Rural D Area Rapid Transit ? (R-DART)

bk

In my experience most international visitors are relatively impressed by our intercity networks, both Motorway and rail.

Our Motorways are pretty modern, well maintained and relatively quiet (and cheap) compared to many Motorways in the US and mainland Europe. People find it pretty easy and quick to get between our cities.

Intercity rail looks pretty decent too, 2 hours Dublin to Belfast and 2.5 hours Cork to Dublin, every hour is pretty decent. Most Americans are super impressed as they rarely have intercity rail. Europeans might be less impressed if they are use to high speed rail, however they find it very similar to regional rail you find all over Europe, so it doesn't really feel that out of place, though they are usually surprised it isn't electrified.

Where it all falls apart is going into and around our cities.

Americans are actually pretty impressed by the bus network in Dublin and how relatively easy it is to get around, but that is more a reflection on how bad public transport is in most US cities (outside of NY, etc.).

Europeans are much less impressed and ask where is the Metro, why aren't there more trams etc. ?

I agree, our focus should be on Metro/Luas/DART services, that is where we have the most issues.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123028988#Comment_123028988

Absolutely, given the investment that has already taken place into our motorway network, it is difficult to see how investment in inter-city rail could ever compete with them. The bigger return for the next half-century will be on commuter rail, METRO and Luas in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford.

PlatformNine

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123029311#Comment_123029311

I agree with a good bit with what you say. Particularly I think our regional rail could see more improvements in the long term along side better commuter/RT services. However is our IC network that good compared to many other countries?

Correct me if I am wrong, but the frequency of core IC services on our network, especially at peak times, isn't very good compared to other countries. While hourly service through out the day does seem to be pretty normal (though here only Dublin-Cork, -Limerick, and -Belfast have it currently), having only hourly services during peak times doesn't seem to be normal. From what I can tell during peak times it is common to see 2-4tph on core IC services, and while 4tph is likely well beyond what we will need anytime soon. I don't think its unresonable to say we should be working towards half-hourly peak IC services, particularly for Cork and Belfast. IE have already stated it is their goal to increase to half-hourly peak services for Dublin-Cork and -Limerick(and technically they already have half-hourly limerick becuase of LJ transfers), but they haven't given a post-covid time frame for when they plan to achieve this, if they still even do.

Otherwise I do think we have a decent network with a lot of potential, and especially for a comparatively small and low-density country I don't think what we have is unreasonable. But there are definetly key upgrades needed that we should see soon, but that in some cases are only planned for closer to 2050. I will admit though, I know many people point to our line speeds (or just general lack of high speed rail) as a massive flaw with our network. And while there is some point to be made for speed improvements, given the relatively short length of our core IC lines, I think there are many other things to focus on. Although I think increasing speeds to 200km/h where possible would help make IC services more competetive with the motorway network.

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123031723#Comment_123031723

it is better then some countries like US and South America, which have little or no intercity rail, while being “worse” then much of mainland Europe.

Though it can be hard to compare to mainland Europe as those countries and cities are so much larger and more populated. For instance, yes the Netherlands can have 15 minutes frequency on some busy lines, but then it is a population of 18 million people in a country half the size of Ireland and has through traffic too.

I think hourly clockface service is a good minimum for intercity services, it gives you an almost turn up and go feeling (given the distance you are travelling obviously). But I see it as a service level minimum even if those trains can be very quiet off peak.

30 minutes frequency, absolutely if the demand is there. I think it would make sense at peak hours to Cork, etc. but I don’t think we need 30 minutes all day. I’ve been on plenty of trains to Cork off peak that were very quiet, like maybe max 10 people in a carriage!

So my thinking is all intercity services should be hourly at a minimum, even if demand is low, but can go to 30 minutes at high demand times. I don’t think we currently have demand levels for 15 minute services like The Netherlands, but that is okay as it more reflects our population at the moment.

I follow the travel to Ireland Reddit, and the opinion I see from most visitors is that they are generally quiet happy with it, they like how relatively affordable it is, decently frequent and reliable and I see few complaints on journey time. Most are impressed that you can get to Belfast in just two hours.

Sure when you sit down and actually look at the distance to Belfast, the journey time isn’t great, but most visitors don’t really think like that, they think, great, I can jump on a train and be in Belfast in two hours and see the sites, that is actually pretty good compared to most cities in the US.

On true high speed rail, I totally get why people have that opinion, but I feel it just shows a lack of understanding of how expensive it is to build and the type of cities and distances it would normally be built between. Cork and Belfast are really quiet close to Dublin and population wise they wouldn’t register at all for high speed rail.

Of course as you say, reasonable speed improvements like 200km/h fleet, etc. would be great if we could knock 30 minutes off each route.

Overall we have the bones of a pretty decent network, that is reasonable for our size, a network that connects to every city, hourly frequency to most, affordable pricing (compared to the UK anyway), when you step back, it really isn’t so bad. It needs work of course and should be improved, but I don’t think we need anything too radical.

A1ACo

Regards Inter-City services, a 1-per hour to any city in a country the size of Ireland does not seem too bad overall, and as for speed improvements up to 200km/h (125mph) for 'Higher Speeds' (from the existing 160kph (100mph)) seems pragmatic, and to be more feasible than the initially mentioned 'High Speed' in the Strategic Railway Review.

