LOW←TECH MAGAZINE English

Thematic Book Series: How to Downsize a Transport Network?

Sat, 07 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0000

Image: Book cover. [How to downsize a transport network?](https://www.lulu.com/shop/kris-de-decker/how-to-downsize-a-transport-network/paperback/product-42n4p7.html?q=&page=1&pageSize=4), Kris De Decker, 166 pages, Low-tech Magazine, 2023.

Fast and cheap transportation props up industrial societies, both for the moving of people and cargo. However, our transport networks are very wasteful of energy and utterly dependent on fossil fuels. In this series of articles, Low-tech Magazine critically examines the call for electrified vehicles, which depend on unsustainable batteries and infrastructures.

Much more important than the chosen power source is vehicle design: size, weight, speed, acceleration, and comfort level. Furthermore, public transport is more resource efficient, and we could electrify it without batteries.

The book’s second part deals with long-distance transportation: planes, trains, sailing ships, and ocean liners. By placing transportation technology in a historical context, Low-tech Magazine challenges our high-tech approach to sustainability and highlights the possibilities of alternative solutions.

Contents table:

How to Downsize a Transport Network: the Chinese Wheelbarrow
The Citroën 2CV: Cleantech from the 1940s
The Status Quo of Electric Cars: Better Batteries, Same Range
Electric Velomobiles: as Fast and Comfortable as Automobiles, but 80 times more Efficient
Get Wired again: Trolleybuses and Trolleytrucks
High Speed Trains are Killing the European Railway Network
Life Without Airplanes: from London to New York in 3 Days and 12 Hours
How to Design a Sailing Ship for the 21st Century?

How to downsize a transport network?, Kris De Decker, 166 pages, Low-tech Magazine, 2023. Ebook edition.

Patrons get free access to ebooks, as well as early access to new print books at a reduced price.

Other thematic books in the series:

How to build a low-tech internet?, Kris De Decker, 162 pages, Low-tech Magazine, 2023. Ebook edition.

Heating people, not spaces, Kris De Decker, 142 pages, Low-tech Magazine, 2023. Ebook edition.

The Low-tech Magazine archives are also available as a chronological series consisting of four volumes.

Electric Velomobiles: as Fast and Comfortable as Automobiles, but 80 times more Efficient

Wed, 24 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0000

An electric velomobile. All pictures: [Fietser.be](https://sites.google.com/site/mobilitylabbe/Home)

Both the velomobile and the electric bicycle increase the limited range of the cyclist – the former optimises aerodynamics and ergonomics, while the latter assists muscle power with an electric motor fuelled by a battery.

The electric velomobile combines both approaches, and so maximises the range of the cyclist – so much so that it is able to replace most, if not all, automobile trips.

While electric velomobiles have a speed and range that is comparable to that of electric cars, they are up to 80 times more efficient. About a quarter of the existent wind turbines would suffice to power as many electric velomobiles as there are people.

Few people find the bicycle useful for distances longer than 5 km (3 miles). In the USA, for instance, 85 % of bicycle trips involve a trip of less than 5 km. Even in the Netherlands, the most bicycle-friendly country in the western world, 77 % of bike trips are less than 5 km. Only 1 % of Dutch bicycle trips are more than 15 km (9 miles). In contrast, the average car trip amounts to 15.5 km in the USA and 16.5 km in the Netherlands, with the average trip to work being 19.5 km in the USA and 22 km in the Netherlands. (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.)

It’s clear that the bicycle is not a viable alternative to the car. Depending on his or her fitness, a cyclist reaches cruising speeds of 10 to 25 km/h, which means that the average trip to work would take at least two to four hours, there and back. A strong headwind would make it even longer, and when the cyclist is in a hurry or has to climb hills, he or she would arrive all sweaty. When it rains, the cyclist arrives soaking wet, and when it’s cold hands and feet would freeze. Longer trips on a bicycle also affect the body: wrists, back, shoulders and crotch all suffer, especially when you choose a faster bike.

