at a time of severe economic depression and ageing tramway assets - brought about largely through restrictive and out-dated legislation.

’Trolleybus-for-tram’ conversion programmes - introduced tentatively through the late 1920s - received a boost on 16 May 1931 when London United Tramways replaced tram routes in the Twickenham area by the famous AEC ‘Diddler‘ trolleybuses - curious hybrids sporting the central headlamp of the tram and the bonnet of the motor bus. A programme of prototype development followed which was picked up by the newly-formed LPTB in 1933. A tram-replacement programme on

512

a huge scale was announced and by 1939 a fleet of over 1800 standardised 70-seater 6 wheelers was serving the Northern half of the capital.

This provided the impetus for other conversion projects, so by 1939 35 trolleybus systems were in operation with a total of 3 429 vehicles. The trend was not universal however; many major cities (for example Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Glasgow and Edinburgh) retained their faith in the tram and modernised both fleets and infrastructure.

During the war, tram and trolleybus systems gave inestimable service in difficult conditions and proved themselves through low maintenance needs and their use of home-produced fuel. One new trolleybus system - Cardiff - opened, in 1942. After the war only one new trolleybus system, that in Glasgow, opened (in 1949) but never reached the extent of the tramway network. However, most of the existing systems were extended into suburban housing developments. Most established operators bought new trolleybuses from a handful of chassis, traction equipment and bodywork suppliers. Some operators, realising that the chassis and traction equipment outlived the bodywork, had vehicles rebodies (for example Bradford, Walsall, Wolverhampton, Teesside and Rotherham) during the 1950s and early 1960s - many to new forward-entrance designs. Walsall set new Ministry of Transport standards in 1955 by introducing a new design of 30-foot long double deck trolleybus on only two axles, followed by Glasgow’s 36-foot long single deck trolleybuses of 1958. In retrospect, this merely served to develop larger diesel buses capable of displacing trolleybuses.

During this period, wholesale tramway abandonment was in full swing. Despite far-sighted plans for retention and modernisation in some cities (and even plans for subways in Leeds and Glasgow), only the Blackpool coastal route survived. One by one all the other systems succumbed to diesel bus operation, the last being Glasgow in 1962.

TROLLEYBUS FOLLOWS TRAM TO THE SCRAPYARD

Long before Glasgow’s last tram operated, it was becoming clear that the trolleybus too was falling from favour: London again led the trend. Ominously, those tram routes which survived the war were replaced by diesel buses; although 127 new BUT trolleybuses were ordered in 1948, these were used to replace the oldest vehicles in the fleet. No further orders were authorised to replace the rest of the fleet, now approaching 20 years old. It therefore came a little surprise when London announced its plan in 1954 to replace the whole of its trolleybus fleet with new ‘Routemaster‘ diesel buses. This massive programme was completed in 1962 - the same year that saw the end of Glasgow’s trams.

In the same way that London had acted as the catalyst for the widespread introduction of trolleybuses, a mere 20 years later its abandonment plans heralded a spiralling decline in the fortunes of the trolleybus. There was a brief ‘Indian Summer‘ when several systems extended and re-equipped using second-hand materials and vehicles from closed systems: Maidstone, Bradford, Walsall and Teesside were notable in this respect, the latter system being extended as late as 1968. One by one the remaining trolleybus systems closed, each closure bringing higher operating costs and maintenance difficulties to the remainder. Eventually even operators with relatively new trolleybuses (for example Reading’s vehicles of 1961 and Bournemouth’s of 1962) succumbed. Finally the last system, Bradford, closed on 26 March 1972.

TROLLEY-TO-DIESEL CONVERSION ARGUMENTS

Conversion of trolleybus routes to motorbus operation seldom met with public acclaim. Whereas the earlier conversion from tram to trolley had afforded a quantum leap in comfort, the motor buses were in general neither more comfortable nor faster than the trolleybuses they replaced. They may have been warmer, but they were also noisier, produced more local pollution, were lower in performance and produced more vibration. Furthermore, most trolleybuses were replaced by new designs of high capacity rear-engined buses which were initially unreliable in service. At the time of conversion, the advantages of the trolleybus were perceived thus:

- - No vibration - Quiet -

High performance and overload capacity

No pollution at point of use

513

- Long vehicle life - Low vehicle maintenance requirements - Use of diversity of fuels

However, disadvantages of the trolleybus were quoted more loudly:

- Tied to fixed routes - Subject to mass hold-ups - Overhead line expensive to erect and maintain - Overhead equipment visually intrusive - Vehicles more expensive to purchase - Components, equipment and spares became scarce - Energy costs became relatively higher - Difficult to integrate with motor-bus services

The reasons for the demise of the trolleybus are complex and inter-related, the chief of them being:

- - - - - - -

Also, the trolleybus quite simply went out of fashion: its advantages were ignored - despite the efforts of vociferous pressure groups.