For comparison, I think I read somewhere that Norway in previous years (with a lot of electric inter-city services (15kv AC)) focussed on consistent 160km/h (100mph) rather than short sections of higher/ high speed, and in the Netherlands that the jump up into the next rail speeds above 160km/h and 200km/h especially, in their High Speed Line (and some other lines?) has considerably added to the cost and complexity. That said, a target speed for Irish Rail for 125km/h seems a little '25 years ago' e.g. see the number of countries that rolled out 'Pendolinos'/ ETR460/470 in Finland, Portugal, Slovenia etc. but at potential speeds up to 220km/h (140mph) re: the next speed category above 200km/h (and 220/230km/h rail new vehicle's capability for up to 220km/h inter-city services seems to still appear today in Europe e.g. some Austrian and German inter-city services).

As for 'DARTs' electrification' for the 'regional' cities with double-tracking, and a small number (2-4+) of new stations to each city, along existing lines and that are proposed to be electrified long-term for inter-city services anyway… it would seem a laudable and achievable aim, and in terms of cost and scope far below the previous motor-ways programme. And to facilitate good density (not exclusively semi-d housing estates) development around them e.g. the Adamstown, Lucan example.

As for Trams in the other cities and for example 'Gluas' for Galway, I wasn't really following the thread:

Galway - Light Rail - Page 2 — boards.ie - Now Ye're Talkin'

but trams coupled with and linking to existing heavy rail lines and above proposed commuter heavy rail improvements could be 'Transformative'… to use the current lingo.

A1ACo

However, for trams for the cities other than Dublin and Cork, I was thinking that it would be interesting to see what other European cities of similar size have built modern tram systems, and from the skim read I just had of the above Galway LRT/Tram thread, and the NTA report cited, these factors of population size and density do seem to question the feasibility of a 'perfect' solution tram system introduction into the existing context (of Galway at least).

It is somewhat surprising given above comments, that the NTA report only gives one passing reference to the somewhat niche, half-way house public transport solution and potential stepping-stone/ interim solution of Trolley-bus systems. The 'Fatal' flaws of these Trolleybus systems include that they sound stupid (!), are unfamiliar, and would not appeal as a lesser than perfect solution modern Tram system. These Trolleybus systems have the potential to have other e-bus and e-mobility advantages e.g. can be hubs for charging of pure electric battery buses.

The new system in Prague seems to be the most recent and modern Trolleybus system (and hybrid as it includes batteries for off-the wire operation… for IMC - in motion charging) i.e. is only under wires for a smaller part of its route, and with smaller batteries (than for battery only electric buses) for the larger part of its route.

With regards to density and trams, I think at the time of the Dublin LUAS design, the template city service of trams in Lyon was used generally comparative to Dublin (though the city area population densities higher than Dublin), and the densities overall of Galway, Limerick, and Waterford cities (besides their overall small populations) look to have half the densities of the Dublin suburbs.

It is interesting that broadly Dublin size cities of Lyon, Zurich and Prague have heavy rail, metros, normal buses, and both trams and trolley-buses, and smaller cities of Bergen and Szeged also have both trams and trolleybuses.

A quick search internet search of e.g. 'EU trolleybus leaflet' brings up info regards and EU 'Trolleybus' (c.2013) and 'Trolleybus 2.0' (c.2020) programmes including 'smaller' /regional cities of Eberswalde (DE), Arnhem(NL), Gdynia (PL) and Szeged (HU)

trolleymotion_Folder_IRSP.pdf (2021)

and a 'how-to' guide from UITP (2015)

FINAL_UITP_brochure_trolleybus_DIGITAL_mail (forget the bad Leeds example - never happened)

(this topic flogged a bit by myself in the separate Electric buses thread)

Anyway, any DARTs etc. heavy rail improvements for the regional cities could be a very good addition and, with BusConnects, more electric buses and … maybe trams (with a bit of a health warning re: large finance and time investments, and physical interventions) or trolley buses(?), could mesh together as real and tangible, visible investment improvements to the regional cities - and potentially as short-medium term potential changes (including compared to any new roads) - so it will be interesting to see if anything more, or less of these comes about from the current government negotiations.

KrisW1001

200 km/h is the target design speed for any new links under AISRR; existing lines are to be brought to a 160km/h minimum speed, but I suspect that there are large parts of the current Cork-Dublin line that could meet the standards for 200 km/h operation without much re-working. Dublin-Belfast really needs the new, direct Clongriffin-Drogheda corridor.

There is always the option, of course, of using tilting trainsets to reach 200 km/h without much track works at all. In Spain, Renfe operates a tilting train service at 220 km/h on the very wide 1670 mm Iberian gauge, so the technology could work on our 1600mm railway.

Faster line speeds is a blessing for InterCity passengers, but they are a curse too if those same lines are going to be used for “DART-like” services: those are likely to operate at 140 km/h (the new DART+ trains are 145 km/h), so any delay in reaching a passing loop or station could have a major impact on inter-city journey times.

bk

I'll be honest, I don't think trolleybuses have any future in Ireland with the success of battery buses.