An electrically-assisted bicycle solves some of these problems, but not all. The electric motor can be used to reach a destination faster, or with less effort, but the cyclist remains unprotected from the weather. Longer trips would still cause discomfort. Moreover, the range of most electric bicycles (about 25 km or 15.5 miles) is just large enough for the average one-way trip to work, which means that it will not suffice for all commutes.

The Advantages of an Electric assist Velomobile

The velomobile—a recumbent tricycle with aerodynamic bodywork – offers a more interesting alternative to the bicycle for longer trips. The bodywork protects the driver (and luggage) from the weather, while the comfortable recumbent seat eases the strain on the body, making it possible to take longer trips without discomfort. Furthermore, a velomobile (even without electric assistance) is much faster than an electric bicycle.

At speeds below 10 km/h (6 mph), rolling resistance is the biggest challenge for a cyclist. Air resistance becomes increasingly influential at higher speeds, and becomes the dominant force at speeds above 25 km/h (15.5 mph). This is because rolling resistance increases in proportion to speed, while air drag increases with the square of speed. Because a velomobilist has much better aerodynamics than a bicyclist—the drag coefficient of a velomobilist is up to 30 times lower—he or she can attain higher speeds with the same effort.

If rigged with an electric auxiliary motor, the weak points of the velomobile—its slower acceleration and climbing speed—are eliminated

On the downside, a velomobile is heavier than a bicycle, which means that it takes more effort to accelerate and to climb hills. Acceleration is inversely proportional to the mass of a vehicle, so a velomobile uses roughly twice as much energy during acceleration than a bicycle, depending on the weight of the driver and vehicle.

If rigged with an electric auxiliary motor, the weak points of the velomobile—its slower acceleration and climbing speed—are eliminated. At the same time, a motor accentuates its advantages by further improving on the range of a cyclist. Last but not least, a battery will give a much better range in the velomobile, due to its better aerodynamics.

Test Driving a Ferrari

In August, I test drove an electrical velomobile—the eWAW, a vehicle that is sold by Fietser.be—in and around Ghent, Belgium. Brecht Vandeputte, the driving force behind the Belgian manufacturer, accompanied me in an unassisted WAW during a one and a half hour trip through the city and along the tow path of the river Schelde.

The WAW velomobile (without electrical assistance) was originally developed for winning human-powered vehicle races. It was adapted for daily use with the addition of, among other things, a leakproof rear tyre, open wheel arches (which make the vehicle more agile), an adjustable seat, and a more durable body—which consists of a carbon roll bar and safety cage surrounded by aramid crumple zones. The WAW is known worldwide, at least among velomobilists, as one of the fastest velomobiles available on the market—some call it the Ferrari of the velomobiles.

The WAW stands out because of its weight (it is 28 kg, as opposed to 34 kg, the weight of the most popular velomobiles, the Dutch Quest and Alleweder) and its low centre of gravity (it has a ground clearance of only 9 cm and a height of just 90 cm). Along with a wide wheelbase, a hard suspension, and precise steering (it uses two gear sticks instead of one), this results in high speeds and excellent handling, even on sharp corners. Of course, the WAW also has the drawbacks you can expect from a real sports car, like the very basic interior finish and the fact that the vehicle rattles like a box of rocks when you ride it over a cobblestone road. If road conditions are bad, other velomobiles with more comfortable suspension will be a better choice.

With 250 watts of power, the electric motor of the eWAW gives a person with an average fitness level the power output of an athlete

The eWAW that I drove has everything that the WAW has, plus an electric motor of 250 watts and a surprisingly small battery of 288 Wh, which takes you 60 to 130 km further (37 to 81 miles). The battery and the motor add only 5 kg, bringing the total weight of the vehicle to 33 kg. This is comparable to the weight of other velomobiles without electric assistance. Hence, this pedal powered Ferrari is more than 10 kg lighter than other velomobiles, with a 250 watt electric assistance, such as the hybrid Alleweder and the e-Sunrider, which weigh 45 kg.

