Talk:Trolleybus

Trolleybuses throughout the world

Background - focused on US development only. What about Switzerland, USSR, Czech Republic, France etc.?

Furthermore, shouldn't the Trolleybuses in Russia be moved to a separate article?

Why? Are they different in some way other than location? - Leonard G. 04:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree—why should that section be in another article? — Lumbercutter 02:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Switching from one set of wires to another

Can someone put an explanation in of how trolley buses switch from one set of wires to another (i.e. when one set of wires forks into two parallel sets, what mechanism allows the bus to choose which set to go on)? 154.5.41.227 22:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Z

I've tried to explain this, but some copyedits may be needed - English is not my native languadge. LostArtilleryman 04:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a photo of the switch and corrected a couple of typos. Some copyediting may still be needed. Cmapm 18:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I was helped by this article: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/t2000bc/learning/etb/electric_vehicles.html, but paraphrased it for the final result. Take a look, and see what you think. Note that "Common" as used here is something of a weasel word, but the source quoted uses it too. Catch: I am not clear as to which cities have switched from older switch types (power-on/power-off and Selectric) to the Fahslabend type, though I believe that Vancouver (BC, Canada) has not done so, and Seattle (WA, US) has done it. More information is needed about this. Dmacgr 22 (talk) 07:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added a request for someone (with better access to documentation) to come up with an article for the Fahslabend (trolleybus) switch. Dmacgr 22 (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Gallery needed

Too many bus images that do not add info- most should go into a gallery - Leonard G. 04:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried to implement this and moved low-res and not too informative images into a gallery. Cmapm 18:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Tourist trolleybus

In the US there is an unfortunate number of buses built to look like trolleys and they are often called trolleybuses. perhaps this should be noted.

I added Tourist trolley to 'see also.' n2xjk 22:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Should "at [the] Frese machinebuilding factory" translate as "at a milling machine factory"?

"The first trolley vehicle in Russia was built in Saint Petersburg in 1902 at Frese machinebuilding factory." I don't speak Russian, but I was intrigued by the "Frese" syllable, which besides being a surname or placename, I thought might possibly be related to the /frez/-/fres/ syllable seen in other European translations for "milling machine" (for example, de:Fräsmaschine; es:Fresadora; eo:Frezmaŝino; fr:Fraiseuse; no:Fres; pl:Frezarka; nl:Frezen). I see that the Russian word for milling machine starts with Фрезерная; so I wonder if the sentence should read "The first trolley vehicle in Russia was built in Saint Petersburg in 1902 at a milling machine factory." Can anyone help out with that? I am just curious. — Lumbercutter 02:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Frese was surname of factory's owner. KonstKaras (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

... and is the Russian counterpart of the surname "Miller" encountered in English speaking countries. 109.156.49.202 (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Future of Trolleybus

I want to set up a discussion regarding the future of the Trolleybus. From my point of view, Trolleybuses are a very interesting alternative/complement to street cars and diesel buses. I work with civil engineering infrastructure. So, please give me som input on this topic! 217.151.205.38 (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC) (I'm a swedish member and you can find me as the user "perranch" in the swedish version.)

I firmly believe that trolleybuses will be the wave of the future, especially in light of the Peak oil issue. Unfortunately, local jurisdictions in most English-speaking countries, especially in Anglophone North America [i.e. Canada and the U.S.], resist introducing any form of service that requires overhead wires or reduces dependence on diesel or other fuel. The obstinacy involved can occasionally be described as truly awesome. Dmacgr 22 (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Ernst Werner von Siemens ?

In this edit [1] on 16 March 2006 User 86.16.77.167 mentioned a "Dr. Ernst Werner von Siemens ran his Elektromote..." Does anyone know how a school dropout came to be styled with a title of "Dr."? Did he have a doctoral degree from anywhere? I realize that he was a member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences, but I have not found anything that indicates membership in that organization required a doctoral degree of any sort (earned or honorary as in Dr. hc Werner von Siemens). I propose removing the "Dr." from that sentence unless someone can come up with a reliable external reference that implies the title is appropriate (and if someone can then Siemen's own article should be updated too I suspect). According to the Siemens AG history page here Werner Siemens was allowed to go by Werner von Siemens after enoblement in 1888, but such enoblement does not necessarily imply a license to use a title like "Dr.". 67.86.73.252 (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Greener?