We have battery double deckers running on the streets of Dublin and Limerick all day long now. Battery density is increasing very quickly now and prices are dropping at breakneck pace.

It doesn't make sense investing in the cost and more importantly the planning needed for OHLE, when you can basically just roll BEV buses onto the streets with zero planning or infrastructure cost outside of the depots.

Just think about how long it would take to get OHLE through planning, ABP, JR versus how relatively easy it has been to roll out the BEV buses.

Of course another option to think about are BEV BRT's, single decker articulated buses, either 18m or even 24m. Like the new 18m ones Aircoach are rolling out soon at Dublin Airport.

I agree with you, I think Limerick and Galway would struggle to justify a Luas line given their population size and density, hell even Cork is borderline.

I think it might just be best for those cities (and the rest of Cork) to focus on improving the bus service. Growing up in Cork, but living in Dublin, it is hard to explain to people how much better Dublin Bus is compared to buses in Cork. Buses that are supposed to be every 20 minutes only turning up once an hour is totally normal in Cork!

It is a pity there is a driver shortage, because I think if we could get the bus routes in these cities to a consistent 10 minute frequency, it would be a game changer for them. I'm not sure how much difference a token Luas line will make for them.

To be honest, I'm really not sure what the best answer for them is.

Turning to the topic of this thread, I think it is key for these local authorities to create regional development plans that encourage the zoning/planning and development of high density housing near stations or potential stations on the rail lines. In fairness to Cork they have a well developed development plan and it has made it much easier to justify the development of commuter rail we are currently seeing in Cork.

PlatformNine

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123034071#Comment_123034071

The AISRR is actually what pushed for the 200km/h railways. It says that proper high speed rail was too high on investment for too little return because of the short distance of core IC routes (mainly Dublin-Cork and -Belfast), the low population density, as well as the spacing between stops. Which makes sense, South Korea for comparison is a similar size and also an isolated railway network, but only has 2 high speed lines and a branch line. And that's despite them having over 7 times the population and population density.

In general I think one of the most "basic" long term goals for IE should be, like you say, more twin-track sections and more regional electrification, especially to take advantage of bi-mode units. However I think a massive goal should be to work toward upgrading as many single platform(and no passing loop) stations to dual platform stations to help increase regional frequencies, even if just during peak times. I think it would really help with local connectivity as it could allow for all areas to have more frequent regional services while still maintaining IC services. Even if it doesn't make proper RT services possible, it could at least allow many places to have hourly regional services which should help encourage people to use rail and PT more.

PlatformNine

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123034272#Comment_123034272

That's not quite true. It does reccomend most new IC lines to be 200km/h capable, however where it doesn't reccomend a new alignment it does often reccomend the line be upgraded up to 200km/h capable. This includes Portarlington-Cork, Portarlington-Athenry, Kildare-Waterford, and Drogheda-Newry. It also reccomends the reinstated Waterford-Rosslare line being upgraded to 200km/h as well. There are of course exceptions, most notably I think is Limerick-LJ it doesn't reccomend to be upgraded to 200km/h, though I believe it says all other IC routes should at least be upgraded to 160km/h.

Conflicts with RT services is obviously a problem, however it is still better to have those speeds than not to. IE should still schedule reasonably, allowing for the correct amount of conflict with RT services. At the very least it will allow for services to quickly pass through more rural and less constrained sections quicker. It is important of course though that IE plans to reduce IC and RT conflicts, both in terms of scheduling and infrastructure. At the moment I think it is a concern with CACR, so I will be interested to see if they develop any more concrete plans to four-track the line to Blarney or Mallow.

I will say, I don't think IC-RT conflicts will be a serious concern outside of Dublin and Cork for a while. Generally I think most places where we could see RT networks or increased regional frequency would be for stations that IC services would call for, or are on areas with little to no stations anyways. Galway-Athenry is a good example of the former, as while I assume GMATS will have some plans for more improved frequency, most services already stop at Oranmore and Athenry, so RT services would be filling the gaps in between. Limerick-LJ is then a good example of the former, with no stations along the entire route, and even LSMATS only has plans for one station which I imagine they plan on being called by most services anyways.

KrisW1001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123035604#Comment_123035604

The document is a bit fudged on this. It says “we should have 200 km/h running on these core lines…” in the text, but the final summary list of recommendations at the end they say what I summarised: absolutely 200km/h for new construction; all other core lines and most rural lines to be brought up to at least 160 km/h. It doesn’t make any mention of its previous recommendation (in the text) of upgrading specific stretches to 200 km/h running.

Trying to square the two statements: many of the sections that are recommended for 200 km/h in the text are doubling projects, and thus require the laying of new tracks, so meeting that speed where geometry permits will be a requirement of the upgrade works. Portarlington-Cork is the exception to this, but as I said above I strongly suspect that in terms of geometry this line is already fairly close to being capable of 200+ km/h running.

I agree that IC-Local conflicts aren’t going to be a huge issue outside of Dublin and Cork. Even Cork is probably okay too for the next ten years or so, but the tunnel approach to Kent will make any capacity improvements there ruinously expensive.