Cycling at 50 km/h

So how fast is the WAW, and how much faster is the eWAW? First of all, the eWAW is a hybrid vehicle, but the biomass powered motor, also known as the driver, is not included in the package. Because the driver always provides the main part of the total power output, the speed of the vehicle will depend on the power that he or she can deliver. There is no better illustration of this than my test drive. Over a period of about an hour and a half, Brecht and I managed to reach an average speed of 40 km/h (25 mph)—I was in the eWAW and had the regular assistance of the electric motor, Brecht was in a WAW without pedal assistance.

Cycling literature makes a distinction between three types of cyclists: people with an average fitness level, people with a good fitness level, and top athletes. Riders with an average fitness can maintain a power output of 100 to 150 watts over a period of one hour. Riding a WAW, this translates to speeds of 35 to 40 km/h in ideal conditions—an unobstructed racetrack, and a completely closed vehicle. Drivers with a good fitness level can deliver 200 watts of power over a period of one hour, which translates to speeds of 45 to 50 km/h under the same circumstances.

With 250 watts of power, the electric motor of the eWAW gives a person with an average fitness level (like me) the power output of an athlete (100 + 250 watts = 350 watts).

Maximizing Range and Efficiency

I am a speed freak, so when I found myself on a nice, open stretch of road, the first thing I did was start the motor at full throttle and pedal like a madman at the same time. If I could have more than 350 watts at my disposal, I calculated, I must be able to reach speeds of at least 70 or 80 km/h (40 to 50 mph). However, my attempt to go any faster than 50 km/h (30 mph) left me frustrated—the vehicle lacks the high gears needed for those speeds.

Why? Because the eWAW is designed for maximum efficiency. The electric motor is intended to be used for acceleration only (and for climbing hills). Once the velomobilist reaches a cruising speed of about 40 to 50 km/h, he or she switches to pedalling alone.

The engineer’s choice to assist the driver only during acceleration is smart; it increases the range of both the cyclist and the battery spectacularly

The eWAW does not increase the cruising speed or top speed of the unassisted WAW, although it does increase the average speed because it speeds acceleration. This is a different approach from the electric bicycle, where pedal assistance is continuous at normal cruising speeds. With regards to efficiency, the concept behind the eWAW makes much sense.

A bicyclist needs less energy to accelerate than a velomobilist does (because of the bike’s lighter weight) but more energy to keep up speed (because of its weak aerodynamics). In contrast, a velomobilist needs more energy to accelerate than a bicyclist does (because of the vehicle’s heavier weight) but less energy to keep up speed (because of its excellent aerodynamics).

Because it takes more energy to accelerate in an eWAW than to drive it at a constant speed, the engineer’s choice to assist the driver only during acceleration is smart; it increases the range of both the cyclist and the battery. The electric motor supports the driver during peak efforts, so that his or her endurance will increase spectacularly. (Peak efforts have a detrimental effect on endurance, while pedalling at a steady pace can be done for hours.) Meanwhile, the driver offers the same service to the battery. Because the electric motor is shut off at cruising speed, the battery range increases considerably.

This said, the driver of the eWAW can choose to use the motor at cruising speed, because it can be operated at his or her will by means of a throttle. This is how I drove the vehicle. As a consequence, the battery lasted ’only’ 60 km (37 miles), but at least I could keep up with Brecht.

80 times More Efficient than Electric Cars

Mounting an electric engine in a velomobile is controversial among velomobilists, just as an electric bicycle is skewed by many biking aficionados. However, when we compare the eWAW with the electric car, still viewed by many as the future of sustainable transportation, it’s a clear winner. In fact, the electric velomobile is everything what the electric car wants to be, but isn’t: a sustainable alternative to the automobile with combustion engine. It is nearly impossible to design a personal, motorised and practical vehicle that is more efficient than the eWAW.

