London Banter - View Single Post

g.harman · July 20th 04, 01:03 AM posted to uk.transport.london

On 19 Jul 2004 15:06:17 -0700, (Boltar) wrote:

I never understood the point of trolleybuses. If you're going to have fixed
electric infrastructure why not have a tram and get the extra people carrying
capacity and greater efficiency. Whats the point of a bus if its physically
limited to fixed routes?

Things can change an evolve.

In the UK Trolleybuses were generally tram replacements.

The replacement was by and large started in the 1930's when most tram
systems needed replacement track and vehicles. The electrical
distribution network was often still serviceable.
Some towns needed to expand route to new housing in suburbs and the
cost of laying track was to expensive. Overhead alone even though more
wiring was needed was easier to install.

At the time councils who ran most systems still also owned or
controlled the towns power stations and it made sense to use
themselves as a main customer and provide a base load.
Domestic customers used far less than now and a lot of heavy industry
still generated its own power with steam plant from coal boilers,often
with mechanical means rather than electric motors.

Diesel engines and gear boxes had not been evolved enough to power
busses the equal of trams and Trolleybuses .

Nationlisation of the power industry took the power stations away from
the councils so they had to buy in power.

After WW2 Motor buses had developed enough to cope and was even
easier to adapt to new routes and suburbs.

Hence the Trolleybus in the UK died.
Abroad it has survived in some places due to certain conditions
E.G San Francisco. There the Authority has access to cheap Hydro
Generated power and has routes which have hills which can still test
the transmission of a modern motor bus.

G.Harman