I think that “DART” is probably the wrong service model to think about when we’re talking about the Southeast. Given the small size of Waterford and the location of the station there, there are basically no “suburban” stop opportunities on heavy rail, so a longer-distance, higher speed service may be better. That would mean regular services between Waterford and Kilkenny, and Waterford and Clonmel, maybe also Wexford - Waterford via Rosslare - those distances are further than the current DART, but there’s maybe only three intermediate stops on each. (Of course, there's nothing to stop these services being just the Waterford end of longer all-stops regionals train to/from Limerick, Kildare and Wicklow, respectively).

PlatformNine

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123036582#Comment_123036582

So I had a read through the relevant AISRR sections, the summary (p.101-105) and the IC section (p.53-58), and I have to stand by what I said.

Pages 55 and 56 seperately mention upgrading lines to and building lines to be 200km/h capable. And the map on 57 shows the lines it reccomends to be upgraded to 200km/h capable. And while you are right in that many of the 200km/h upgrades also involve twin-tracking which in itself could need track realignment, there are four exceptions. Portarlington-Cork and Drogheda-Dundalk which are already twin-tracked and the review does not reccomend to build a new alignment for either. And additionally Athenry-Athlone and Kilkenny-Waterford as the review does not reccomend a new alignment or twin tracking, only passing loop improvements. The summary on page 104 also mentions upgrading lines to 160-200km/h in the medium term, as a seperate improvement to the new lines. And the exact wording is "Upgrade intercity routes to 160 –200km/h / 100 – 125mph and increase other line speeds to 120 – 160km/h /75 – 100mph." And 200km/h does not refer to the speed of new alignments.

I think they might decide to four-track Mallow/Blarney-Kent similar to how HH-Heuston is currently four-tracked. If they four tracked from Blarney to the tunnel it would be a massive improvement. With a planned 6tph for Mallow-Kent services conflicts before and after the four-tracked section be limited and there should be plenty of room for all other IC and regional services. However if they only four track Blarney-Tunnel I think Mallow will still need some upgrades, such as improved sidings and possibly a fourth platform.

I agree, truthfully I can't see any improvements needed for a RT services in the southeast passing a CBA test, I think it would be in a similar situation as the Nenagh line. Though depending on how they approach the passing loops between Kilkenny and Wateford for increased IC services, there could be an hourly or two-hourly regional service. If they rebuilt the Mullinavat and/or Bennetsbridge stations to serve as passing loops, I could see there being a case for a more regional services instead of having IC services stop. However considering Waterford-Kilkenny is already only 25 minutes, I think reinstating the second platform at Thomastown would easily be enough for hourly IC services. Though depending on how much time speed improvements could save, that might not even be necessary.

A1ACo

I see that 'RMTransit' did a video about public transport in Dublin including discussion and observations on on the LUAS tram systems, and the DART system and plans with some comparison to other systems in other countries:

Dublin’s Little-Known, Fast-Growing Transit Network

I also see that this month's 'Modern Railways' magazine states in an article that Irish Rail is due to submit a third order for EMU DARTS for delivery in 2027/28n - to allow for the withdrawal of the remaining 38 two-car 8100 Class DARTs… which would seem to imply that a decision was made (?) not to do any heavy type refurbs' on the original DARTs (and so less likely for any hand-me-downs of old DARTs elsewhere). I can't help but note in a related fashion that the same magazine issue includes an article about another European rail fleet introduction that has been delayed and then taken back out of its new service, with resulting unforeseen extended use of old, to be retired fleets. In this instance, due to delays in making new orders, additional proposed services, Covid, and a new fleet taken out of service temporarily due to tech/mech issues, the UK inter-city IC225 Class (electric locomotive and carriages sets) to see service for circa 7 additional years, to sometime in 2027.

Regards any 'regional' city DARTs, and trams or trolleybuses integrating together and feasibility of introduction, for any Waterford 'DARTs' it looks like big plans are made for regeneration of the Docks and existing station area, and while the topography adjacent to the docks does not look good for new residential of building development, could there be potential for say 1 station circa 1km to either side of Waterford Plunkett with new development in fields to the northwest and southeast (both north of the river).

In additions to plans for Cork, DARTs and trams would be great for the other cities, I think for short shuttle route DART type services, and linked trolley-buses (stepping stone to trams?) could be more feasible and more of short/ medium term option. Taking more non-capital European city examples, Bern also has trams, and trolleybuses, heavy rail and normal buses, with Salzburg having a very hefty trolleybus, while relatively smaller cities and large towns of Pilsen, Fribourg and Schaffhausen also have trolleybuses among other services.

All these trolleybus examples include use of articulated and or double-articulated buses up to 24m length, which is what I would assume would be used in Ireland if at all, to exceed double-decker capacity (besides more exit doors and less waiting for top-deck passengers alighting). To note that newer trolleybus systems appear to use less complicated wiring, can attach/detach pantograph to overhead wires by a button push by driver, and include batteries for off-wire routings (batteries apparently lighter and less heavily used and charged than for battery-only electric buses, and wires could be used on less 'sensitive' sections of a route). I think trolleybuses would more likely help breach the cost, time and built interventions chasm between diesel or electric buses service over to full-blown trams on rails.