If all 300 million Americans replace their car with an electric velomobile, they need only 25 % of the electricity produced by existing American wind turbines

A simple calculation can illustrate this claim. Imagine that all 300 million Americans replace their car with an electric velomobile and all drive to work on the same day. To charge the 288 Wh battery of each of these 300 million eWAW’s, we need 86,4 GWh of electricity. This is only 25 % of the electricity produced by existing American wind turbines (on average per day during the period July 2011 to June 2012, source). In other words, we could make a switch to private vehicles operating on 100 % renewable energy, using existent energy plants.

Photo credit: [Bill Bates](http://www.flickr.com/wmbates/sets)

Now imagine that all 300 million Americans replaced their cars with an electric version like the Nissan Leaf, and all drive to work on the same day. To charge the 24 kW battery of each of those 300 million vehicles, we need 7,200 Gwh of electricity. This is 20 times more than what American wind turbines produce today, and 80 times more than what electric velomobiles need. In short: scenario one is realistic, scenario two is not.

Even if we all started carpooling, and every electric automobile could carry five people, there remains a large gap in efficiency. Charging 60 million electric cars would still require 16.6 times more electricity than charging 300 million eWAW’s. The electric velomobile also makes it fairly easy for a driver to charge his or her own vehicle. A solar panel of about 60 watts (with a surface area of less than one square metre) produces enough energy to charge the battery, even on a dark winter day.

In Europe, it would take an even smaller share of the existent wind turbines to charge every European’s eWAW. For the sake of thoroughness, it should be mentioned that the bio-motor also requires energy: the driver needs to eat, and this food needs to be produced. But since western people eat too much, and then drive their cars to the gym in order to lose excess fat, this factor can be safely ignored.

Range Anxiety

The large difference in energy efficiency between electric velomobiles and electric cars is remarkable, because both have a similar range. As mentioned, the eWAW takes you a distance of 60 to 130 km, depending on how intensively you use the motor. The Nissan Leaf takes you at best 160 km, when you drive slowly and steadily, and when you don’t make use of the air-conditioning, heating or electronic gadgets on board.

Adding only 6 kg of batteries increases the range of the electric velomobile to 450 km

A heating system is not required in a velomobile, not even in winter, because hands and feet are protected from the wind by the bodywork, and because the driver is active (body activity is the most important factor in maintaining thermal comfort). The need for cooling in summer, on the other hand, will decrease the range—the driver will rely more on the electric motor in order to cool down.

Interestingly, it is easier to increase the range of the electric velomobile than of the electric car, if necessary. The eWAW can be equipped with one or two extra batteries, which increases the range up to 180 km (112 miles, with continuous assistance of the motor) or 450 km (280 miles, when the motor is only used to assist acceleration). Adding two batteries to the eWAW increases the weight of the vehicle by only 6 kg, and still leaves ample space for luggage. If we suppose that the rider weighs 70 kg, then adding two batteries increases the total weight of the eWAW from 103 to 109 kg—a weight gain of 6 %. If we apply the same trick to the Nissan Leaf (where three times as many batteries take the place of the rear seat and the trunk), total weight increases from 1,582 kg (the driver of 70 kg included) to 2,022 kg—a weight gain of 30 %.

Another way to increase the range of an electric vehicle is swapping batteries or fast-charging them. These options are available for both electric cars and velomobiles, but developing a charging infrastructure for electric cars is a daunting task, while doing so for electric velomobiles is easy. The battery of the eWAW not only needs 80 times less energy than the battery of a Nissan Leaf (which makes fast-charging a real option), it also weighs 73 times less (which makes swapping batteries a very low-tech operation). While we do have faster vehicles for long distances that are equally sustainable (like trains and trolleybusses, the velomobile offers an alternative for those who prefer a personal means of transportation, or for those who prefer an active lifestyle.

The capacity of our roads would at least quadruple if we switched from cars to velomobiles

When the battery of an electric velomobile drains, the velomobilist can still pedal home—at speeds above those of a bicycle. The driver of the electric car can’t do that, because his contraption is too heavy. One Nissan Leaf weighs as much as 46 eWAW’s. Most of the energy used by an electric car (and by a car with combustion engine), is used to move the vehicle itself, not the driver—the Nissan Leaf is 21 times heavier than its driver. In the case of the eWAW, this relation is reversed: the driver weighs two to three times more than the vehicle.