Like other electric vehicles, trolleybuses are more environmentally friendly than fossil-fuel or hydrocarbon-based vehicles (gasoline, diesel, alcohol, etc.). However the power is not free, having to be produced at centralised power plants, with attendant transmission losses.

Since the majority of electric power is still produced by burning fossil fuel (with a loss of energy to the process of production as well as to transmission losses), surely that makes electric vehicles such as the trolleybus less environmentally friendly, not more.

18:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)pmp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.250.223.1 (talk)

That's right, but power plants are often distant from areas where trolleybuses are used, so they have a local (but maybe not global) positive environmental effect. KonstKaras (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Also pollution control can be more efficientl at power plants than on individual vehicles. Sv1xv (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Bartleby62 (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC) I question the relevance of the statement "Moreover, some cities, like Calgary, Alberta, run their light rail networks using wind energy" (the statement is true, but Calgary, to my knowledge, has no trolley buses, just conventional diesel buses and LRT).

Common trolleybus and tram platform

There are common platforms for trolleybuses and tramways, so they can use the same aerial wires. Only changes the cables from the aerial wires to the vehicle board.--Nopetro (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know any close relative tram and trolleybus models except for MTB-82/MTV-82. Trams have other wheel mechanics and mostly are larger. KonstKaras (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

De-wiring

If they are steered like normal buses, how do they avoid coming off the wires ?????

Trolleybus shoe is U-shaped, so the wire is held inside it KonstKaras (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I was told by a driver on the Cambridge Mass. (USA) system that the offset can be as much as 14 feet (4 1/4 meters). I'm almost certain that the collector shoes are pivoted so that they stay aligned to the wires when the poles are offset. Regards, Nikevich (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that the collector shoes are indeed pivoted independently to keep them aligned with the wires, though the poles may be at a sharp angle. However, I have not seen any pictures on the Web showing this. This can be a problem when de-wiring occurs, as the shoes have to be lined up again with the wires (often by tapping them against the wires) before they can be put back on the wires. The "offset" that Nikevitch refers to is almost certainly a reflection of the length of the trolley poles (i.e. how far they can reach from the vehicle). Dmacgr 22 (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Boston, MA

I fixed the caption to the Cambridge trolley bus picture. Harvard is in Cambridge. Also the Silver Line isn't a trolley bus, it's BRT. They are regular buses painted silver. The line itself is pointless, they could have easily made it a new bus route. The buses are however Hybrids, that only run on electricity in tunnels. --96.237.72.72 (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC) (More) copy edits -- Nikevich (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It is very common for national and international transit publications to refer to what you call the "Cambridge" system as being in "Boston", and that is not incorrect, because "Boston" is short for the Boston metropolitan area in such references (not just the city of Boston proper), and that is widely understood, especially considering that a single transit agency (MBTA) provides nearly all surface transit in the Boston area. Also, regarding the Silver Line, dual-mode buses running under overhead trolley wires are running as trolleybuses when doing so, so the Silver Line Waterfront can be considered a partially trolleybus line. SJ Morg (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Silence

Some years ago, when I boarded a Cambridge trolley bus at the Watertown Square terminal, the weather was cold, and the windows were closed. There were no noise-making auxiliaries running, so the enclosure blocked outside noise, and the interior was remarkably quiet. There were not many passengers, and none was talking nor did they have radios or music players. This was before the MBTA bought new buses. However, the reduction gears were probably worn, and there was plainly-audible gear noise when the bus accelerated. Regards, Nikevich (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

According to some items I have seen, the British referred to trolleybuses as the "Silent Service" when they were introduced there on a large scale in the 1930s. Dmacgr 22 (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Legislation

Legislative conception of trolleybuses should be described in a separate section. In some countries, trolleybuses are conceived as a type of buses and fall fully under the identical legislation. In other countries, trolleybuses are conceived in similar way as a rolling stock and trolleybus transport fall under the rail transport (Bahn) legislation as well as aerial cableways. For example, in the Czech Republic trolleybuses haven't state licence plates, even if they have a hybrid propulsion and are able to ride without the overhead line. If a trolleybus stop have a luminous sign, it's electric equipment is subject to very stricter regulations and revisals than a stop of other buses, though it is utterly identical. --ŠJů (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Belgian trolley buses

The article claims: "No trolleybus systems remain in operation in Belgium ... The last system, that of Ghent, which ceased operation in June 2009, ..."