This is also noting that 'very' light tram was mentioned for Galway at one point. It could also be argued that articulated, long trolleybuses with (in sections) wires contacted above could be more visible to an extent and have more of a 'electric effect' of attracting new public transport riders and investment along the routes then with electric battery 'normal' buses (or articulated). Capacity (and attractiveness) of single-deck, articulated trolleybuses buses would also seem to be more than for normal buses but less than trams.

Also again, electrification of rail-lines for intercity is also planned long-term anyway regards and DART type services.

Anyway, I think we would be doing well but would be laudable, and feasible enough to implement some DART type and trolleybus combined services into regional cities and less ambitious and possibly/likely less costly than some previous, or planned motor-ways and by-passes. Imagine something like below trolleybuses in Galway or Limerick etc. connecting into DART type services and along with surrounding existing and attracted built housing and commercial developments as something within reach in the short/ medium term?!

Swiss Trolleys in Schaffhausen and Neuhausen - Oberleitungsbus am Rhein - YouTube

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123048259#Comment_123048259

No, trolleybuses aren't going to happen in Ireland.

We have battery powered buses now, they do the exact same thing as trolleybuses, but with non of the cost of OHLE, non of the years of planning/ABP/JR delays that come with that and much greater flexibility. EV buses are already operating on the streets of Limerick!

Basically no city that doesn't already have a trolleybus network, is going to invest in one now given the advancements in battery tech.

Of course we can talk about the type of operation, single deckers versus double deckers, Luas style multidoor operation, BRT, etc.

gjim

The benefit of trolly-buses isn't just electrification of the powertrain. It's also the bus format - with 3 to 5 doors - leading to shorter and deterministic dwell times. Which means they can use inline stops, offer full accessibility, and predictable (no bunching) scheduling. They effectively operate like trams excepts with poorer ride quality.

They're popular in many cities as a "pre-tram" service as the route/alignments can be upgraded to tram if/when demand justifies it.

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123052681#Comment_123052681

That is what I mean when I said this: "Of course we can talk about the type of operation, single deckers versus double deckers, Luas style multidoor operation, BRT, etc."

To be clear, trolleybuses literally are just buses and yes it is just a difference in how they are powered. I've been lucky enough to have frequently used the trolleybuses in Gydnia, Poland, and yes it was cool, but to be clear, they are no different then the Diesel (and now EV) buses you find nearby in Gdansk and other Polish cities.

Most of the trolleybuses in Gydnia are 12m long and have three doors. But the Diesel buses in other cities are exactly the same, 12m longer and three doors. They also come in 18m and 24m articulated buses with more doors, but so do the Diesel (and now EV) ones.

This is what a trolleybus looks like in Gydnia:

And now here is pretty much exact same bus from Solaris (a Polish company BTW) but in EV form:

Don't get me wrong, I loved how they operate buses in Poland, more like Luas here, enter/exit via any door, no driver interaction, inspectors check tickets and better per stop ticketing. And I've long been a proponent of it for Ireland too.

As you say it is a very Luas type operation. However it isn't related to it being a trolleybus, but rather their operating model. Only three small cities in Poland have trolleybuses, but this Luas style of operation is used in cities throughout Poland.

You can absolutely do the same with EV BRT's, they sort of do it with the 18m Glider service in Belfast.

BTW Here is Solaris new 24m EV bus:

Another, in case people think you can re-use trolleybus OHLE for a tram, you can't they are completely different power systems, you would have to completely replace the trolleybus OHLE to upgrade it for modern Luas style trams.

What you are calling "pre-tram" is typically called BRT in western countries and it usually involves buses like the above in 18m or 24m sizes with the Polish/Luas/Glider type operating model.

KrisW1001

Why cities persist with trolleybuses:

Trolleybuses have a far longer operating life than other kinds of bus: ICE buses have to retire due to engine lifetime, plus structural fatigue from the heavy vibration of that engine. BEV buses are lifetime constrained by the battery replacement cycle.

They are also more efficient in operation. The battery in a BEV bus weighs about 500 kg to 2 tonnes depending on charging strategy. That's weight that can be replaced with passengers on a trolleybus, or lower energy consumption. Also, OHLE power means there's no fuelling downtime. BEV buses are currently limited by the relatively slow charge rates for the batteries (very fast charging shortens overall life).

Interoperability with trams is actually a problem: Trolleybuses use two overhead conductors (live and return) while trams require only one (the rails provide the return path), so you can't share wires. New trolleybus systems are, however, gravitating towards 750 V DC electrification to increase commonality with tram systems, but that's only in terms of electrical infrastructure (shared substations and such)

I personally don't like BEV buses…yet : I think the current battery technology is too expensive, too heavy, has too short a life and doesn't respond well to heavy load. These are solvable problems, though, and in an Irish city, with no existing infrastructure, trolleybuses are too hard to justify as an alternative.

I think that on very high capacity bus corridors, OHLE (outer sections) plus battery could still be viable in Dublin: as a way of reducing vehicle battery weight, and charging delays.