Fast and Smooth Traffic

The eWAW makes cycling a fast and comfortable option for longer distances. At a cruising speed of 50 km/h (31 mph), the average commute in the USA (19.5 km or 12 miles) would take 23.4 minutes. This compares very favourably with the car, for which the average commute time is 22.8 minutes (source). In the Netherlands, where road traffic is heavy, the electric velomobile is potentially faster than a car. The velomobile could cover the average commute of 22 km (13.7 miles) in 26.4 minutes, while it takes 28 minutes by car (source).

Of course, a cruising speed of 50 km/h does not mean that a velomobilist can reach an average speed of 50 km/h during the whole trip. If cars could maintain their maximum cruising speed during the commute, they would be much faster than velomobiles. In reality, however, they can’t do that because of speed limits, traffic lights and traffic jams.

Velomobiles could suffer similar delays, but there is an important difference: because a velomobile occupies much less space than a car (one car needs as much space as four velomobiles), free-flowing traffic is a much more realistic option for velomobiles. The capacity of our roads would at least quadruple if we switched from cars to velomobiles. Furthermore, the cruising speed of a velomobile does not exceed most speed limits.

Pimp up your Velomobile

Over and above this, it is easy to equip a velomobile with a more powerful motor and higher gears, allowing for much higher cruising speeds. It would lose efficiency and range, but, since an eWAW is 80 times more efficient than an electric car, there is quite a bit of room for pimping up a velomobile. We’ll discuss these possibilities, as well as the legal obstacles for electric velomobiles, in the second part of this article.

Continue Reading: 1 / 2.

Get Wired (Again): Trolleybuses and Trolleytrucks

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0000

Image: A trolleybus in Lyon, France. Image by Florian Fèvre (CC BY-SA 4.0).

A large-scale introduction of electric cars faces many technological hurdles and promises to be time-consuming and expensive. Greening public transportation and cargo traffic, on the other hand, could be done fast with existing technology for a reasonable price - if we opt for the trolleybus and the trolleytruck.

Cargo traffic and public transport could be electrified in just a few years time.

A trolleybus (or “trackless trolley”) can be defined in two ways; as an electric bus that gets its power from overhead cables, or as a tram (or “street car”) that drives on rubber tyres. Whichever way you look at it, this combination of bus and tram is the most ecological (motorised) means of transport that exists in the world today.

Just like all other electrically powered vehicles (cars, trains, trams) a trolleybus does not produce exhaust fumes, is more efficient than vehicles with a combustion engine, and can drive on renewable energy. The trolleybus, however, has interesting advantages over other electric vehicles.

Cheap, fast, durable

A trolleybus does not need a battery. In this way, it bypasses the weak point of electric cars. Batteries limit the mileage of electric cars, which means that the vehicles require an elaborate infrastructure for fast-charging or swapping batteries. Batteries also make electric vehicles heavy and thus less energy efficient than when hooked up to an overhead line - a battery makes up at least one third of the weight of an electric car.

A trolleybus also has advantages compared to other means of electric public transport. Contrary to a train or a tram, a trolleybus does not need a rail infrastructure. This not only results in huge cost and time savings, it also saves a large amount of energy for building the infrastructure (see for instance this paper: “Environmental assessment of passenger transportation should include infrastructure and supply chains”, pdf). Installing a trolleybus service is of course more expensive than installing a normal bus line, but that extra cost can be recovered because of lower fuel and maintenance costs.

Image: A trolleybus in Minsk. Credit: Redline, Wikimedia Commons. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Furthermore, a trolleybus has better braking power than a tram and it is better at climbing hills, since rubber tyres have more grip than steel wheels on steel rails. Trolleybuses are also compatible with bicycles because cyclists cannot get stuck in the tracks. They are more manoeuvrable than trams - a badly parked car will not stop them, because they can diverge from their track for a couple of metres.