Now there is something wrong here because in Ghent, brand new trolley bus wires have ben erected over many parts of the city. This was in the Summer of 2009, so I assume that there are now trolley busses runing under them as I doubt very much that they were erected for artistic value. 109.156.49.202 (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The closure of the Gent/Ghent trolleybus system has been widely reported by many transit magazines, and the system was well-known to have been the last in Belgium. Much of the wiring has been temporarily left in place and usable, and was still in place in mid-2011, for use by Belgium-based Van Hool in testing new trolleybuses, a fact recorded in Trolleybus Magazine (issue 295, Jan. 2011; issue 299, Sep. 2011, and others), among other publications, but public transit service with trolleybuses ended in June 2009, and the fleet of trolleybuses was sold (except for one or two preserved by the local transit operator for historic reasons). You added the tag "dubious" to the article, but I've removed it. What proof can you provide of your claim that "brand new trolley bus wires have been erected [in 2009] over many parts of the city"? I think it is your claim that is dubious, not the article's text, because of what I just wrote above, and because no magazines have reported anything like what you claim (new wires in 2009). These details do not merit inclusion in the Trolleybus article. If there were an article about Trolleybuses in Ghent or Trolleybuses in Belgium, it would make sense to include them there, but not in the general trolleybus article, which is already too long. SJ Morg (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a photograph taken in Sint-Michielshelling in February 2009. The photograph clearly shows brand new trolley bus wires (the wires are clearly brand new because they are shinny copper and not at all weathered - copper rapidly turns green when exposed to the elements). They are obviously trolley bus wires, because there are two of them next to each other and there are no rails underneath them. That there were no trolley bus services advertised as running on that route at the time of the photograph rather suggests an intent to run them in the future. 109.156.49.202 (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Video Files

Why does Wikipedia insist on using a completely non standard video file format (the .ogg format). Nothing plays them. Attempting to find a player on the internet only turns up registry cleaners and registry checkers. Even the Microsoft 'recommended utility' is a registry cleaner in disguise. 109.156.49.202 (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

VLC and a number of players play them. They are a standard format that is becoming increasingly so. For instance many video game systems now use ogg/vorbis format. 124.170.6.98 (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

File:CJWG110K3.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:CJWG110K3.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Moved from Use and preservation section of article space:

(August 2012) This entire section, Use and Preservation, has been submitted verbatim as a separate article, Trolleybus demography for review by Wikipedia. Should it be accepted as a separate article, the same text, below, will be removed from this article, Trolleybus. 20:02, 19 August 2012‎ User:Ajaynejr (talk | contribs)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This split was carried out on 21 August 2012 (by an editor at Wikipedia:Articles for creation), and that content is now located at Trolleybus demography, although I don't believe that's a good title, and the article may be renamed soon. (It was soon renamed Trolleybus usage by country.) It should be noted here that the reason this splitting of the article was proposed was that the Trolleybus article had become too long, under Wikipedia guidelines for article length, at about 90 kB. I replaced the text that had been under "Use and preservation" with a brief overview pointing to the new article. SJ Morg (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"Trolleybus" vs "Trolley bus" (And downhill from there....)

Looking over the references, I get the strong impression that "trolleybus" is a a foamerism, an anoraktiscistic back formation, and that, by and large, the (English-speaking) people who actually made, rode, and operated them tended to use "trolley bus," "trolley-bus," "trolley coach," and, in areas where there were no electric streetcars to cause confusion, simply "trolley." (I'll pass over for the moment the fact that decent, normal human folk understand that their -real- name is "trackless trolley....)

Ahh, the "moment" spoken of above has passed...so whadabout the fact that the article is keyed to a name that the majority of actual native-english users don't use?

Anmccaff (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

According to Google Ngrams, there is a clear overall preference in written English for "trolley bus" from the 1920s to the late 1940s, then for "trolleybus" until the early 2000s. This difference is more pronounced in British English than it is in American English, which has historically preferred "trolley bus". Here's a summary of references:

• trolleybus
  • Collins Dictionary (UK)
  • Encyclopedia Britannica
  • Merriam-Webster Dictionary
• trolley bus
  • Random House Dictionary
  • Collins Dictionary (US)
  • American Heritage Dictionary