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123053575#Comment_123053575

They are also more efficient in operation. The battery in a BEV bus weighs about 500 kg to 2 tonnes depending on charging strategy. That's weight that can be replaced with passengers on a trolleybus, or lower energy consumption. Also, OHLE power means there's no fuelling downtime. BEV buses are currently limited by the relatively slow charge rates for the batteries (very fast charging shortens overall life).

Just to be clear the 14m long Solaris Trolleybus and the EV model have exactly the same passenger capacity. Of course batteries add weight, but not enough to impact passenger capacity, the limitation is physical space, not weight.

Energy consumption is also not as straight froward, of course the weight of the batteries require more energy, however that is somewhat balanced against the power lose across a wide OHLE network.

Yes, BEV's need to be charged, but the vast majority of the fleet is in over night (and off peak too) so plenty of charging time, so it isn't too big a deal.

Trolleybuses have a far longer operating life than other kinds of bus: ICE buses have to retire due to engine lifetime, plus structural fatigue from the heavy vibration of that engine. BEV buses are lifetime constrained by the battery replacement cycle.

It is relatively easy to swap out battery modules on a BEV, they are designed for it. It is not at all true to say this "BEV buses are lifetime constrained by the battery replacement cycle." They are constrained by the body, not the batteries.

There is some talk in the industry that you might start seeing Trolleybus type lifespans out of BEV buses with a battery replacement, as similar to Trolleybus, BEV's don't have the same structure fatigue from engine vibrations. Obviously this is a wait and see area, so I wouldn't give it as a definite.

I personally don't like BEV buses…yet : I think the current battery technology is too expensive, too heavy, has too short a life and doesn't respond well to heavy load.

Battery prices are falling at astounding rates and BEV buses are already approaching parity with Diesel buses. Power to weight density is also improving all the time, but not quiet as fast as the dropping prices. The whole "too short a life" thing is vastly overblown, battery lifespans are already fairly good and improving significantly year on year.

I don't know what you mean by "doesn't respond well to heavy load." Electric motors tend to be far superior to Diesel engines, in particular Euro 6 constrained ones, for torque and acceleration. Having regularly used the EW BEV deckers at peak hours when full (they are on my local route), I can assure you they respond brilliant under heavy load, probably one of the most responsive buses we've had in decades!

BTW BEV articulated lorries already exist in Germany. They is a youtuber I follow who drives one for a living and is documenting his experience. It seems to work really well, much better then even I thought. What is particularly crazy is watching him accelerate up a hill with a full load, quickly overtaking Diesel trucks and cars. That truck has insane acceleration!

In my opinion batteries have already largely overtaken trolleybuses (for a city without a pre-exisitng network) and they only get better by the day.

bk

One point I'd like to make, is that I really like the way they operate city buses in Poland. They operate all their city buses like Luas, they don't just limit it to their trolleybuses or to some special BRT "pre-metro" line, instead just all buses work like that and I think they are far better for it.

I think it was a missed opportunity to not at least try something like that here on the new O route or trial it in Athlone. Triple door 11m long version of the EA class, no driver interaction, enter/exit through any door. anyway, a missed opportunity.

KrisW1001

Okay, my last word, as this is now completely off topic:

My “respond to heavy load” is a comment about the batteries, not the power train: obviously, both BEV buses and trolleybuses use the exact same electric motors, which are superior in every respect to an ICE power train. Current Li-ion chemistries are the best of a bad lot for heavy vehicles. Heavy charge/discharge can affect cell longevity for all types, although the LiFePO4 (“LFP”) chemistry most likely to be seen in buses suffers the least from this.

The next generation of battery chemistries (be that sodium, or solid Lithium) will make BEV buses better, but I just feel that the current generation is only “just about good enough”. The alternative is diesel and CO2, so yes, we should use them, but they’re not the amazingly brilliant technology the bus-makers are saying it is. They’re a good stop-gap until we get something better, but if a city already had OHLE buses, replacing them with BEVs is stupid.

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123054764#Comment_123054764

Uh, I definitely wasn't suggesting cities that already have trolleybuses get rid of them. If you already have the infrastructure might as well continue to use it as battery tech continues to mature and drop in price.

What you do see is a lot of cities that have Trolleybuses doing is move to hybrid vehicles. Even a small battery that can cover a few KM helps fix a lot of issues that Trolleybus networks historically had. Bypass sections of downed OHLE, bypass a crash, continue to operate when maintenance work needs to be done on the OHLE or even just the street, etc. It really helps with flexibility and reliability.

And some cities are going beyond that, putting even bigger batteries so that they can expand the network well beyond the traditional OHLE sections. Using OHLE to charge up your battery if you already have it makes a lot of sense.

Having said that, I also think it doesn't make any sense for a city without Trolleybuses, to start building one now.

Even if we started to planning on building a trolleybus network, it would take a minimum of 6 years to plan it, get through planning/ABP/JR and actually construct it. In that time we will have already converted more then half our bus fleet to BEV!

BTW Sodium batteries are great, but they have a poor energy density, so not suited to buses, they are great for grid scale battery storage systems and maybe cheap short range city cars.