Political advantage

Being public transport, trolleybuses of course have the same advantages as trams; they use much less energy and space per passenger than cars. The trolleybus is not only cheap and ecologically sound, it is also fast to implement. There is no need to break up the road, no need to install a charging infrastructure; just attach overhead lines and off you go. This is a political advantage. The announcement and implementation of a system can happen in the same term of service. Because trolleybuses are cheaper than trams, they can also be used on trajectories where a tram would not find sufficient passengers to be cost-effective.

History and evolution

The first trolleybus got hooked up in 1882; the Elektromote, built by Ernst Werner von Siemens. However, it took almost 20 more years before the first commercial line was installed - in Bielatal, close to Dresden in Germany. During the first half of the twentieth century, and especially since the 1930s, the trolleybus was a success story. Around 1950, there were some 900 trolleybus systems operating worldwide. A large share of these was done away with in the 1960s and 1970s, mostly to the advantage of private cars and diesel buses.

Still, in many cities, the trolleybus never disappeared. Today 359 cities worldwide still operate trolleybus lines, the number of buses is estimated at 40,000. Most trolley services are located in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries - probably another reason for their lousy image. The 1,300 kilometre network in Moscow is the largest in the world - it has 1,500 buses and 100 lines.

Image: The first trolleybus, 1882. Image in the public domain.

Image: A trolleybus in England, 1966. Image: Alan Murray-Rust (CC BY-SA 2.0).

Minsk, the capital of Belarus, has the second largest network in the world with 1,050 buses and 68 lines. Saint Petersburg has the fourth largest network in the world with 735 buses spread across 41 lines (following Beijing, China, in third place). Ukraine has trolleybuses in more than 25 cities and it boasts the longest trolley line in the world: 85 kilometres from Yalta to Simferopol. The three largest networks in the European Union are Athens, Riga and Bucharest. Belgrade, Bratislava, Budapest, Kiev and Sofia are other former Eastern Bloc cities with large trolleybus networks.

Outside Europe

Switzerland has trolleybuses in 13 cities. Dozens of other cities in Europe have smaller networks. Outside Europe there are trolleybus systems in the US (Boston, Cambridge, Philadelphia, Dayton, San Francisco, Seattle), Canada (Vancouver, Edmonton), Central-America (Mexico City, the largest network in the Americas), Latin-America (Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Chile) and Asia (China, North-Korea). (sources: 1 / 2 / 3).

Obviously, the technology works, because otherwise it would not have been in service for such a long time in so many places. This cannot be said of electric cars, which all but disappeared in the 1920s.

Inferior technology?

Compared to diesel buses, trolleybuses do have a couple of disadvantages. A trolleybus is more manoeuvrable than a tram, but less so than a diesel bus. If the road is being repaired or rebuilt in a street where trolleybuses pass, chances are that the line has to be discontinued temporarily. A diesel bus can easily be re-routed. Similar to trams, trolleybuses also cannot overtake each other.

The most important drawback of trolley systems is the need for overhead cables. They are generally regarded as ugly and meet protest. Especially at crossroads the cable network can be dense and hard to ignore. Similar to trams, the “tracks” of trolleybuses have points, but the whole mechanism of these hangs in the air. We adore wireless technology and that is probably the reason why trolleybuses are regarded as a ridiculous and inferior technology, a relic from the past.

Image: Trolleybuses in Luzern, Switzerland. Image by Re 460 (CC BY-SA 3.0).

Image: A trolleybus in Milano, Italy.

Hybrid trolleybuses provide an answer to most of these disadvantages. By equipping trolleybuses with a battery or an auxiliary diesel motor, the bus can also cover a part of the route without depending on the overhead cables. Most trolleybuses built since 1990 are equipped with at least a small battery or diesel motor for some limited manoeuvring. This can save the installation of overhead cables, especially at turning points and in sheds, where normally a complicated infrastructure is needed to manoeuvre the buses. It can also help to get round road works.