I'd say both spellings are valid, with one more common in the UK and one more common in the US. That makes it an issue covered by MOS:RETAIN. Ibadibam (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd looked at the n-gram, and usage patterns, and I still have issues. Most English-speaking riders don't ride "trolleybuses," and, indeed, one of your dictionaries referenced above -the Collins - clearly confuses them with "tourist trolleys" in its example usage. Most British systems originally used the two-word or the hyphenated form; it is only as they cease to be used for real, working transit systems, and become terms of nostalgia or, worse yet, city planning, that the single word takes over so much. Anmccaff (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"Trolleybus" (one word) an anachronism? To the contrary, that term has always been the most common term for the mode in all English-speaking countries except the U.S. and Canada, and remains so today. This is English(-language) Wikipedia, not American-English Wikipedia, and in all forms of English other than American English (e.g. British, Australian, South African), "trolleybus" has always been the common term, as far as I've read (this appears to have been the case even on the post-1920s British systems, according to books in my collection, making me doubt Anmccaff's claim above, but I'm American, so I don't know for sure). SJ Morg (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, an anachronism, as a trip through primary and secondary sources -which can be quickly approximated by Google Books or Google scholar- will show. Take an English tram system, and look at book references to it by decade. Outside of London, the single-word is a latecomer, except, perhaps, in "railfan" sorts of publications. As already noted above, the pendulum appears to be swinging back, as well, even in British English, since one of the rail enthusiast publications got tired of "correcting" its primary sources.Anmccaff (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Nowadays, the single-word spelling (trolleybus) is even preferred by the U.S. Transportation Research Board (see the Glossary section of this publication, for example) and the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) (see the Glossary in the 2014 APTA Fact Book – and look at the 2009 edition to see that this was already the case several years ago). SJ Morg (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

i.e., 200 guys and gals in Washington, yup.Anmccaff (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, it doesn't matter what "the people who actually made, rode, and operated them" tended to call them (quoting Anmccaff, above). Like professional encyclopedias, Wikipedia articles are supposed to use present-day terminology for subjects, as used by reliable sources (books, magazines, newspapers), and only make reference to the older terminology that was more common at the time. And in the 21st century, the single-word spelling "trolleybus" is virtually universal outside the U.S. and is becoming more common (than it used to be) even in the U.S. This is the reason that it's irrelevant that those other primarily English-speaking countries (the UK, Australia, India and South Africa) no longer have any trolleybus systems. They all still have reporters, historians and enthusiasts writing about trolleybuses (both past systems and the 300-or-so still-existing systems worldwide) in the 21st century, and if those writers are using the spelling "trolleybus" in (RS-type) publications (which they are), then that's what Wikipedia should use – and does use, for that very reason. In any case, MOS:RETAIN alone rules out any renaming of this (longstanding and stable) article, unless there were a strong consensus to do so, and so far only 1 user has even suggested it. There's no reason to continue this discussion. SJ Morg (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course it matters, using a term other than the one from to the primary sources is all but asking for anachronism, and parachronism, which most of the transit articles seem to have in spades, and invites splitting along dialect lines, which, again, "tram" and "trolleybus" suffer from. Passing over the reference to reporters, a notorious vector of misuse of jargon, trained historians are very, very wary of using anachronistic terms, sometimes even preferring a less common variant that lessens ambiguity. While use of back-borrowed Russian loanwords has certainly increased usage, this "pizza effect" is generally seen as a source of error, and the article suffers for it.Anmccaff (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

disadvantages

From the user experience I could point to two more disadvantages; some of you might think they are minor so I leave it to an expert to decide whether to put in them in the main body of the text.

First, the trolleybuses are quite silent, and from the pedestrian perspective this might be a hazard. One usually expects a street vehicle to produce some noise and behaves accordingly, which could be fatal. In my native city I saw people (probably tourists, not used to trolleybuses) stepping out of the pavement almost in front of a trolleybus, approaching from behind, not visible and almost not heard. Of course, one might also consider their silent manners an advantage.

Second, trolleybuses accelerate quite fast, much faster than buses. From the passenger perspective, this requires another technique of standing in case there are no seats vacant. In my native city I saw people (again, probably tourists) almost falling on the floor while the trolleybus was departing from the stop. When we were kids we used to treat this as a game: we stood in the gangway and walked fast forward to compensate for the acceleration effects. Dd1495 (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dd1495! If you or anyone can locate a reliable source that discusses the points you raised, we can add this to the article. Unfortunately we can't use it "as is" because it would qualify as original research and not quite rigorous enough for an encyclopedia article. Thanks for your ideas! Ibadibam (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Now I know the reason why i feel almost sea sick in trolleybuses compared to buses and even trams. I always go for buses and trams given the choice. 144.36.200.97 (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

This cite doesn't in fact support the contention; it is edited to some name convention....