What you should check out is what CATL is doing with LFP batteries. They now have one with a million mile guarantee! CATL also announced that the price of LFP batteries will drop by another 50% by the middle of this year!

The million mile range battery is specifically aimed for use in buses and trucks.

CATL also made some staggering announcements about Solid State batteries, but realistically that is probably still about 3 years from mass production.

A1ACo

I think there are some technical and non-technical 'Human Factors' that could be considered here too re: Trolleybuses and DART type provision for the smaller cities.

One is that if Dublin is to get more DARTs and LUAS in the future, and Cork to get CART/CATs and CLUAS, the other cities may feel 'left out'. Also there are already some ambitions for Trams in the regional cities e.g. Galway and Limerick.

Second and related, is that in visual terms, the relatively prominent trolley poles and some sections of overhead wires along an existing busy (spine/ trunk) bus route flags its existence and may be viewed as a tangible commitment to public transport investment in the regional cities, and may provide some of the comfort and certainty that rail based services provide (e.g. certainty that the service is not going to go off-route, unfamiliar passengers wont get lost en-route (i.e. i dont know this street, where am I now etc.), and will stop at all stops) and without having to make the vastly more significant finance, time and interventions investments that Trams would require.

The visibility of trolley poles and overhead wires in sections - assuming a hybrid (with small batteries) Trolleybuses for the regional cities could help to give a 'Big City' feel that I don't think battery-only BEV buses can give - and also if linking into the DART type main stations - could really bring them into more 'Proper City' league and potential.

I can't find it now, but i'm think I read in the Skoda Trolleybus website (?) a few years ago, that new Trolleybuses routes appeared to attract more previous car users than improved bus routes did, so there could be some perceived attractiveness of them, and somewhere saw a comment that it was surprising that one small (c.65,000 pop.) Italian city/ large town actually had a Trolleybus route… so trams in some of the smallish Irish cities may be even harder also to justify.

A1ACo

The much lesser cost of Trolleybuses versus Trams, but with some tram-like advantages, and some advantages over existing battery-only buses (and especially over diesel buses) has sometimes been seen as cheap alternative to trams for car-centric cities (and possibly seen as a blocking mechanism to future trams) but I think in Ireland's case it would be more of a stepping stone, or an alternative to All (tram) or Nothing (battery-only ordinary buses) choices.

In the Nancy example noted earlier, it was planned it seems to change the 11km TVR (Guided Light Transit vehicles) into a tram line, but due to route gradients and cost, it was turned recently into a Trolleybus line (previously had other modern-era Trolleybus lines), and using some existing overhead wires had a cost of approximately €50m versus many times that (€500) for conversion to conventional Tram.

It looks like Bologna maybe a potential example of a stepping stone approach of Trolleybus to Tram conversions, with some main bus and Trolleybus lines planned to be replaced with Tram lines, and construction already commenced.

And otherwise versus BEV battery-only buses, with existing battery technologies it would seem that the generally smaller battery requirements for Hybrid Trolleybuses would have the advantage of more environmental credentials than reliance on large batteries only.

It is also notable that in technical terms, many of the new or refurbished Trolleybus lines such as Prague, Marrakesh, Cagliari, Ancona, Rimini (new Metromare line), Bologna, Nancy etc. run via 750v DC so similar to modern tram lines such as the LUAS 750v DC lines, and the below interesting presentation (page 12) that if necessary, that the [trolleybus] infrastructure can be used for future tramway projects…

PowerPoint Presentation

It would also appear that Prague, Lecce and Marrakesh are examples of new stand-alone Trolleybus systems not extending any existing Trolleybus lines (though at least Prague also has trams and used to have previous trolleybuses), with plenty of examples e.g. Germany Trolleybuses (still going) and even Belfast, where trams were replaced with Trolleybuses - so there must be some advantages of shared/ convertible infrastructure and swapping over between system types.

The recent Prague new Trolleybus system, and I think one of the Germany systems, and/ or Bologna shows that the same poles can carry both Tram and Trolleybus wires adjacent to each other, on the same ordinary looking support poles.

Also I though very interesting - is that the above presentation (page 14) said that it can be feasible to use existing Tram substations to help run Trolleybus wires extending off them - to extend out a tram route with hybrid Trolleybuses…(and so interchange and supplementing each other could work depending on a city's situations).

Bergin is another example were an existing Trolleybus line is proposed to link with the existing tram line in part (or parts).

A1ACo

I don't think Trolleybuses would take 6 years to implement here (hopefully!), and if you take many European examples - just don't try too hard.., at least not to begin with - just run them along the roads with all the other car traffic - improvements can be made later.

In this instance i'd reiterate, take a European approach of not necessarily 'Gold-plating' it, to consider their (hybrid-Trolleybus) use along an existing, central busy bus route to an existing main rail station, make a decision to attempt it or not relatively quickly (don't do Leeds on it) and consider against the options of tram, no tram and buses only (with hybrid Trolleybus a half-way house and potential stepping stone), and against the costs of new roads etc. It could be seen as a bit of a 'Are we Boston or Berlin' considerations of costs and priorities, and procedures.