On some lines (like in Boston and Philadelphia) hybrid trolley services exist. The bus then covers part of the route on electricity delivered by the overhead cables, while another part is covered by means of a (larger) battery or a diesel engine. In this way some drawbacks of batteries and diesel engines are introduced, but these disadvantages are limited when compared to electric cars or diesel buses. Hybrid buses might be a way to spare some parts of a city of overhead lines.

New trolleybus lines

Although some cities have recently decided to stop their (modest) trolley services (Ghent in Belgium, Innsbruck in Austria, Marseille in France and Edmonton in Canada), there are many more cities that have recently expanded or modernised their network, re-introduced trolleybuses, or introduced them for the first time.

In France, the trolley lines in Limoges, Saint-Étienne and Lyon (the largest network in France) have recently been expanded and renewed. One line in Nancy (abolished in 1998) will be restored in 2010. In Athens the full fleet of 350 vehicles has been renewed. In Italy trolleybuses have been re-introduced in Rome in 2005 (only one line) and new systems are coming in Lecce, Avellino en Pescara. The system in Bari will be re-opened. A dozen other Italian cities have never abolished their trolley services and do not have any intention of doing so.

Image: A trolleybus in Lyon.

Image: A trolleybus in Minsk. Image by Romancieslik (CC BY-SA 3.0).

Castellón de la Plana, a city in Spain, re-introduced trolleybuses in 2007, the service was expanded in 2008. In Salzburg (the largest network in Austria with 80 buses and 7 routes) the service was recently expanded. A new system is planned in Leeds in the United Kingdom, which would be the first re-introduction of trolleybuses in the UK in 30 years. Vancouver in Canada renewed its buses in 2007 and 2008, Wellington in New Zealand did the same. Even Ethiopia announced a trolleybus system in 2008.

El Trole

The most spectacular progress is made in South-America. This has everything to do with “El Trole”, the trolleybus network in Quito (below), the capital of Ecuador with 1.6 million inhabitants. The already impressive network, built in 1995, was expanded in 2000 and 2008. On a part of the main line (with a length of 19 kilometres) the trolleybuses make use of exclusive lanes, completely separated from other traffic.

During peak hours, there is a bus every 50 to 90 seconds (because of the high frequency, there are no schedules). El Trole transports 262,000 passengers each day. Five other trolleybus lines connect to it, as well as several other bus lines (including Ecovía, a line similar to El Trole but using diesel buses). The average distance between stops is 400 metres.

Image: A trolleybus stops at a station in Quito, Ecuador. Credit: waldopics, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 2.0.

The system in Quito is being copied in Mérida (Venezuela), the first part of that line opened in 2007 (picture below). Other cities in Latin America study the possibility of installing a similar infrastructure, and the Quito system was also the inspiration for the proposals in England and Scotland (second and third picture below).

By choosing the cheaper trolleybus over tram or metro, Quito could develop a much larger network in a shorter time. The capital investment of the 19 kilometre line was less than 60 million dollar - hardly sufficient to build 4 kilometres of tram line (source), or about 1 kilometre of metro line (source). Lower investment costs also mean lower ticket fares, and thus more passengers.

Furthermore, the system is well devised (pdf). There is only one ticket fare, payment happens in the station, not on the bus. Stops are comfortable and built to get fast in and out of the bus, there are very good connections with other lines (sometimes via the same stop), and thanks to the exclusive lanes and (at some crossroads) automatically controlled traffic lights the system is extremely reliable. In Quito, the bus always arrives on time.

Image: A Mérida trolleybus in its exclusive lane. Credit: Joanlink, CC BY 3.0.