It is surely worthy of note that virtually the same arguments were used 20 years earlier to bring discredit to the trams, both suffering the same fate.

The proliferation of road improvementhanagement schemes The expense of extending routes into developing suburbs The disproportionate increase of electrical energy cost after supply industry nationalisation Fuel tax rebate (on oil, but not on electricity) The availability of relatively cheap mass-produced motorbuses The loss of a home manufacturing base, and The cost of renewing infrastructure

TROLLEYBUS TRENDS WORLDWIDE

Following this trend, trolleybus operation in Spain closed and Commonwealth countries generally followed the UK pattern, with notable exceptions (eg Wellington and Toronto).

However, only a year after the last UK trolleybus system closed, the 1973 oil crisis struck. Prices doubled and rationing was threatened. Some countries had embarked on abandonment policies up to then, like Britain, but for most of them 1973 turned the tide:

- In France the 5 remaining systems in 1973 co-operated with Renault and re-equipped with a new standard design of trolleybus. Since then a sixth, Nancy, has opened a new system using dual- powered vehicles. Nancy and Lyon are re-equipping again (year 2000) with new trolleybuses based on the innovative Bombardier GLT vehicle; other systems seem to be following suit. In W. Germany (never a strong trolleybus country), Solingen re-equipped, and Esslingen and Essen have introduced duo-buses. E. Germany has remained a trolleybus stronghold. In Holland, Arnhem modernised and re-equipped, and is continuously extending and developing. In Belgium, Ghent opened a new system in 1989. Italy, Austria and Switzerland hardly flinched and have enjoyed continuous development. In the USA, the remaining halfdozen system re-equipped with standard 'Flyer' trolleybuses and a number of new systems have emerged. Some of these vehicles are now being replaced by new imported trolleybuses from Europe. South and Central America has regenerated its systems and opened new ones. Eastern Europe, Russia and China have continued to be trolleybus strongholds, operating the majority of the world's systems. Moscow remains the largest trolleybus system in the world.

-

- - - -

- -

Again, striking similarities can be seen with the upturn in the fortunes of LRT and Metro systems worldwide, as the advantages of urban electric traction have received greater recognition.

THE UK TROLLEYBUS SCENE TODAY

All the advantages of trolleybuses noted earlier remain intact, to which can now be added:

- - - - -

-

-

Increased awareness of the value of the environment. Increased uncertainty about fuel oil supplies and prices. Increased energy efficiency (infrastructure and vehicle-bome). Traffic management schemes have in general been consolidated. Overhead line technology has virtually eliminated speed limits and dewirements, and is now visually less intrusive. The autonomous power capability of trolleybuses has increased flexibility (emergency generator, or fully rated duobus-capability, as appropriate). Vehicle maintenance cost savings are now significant in proportion to whole life cycle costs.

Against this background, several factors have stacked up against the trolleybus:

Diesel buses are mass-produced, and are probably artificially cheap, as they use many components and assemblies common to the truck industry The 'Green' Diesel bus - with high performance and lower emissions - undergoes continuous development. Diesel buses have solid product support throughout their lives, and a respectable re-sale value in the second-hand market; the latter would undoubtedly be untrue for trolleybuses, initially. The fuel cost differential is Unattractive, oil attracting a tax rebate while electricity is still subject to crippling maximum demand tariffs. The UK trolleybus industry is all but defunct: technology is generally outdated by decades, and continental models are expensive - and virtually unobtainable in RH drive form. Trolleybus introduction is hampered by legislation: 0

0

0

A Transport and Works Order is required for the fixed equipment; The vehicles are now classed as PCVs but no recent precedent exists for the classification; Trolleybuses were (unwittingly, probably) included under the 1985 Transport Act promoting bus deregulation, rendering fixed routing commercially unattractive to operators outside London, and limiting the scope for integration with other modes;