Overall, using for example the under-construction new DART station at Woodbrook, Shankill (planning file D20A/0744 Online Planning Service) as a template for new DART type stations for the smaller regional cities (including the approach of new surrounding residential and some commercial/ shops development e.g. planning file LRD24A/0482/WEB Online Planning Service), but paired with a hybrid Trolleybus spine route linking to an existing main station, and rolled out together (combined vehicle purchasing, some shared design teams etc.?) for the 3 cities of Limerick, Galway and Waterford (and later Athlone/ Dundalk/Drogheda?!) as a national standard approach - for tiered, public transport provision, could be a good outcome, and a combined Climate Change and Decentralisation measure for the new government?

bk

I think there are some technical and non-technical 'Human Factors' that could be considered here too re: Trolleybuses and DART type provision for the smaller cities.

I strongly disagree with the point you are making here. A single decker articulated BRT BEV would be different enough from a typical double decker buses to stand out and draw attraction and attention. See the Glider service in Belfast.

I can assure you that absolutely no one in Cork/Limerick/etc. would be impressed with seeing 12m long trolleybuses that look exactly the same as the 12m long single decker diesel buses that have been used there for decades. And I suspect the public would actually be quiet outraged at you string up OHLE all over their cities for no increase in passenger capacity!

There is nothing fancy about Trolleybuses, in the end they are just a bus, with the same passenger capacity of a bus of the same length. The only advantage they had was that they ran off electricity rather then Diesel, but BEV's negate that advantage, while being more flexible and vastly easier to roll out.

They do nothing to fix our biggest problem, which is lack of drivers.

To be honest, I really dislike this idea that you need some sort of "gimmick" to sell a public transport. This is a very American type of thinking that I see in the US all the time.

I much prefer the Polish approach, they just make every city bus (and trolleybus) as good as possible, they operate every single one like Luas and where their is extra demand (and road space) they use 18m and 24m versions.

Less gimmicks and results in a much better overall service.

A1ACo

I'd agree with much of what you say above, including that I don't see much point in putting up wires for ordinary looking and ordinary capacity 12m long buses (which would also be less capacity than double-deckers notwithstanding less boarding times), it would have to be 18m and 24m articulated buses, and i've never liked the look (though so some might) of dressing up the sides of buses (of any type) to look like trams, by using side skirts and covers over wheels.

Otherwise, i'm not advocating stringing wires of the entirety of routes vis a vis see the use in-motion charging/ IMC with smaller batteries e.g. circa 35% of the hybrid-Trolleybus routes of circa 8-14km in the examples given seem to be under wires, and there seem still to be some advantages of Trolleybuses over BEV (including potential to convert later to tram) and if a gimmick has an attraction to entice new users to Public transport and investment to an area - and as otherwise above would seem to have other technical benefits… I think it then could be worth it.

And I take your point regards a need for drivers (and it seems a lack of staff for whatever field you care to look at - especially if it needs any technical input or training). Some interesting and I think valid points to both sides of the argument.

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123058691#Comment_123058691

I suppose I'd ask are there actually routes in these cities that have the demand for 18/24m vehicles?

I don't know Limerick/Galway/etc. well enough to answer that, but here is my outlook as a Corkonian living in Dublin:

Very few, if any bus routes in Cork need 18/24m vehicles, they are rarely full. The issue isn't capacity but demand in the first place. The demand isn't there because the buses are so infrequent and so unreliable. My parents bus route in Cork is supposed to be every 20 minutes, but you can regularly be waiting an hour for the bus to come! You simply can't rely on it, so people don't use it.

But in Dublin people don't need some gimmick to draw them to use the bus, the buses are absolutely rammed, so what is the difference? Well comparatively Dublin has a much better bus service, much more frequent and reliable (relatively). My local bus stop has a bus every 3 minutes!

I feel that spending massive amounts of money on a single route to be a gimmick like BRT or Trolleybus doesn't really do much to fix the fundamental problem across these cities transport networks.

Instead spend that money on just improving the bus service, use it to hire more drivers and buy more buses. Make every bus route a 10 minute frequency and a real one, not 1 in every 6 buses actually turning up. I believe that would have much more benefit then building one off routes. Make it reliable and people well start to actually use it. Eventually you might get to the level where you have the demand for 18/24m vehicles, but you need to sort the basics first IMO.

Sam Russell

A reliable 10 min frequency is on the limit of 'turn up' for users. that is no need for checking timetables or on-line arrival. However, it has to be reliable.

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123059440#Comment_123059440

Yes and I'm not sure any of the bus routes in Cork even reach that level. I though the 202 did as it feels like a decent route, but I just checked and apparently it is only every 15 minutes!

According to a 2023 NTA report, only 6 of the 25 bus routes in Cork City reached their minimum standards (and some of those routes are 20 minute routes). Things got even worse with driver shortages in 2024 and they had to introduce a reduced schedule!

I think talking about things like Trolleybus and BRT's is premature when we can't even staff and get the basic bus service running at a decent level in our second biggest City!

gjim

We have battery powered buses now, they do the exact same thing as trolleybuses

This is the only claim that I was responding to. My point was that the "battery powered buses" in Ireland, do not do the exact same thing as trolleybuses.