Unfortunately, El Trole has become a victim of its own success. The Ecuadorian government now plans to convert (the larger part of) the main line to a much more expensive light rail line (TRAQ, pdf, in Spanish), arguing that the network is saturated. A protest group consisting of citizens and traffic engineers ("Quito para todos") opposes the 500 - 750 million dollar plan and demands that the money is used to extend of the trolleyline instead:

“The same investment required to build the 20 to 30 km of light rail would build 250 km of exclusive lanes for trolleybuses including vehicles, stations and terminals. Quito’s system of rapid urban mass transport would be complete, providing efficient service, with money left over for construction of bikeways throughout the city, for recovery and integration of public spaces, widening of sidewalks, planting trees and providing urban furniture, building walkways between bus stops and passenger destinations, and other projects to complement the system, in such a way to be able to have a city with an optimal public transport service, placing us in the lead among cities with the best public transport in the world.”

Whatever the outcome in Quito will be, the many advantages of a trolleybus line should not lead to the conclusion that light rail systems are evil or unnecessary. When passenger capacity grows, it can make sense to convert the busiest trolleylines to light rail systems. The income of a popular trolleyline might serve to finance the succeeding rail network. Another compromise: rail-guided trolleys. These vehicles have rubber tyres but are guided by one rail in the middle, which makes it possible to use longer vehicles.

Trolleytrucks

Trolley systems can also be used for the transport of goods. “Trolleytrucks” are a lesser known technology but have an equally long history. Initially, they were as popular as trolleybuses, transporting goods between factories and train stations. Especially the German engineer Max Schiemann put together some remarkable examples in the beginning of the 20th century.

There are more elegant options than trolleytrucks, like underground freight networks. Cost, however, is a serious obstacle.

The technology never really took off, though. Trolleytrucks are still sporadically used in Russia and Ukraine (pictures), and in the mining industry (below, more pictures). However, in the latter case, the electric engine does not replace the diesel engine, but merely assists it.

Image: A trolleytruck in the mining industry.

Another historical example is the “Valtellina Dam Project” in Italy (below). These two lines with a total length of 80 kilometres were built in 1936 and remained in service until 1962. Twenty trolleytrucks transported concrete, sand and other construction materials to build two large dams.

Image: The Valentina trolley system (1938-1962). A total of twenty trolley trucks were used to carry concrete, sand and equipment for the construction of two dams in northern Italy.

Image: A small trolleytruck in Barcelona, 1956. Image: Dewi Williams.

Today there are no cities that plan a trolleytruck system, but the German city of Dresden does have a Cargo Tram (see below, it is also being tested in Amsterdam).

Image: A cargo tram.

Trolleytrucks and trolleybuses are also put forward as a solution in the 2008 book “Transport Revolutions: moving people and freight without oil”. Authors Richard Gilbert and Anthony Perl propose a plan that would include 500 billion tonne-kilometres of cargo moved by “trolleylorry” in the US by 2025. Trolleytrucks would replace trucks, and complement cargo trains.

High-tech alternatives to trolley systems

There are more elegant options than trolleytrucks, with the same advantages, like the underground freight networks we discussed before. Cost, however, is a serious obstacle. Another alternative for both trolleybuses and trolleytrucks are (wireless) electric buses and trucks, but they too will always be much more expensive, and also less efficient than trolleys - then we are talking about batteries again.

If a bus or truck has a mileage of 100 kilometres, and you have to drive 120 kilometres, you are in trouble. This problem can be solved in two ways. You can put more batteries in your vehicle, but then you increase the cost and the weight and you lower the cargo or passenger space. Or you can set up fast-charging stations or battery swapping stations along the way, but then you increase the costs even more. It gets worse when you start thinking of wirelessly charged buses and trucks. This is a technology that no doubt appeals to more people than trolleybuses do, but it will always be less efficient and more expensive.

All too often we are blind for the costs of high-tech. If we cannot afford a technology, it is of not much use. Low-tech options that have been proven to work can deliver much better results for a bargain. The technology to completely electrify land based transportation has been available for over a hundred years. If we want to, we can do the switchover in just a few years time. Let’s start with public transport and cargo traffic, and then let’s see what to do with cars - if we still need them.

Trolleycars, even though theoretically possible, are not a practical option.