...quite probably Wiki itself.

• Tan, Vinh (15 October 2009). "Take a ride down memory lane — or to see fall foliage — aboard a vintage transit bus". The Seattle Times. Retrieved 6 September 2012.

Note that the term in question is always bracketed? Anmccaff (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Huh? I just looked at the Seattle Times article, and the term "trolleys" or "trolley" appears several times, and not a single use is in parentheses (brackets). SJ Morg (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

From which we see:

“We have [antique-trolley coaches] in museums. But it’s not like a real-life situation like this,” said Piesciuk.

“We thought about a [trolley and bus] museum,” said Michael Voris, one of the group’s founders.

All but one direct quote are edited, by the look of it. That's a bad cite to use to show usage. Anmccaff (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I was not thinking at all about the personal quotations, each of which only shows the preference of one individual, but rather the terminology used by the reporter, which presumably would be attempting to reflect common local usage for that newspaper's coverage area (and the reporter's terminology choice also would have to be approved by at least 2-3 editors). However, on looking at the article again, I see that even the reporter is inconsistent with terminology in this instance, using "trolley", "trackless trolley" and "trolley-coach" all within the same article. Having lived in Seattle, I know that "trolley" is the most common term for trolleybus there, but this article does not clearly reflect that. The article was not being used here to claim that "trolley" is the most common alternative term, but rather only a common alternative term for trolleybus (and it was placed at the end of the list of alternative terms in the lead sentence of this WP article), but I concede it's not a particular good citation for that purpose. SJ Morg (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's another way of looking at...or, rather three of them. One is that the fluff-and-puff articles often get less real editorial oversight, and this is a food-and-drink writer writing about leisure opportunities; the editor may have merely glanced at it for typos. Next, the Seattle papers have a mixed record -as does the transit agency itself; some of the drivers seem to view TT as a shibboleth; when I first visited, and later lived there and near there, calling 'em trackless trolleys or trolley coaches was like a Masonic handshake for them. (That's 25 years ago, of course.) Finally, this isn't France; there's no Academy to determine an "official" word choice; barring that, why pick the ignorant usage over the expert? That is, you have a reporter or editor "correcting" usage by people who actually work with something. Anmccaff (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Too damned many pictures.

An historic first, a first generation light, a first generation heavy, a second generation, and a modern...that might make sense. But several modern pictures, seemingly driven by hometown jingoism in some cases, doesn't add anything. Anmccaff (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent massive editing.

I believe the changes recently made are large enough to require a little discussion. To me, they seem both tendentious and very narrowly focused geographically. Anmccaff (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The changes under discussion (some or all introduced via translation from the German Wikipedia, but sourced) could probably benefit from some judicious editing to reduce bloat without sacrificing facts. I don't understand how issues like whether trolleybuses can pass one another could be considered "narrowly focused geographically"; that would be a concern no matter what city, country or region the system was constructed in. Another editor expanding an article significantly is not in and of itself cause for discussion to be required, particularly when the added content has proper sourcing, as these additions seem to. It seems possible that sone or more of the editors involved in the recent reversions may be too invested in the topic. I have no feelings for or against trolleybuses, but I have yet to see any reason other than 'that's a lot of new content' or the highly-subjective 'parochial' why the new content should be/stay deleted... —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could give some examples "from the German Wikipedia" that faithfully represent the original? For example, a source that explains a political question regarding trackless trolleys in Vilnius, which gives inexpert arguments pro and con, is sourced as a contrary point. A piece which points out that trolleybuses can't be requisitioned in wartime -a real problem for buses in Germany and elsewhere during WWII - is sourced as a claim that Trackless trolleys are somehow intrinsically defective for "civil defence;" which appeared neither phrase nor concept in the original. So far, every example I've chased down was dishonest or incompetant, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

This work was done by a Leeds "community activist," I believe the euphemism is, as part of his campaign (whether justified or not) to stop a reintroduction of the Leeds trackless. He is supported by puppets, whether meat or sock an irrelevant point. Anmccaff (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The added material, both in content and quantity, certainly reads very much like a campaign against trolley buses. I came to this conclusion when I first read it, before seeing the above. The fact that it expands the "disadvantages" section by several fold but adds nothing to the "advantages" section can't be coincidence. The fact that is is well sourced does not excuse bias. --Roly (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's all that well sourced. Lotsa footnotes, yeah, but they don't support the contention made. It's dishonest editing, by someone with an undisclosed conflict of interest - several of the "independent" sources are, from the look of it, written or influenced by the editor himself as part of an anti-trolleybus pressure group. Anmccaff (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

That said, I expect that some of this recent crap differs from some of the existing writing only in the degree to which it is slanted, and I've long felt all of the transit sites are too dominated by fanboiz and foamers. Anmccaff (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

(socks folded, and put back in their drawer.)