There was however a limited amount of progress made in the 1980s, only to have any hopes dashed in the 1990s: - Studies had been carried out by South and West Yorkshire PTEs and Acts of Parliament (pre-

dating Transport and Works Act 1992) granted for trolleybus systems in these PTE areas. - A trolleybus test facility and prototype double-deck Dennis / Alexander / GEC trolleybus were

constructed for South Yorkshire PTE at Doncaster in 1985, funded chiefly by industry. Despite there being considerable interest in the experiment, and no major technical problems emerged, the PTE decided not to proceed; the fixed infrastructure was sold for scrap and the prototype trolleybus consigned prematurely to a life in a Museum. The Department of Transport approved in principle a Pilot Scheme in Bradford for West Yorkshire PTE in 1989, eliciting a good response in tendering for infrastructure by UK manufacturers and contractors, unfortunately not matched by offers of vehicles. Very few manufacturers were prepared to offer a trolleybus at all, particularly in RH drive form; the prices from those few were way above budget, reflecting the premium required for low production numbers of very specialised kit, Typically a 3:l price ratio (trolley : diesel) kept appearing, rendering the scheme unviable. This, coupled with a real threat of competition from a local bus operator, brought the project to an untimely end in 1991. In 1999 Merseytravel was ready to go out to tender for a guided trolleybus route in Liverpool, having expended considerable time and resources on the preparation of the Transport and Works Order application, only to have the application turned down by the DETR, claiming that insufficient justification had been demonstrated. Interest has been shown in schemes for other systems (e.g. Brighton, Ipswich and Bournemouth, and a number of schemes promoted by London Transport). None has yet reached the enabling legislation stage.

-

-

-

Turning to manufacturing industry in the UK, there has been considerable interest shown recently in trolleybuses and their traction equipment, to meet the expanding needs of a world market. Alstom

(formerly GEC-Alsthom, Preston Works) produced 11 sets of their ‘Onyx’ traction equipment in 1999 against an order for 96 sets for new Athens trolleybuses, the balance being produced in Greece. The high price is amply demonstrated by this: the cost per equipment is around f 110 000 - over ten times the cost of an engine and gearbox, and about the same as the cost of a complete Diesel bus! Brush Traction too has well-developed plans for traction drive equipment suitable for trams and trolleybuses within the power range under consideration. In Hong Kong, such is the concem over pollution that a study is about to be launched into the conversion of several trunk bus routes to trolleybus operation. An innovative feature of this scheme is the interest shown by the Electricity Utility, which is prepared to provide the fixed infrastructure and lease its use to the bus operator. As most Hong Kong buses are of British manufacture, this initiative may offer the challenge needed to develop a home product, and therefore the possibility of a home market.

HOPE FOR THE FUTURE

Modern trams and trolleybuses have many common features: both are electrically-powered, quiet, pollution-free at the point of use, comfortable, speedy and attractive to users and non-users alike. Both however require expensive infrastructure and vehicles, but exhibit lower operating costs.

Although the trolleybus was seen as a rival to the tram in the UK in the 1930’s, by 1972 both modes had been discarded for the same reasons (or, strictly, excuses), being branded as inflexible, slow, old- fashioned and even hazardous to other road users. Weightier issues of whole-life costing, transportation strategy, energy policy and environment were put to one side. Both modes share common hurdles:

- high cost of vehicles - high cost of infrastructure - criticism of wirescape

Both have common advantages:

- long vehicle life - low operating costs - energy source flexibility - energy efficiency - environmental attraction - perceived service commitment

The last advantage is an interesting one. Potential passengers take comfort in the appearance of fixed equipment on their route, whether it be in the form of overhead lines or tracks; LRT and trolleybus routes weld communities together. In contrast one of the most damaging features of bus deregulation has been the unreliability of vehicles, the transitory nature of routes and the lack of timetabling and ticketing information. At least there is now an emerging political will to encourage integration of transport modes.

LRT and trolleybuses are no longer seen as sworn enemies; they simply appear as two of the colours within the public transport passenger density spectrum:

- Suburban rail - Heavy metro

- Guided buslduobus - Trolleybus

- Mini-bus

- LRT

- BUS

LRT and trolleybuses suit different routes and have different roles to play: LRT is a cheaper human scale alternative to Metros, whereas the trolleybus is simply a high-quality bus, with guided duobus bridging the gap neatly between the two.

In many countries, highly-developed transportation policies and funding arrangements have enabled the continuous evolution of integrated networks to take place, selecting the mode most suited to each route to produce the best overall network. Go to Boston, Zurich, Geneva, Grenoble, St Etienne or Essen, to see how LRT and trolleybuses coexist in harmony with their city’s passengers and pedestrians, providing mobility with quality of life.

One has to be positive and say that the prospects for the return of the UK trolleybus are good; there is no technological, economic or environmental reason why Britain should be so out of step on the subject. The remaining problems are not technical; they are commercial, regulatory, political and legislative. We just need to have the will to do it.

Les Erunton is Newcastle Railways Group Manager of Parsons Brinckehoff Infrastructure (including the former Transportation Group of Men and McLellan), and was formerly Power Supplies Engineer with Tyne and Wear Metro,

0 2000 The Institution of Electrical Engineers. Printed and published by the IEE, Savoy Place, London WC2R OBL, UK. 5/7