Given that this is bad-faith mendacious editing by a blocked sockpuppet or meatpuppet, is there any good reason not to blank it? Anmccaff (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

this worldwide-scope article does not need more photos, and that one does not even show trolley poles or wires

I think that was rather the point; this showed a dual-mode trackless trolley operating off its batteries. A picture that made clear that it could attach to wires might be better, but this looks like a needed, overlooked illustration. Anmccaff (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't copy edit summaries to here, as section headings, without explaining that that is what you did; it is confusing to readers of this page, especially newcomers who don't necessarily know what a page history or an edit summary is. To reply to your comment, which concerned this edit: There are much better photos available for illustrating that relatively uncommon practice, and more importantly any such value to the inclusion of this photo is lost if – as was the case here – the uploader does not provide a caption mentioning it (i.e. mentioning what is unusual and noteworthy about the image). From the uploader's Commons page, it appeared to me that it was just another case – in a long line of examples – of someone posting a photo to this page just because it showed their city's system, without giving any thought to whether the photo really was warranted on the page. – SJ Morg (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't copy edit summaries to here, as section headings, without explaining that that is what you did; it is confusing to readers of this page,

As a generalization, I'd say that's true, but, as I correctly surmised, the odds you wouldn't rapidly respond were down near zero. Either way, there are some good reasons for inclusion of this, or something like it. First, it's different. This series of Solaris trackless trolleys is one of the few modern TT that come from the streetcar side , even if mostly visually. Something of a reversion to the GE Trollibus and the Versare there. Next, and more important, the article had a considerable section on hybrids and off-wire operation...and absolutely no illustrations of it. Anmccaff (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Low floors

IMS, some of the early trackless trolley manufacturers used, or at least offered, low floor sections on some units. I'm thinking Versare and Fageol, or maybe the GE or Atlas "Trollibus". The Nantasket and Laurel canyon cars, were, of course, "low floor" as well, in a sense. Anmccaff (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Disadvantages -- comparison to tram

My choice for that section is following:

• More control required - Trolleybuses must be driven like a motorbuses, requiring directional control by the driver.
• Road based dimensions- Unlike tracked trams, trolleybuses must follow standardized dimensions for bridges, tunnels, and right-of-way, and thus cannot be made wider and taller. This is a non-issue in developed areas, where roads are extensive.

User:Anmccaff's edit:
Trolleybuses must be driven like a motorbuses, requiring directional control by the driver. Because buses not fixed to a track, bridges, tunnels, and right-of-way must be wider.

There are two issues I take with his edit.

1. Both Advantages/Disadvantage sections utilized point form. Want to keep point form for consistency.
2. I pretty much just clarify his second point.

@Anmccaff:, the wording is actually from one of your earlier revision (734419247). All I did was explain it a bit more, and factor into the current road-based situation. They are seperate points regardless. George Leung (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No, you are stating something which is both different from the original point, and wrong. For straight tunnels and bridges, rail can have tighter loading gauges than steerable vehicles, and can skimp in the decking, since all the loads are predictably on the rail. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the maximum size of vehicle that can be used on a dedicated road right of way. Buses can be made are wide as you like, and are: there are some semi-production 13 footers, IMS. Rail can be no wider than about twice the track gauge. The same point applies to height. The track width of buses is greater, that means more resistance to tipping. Easier to make the unit taller, not harder. Anmccaff (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You should have explained that right in the article. You also failed to address why you are against point form. Seems like you are just going revert instead of actually correcting the issues.

Here's what I will do:

• fix your grammar issue ("Because buses not fixed to a track..." Really? You rather revert to that?)
• Use point form. Sorry; Unless you explain yourself, I want to keep consistency.
• Integrate what you said in here. I actually put an explanation-request template at the point that you said. Seriously - read instead of blanket revert.
• Integrate the two other points. Those are from tram#advantage, and trolleybus are typically treated as bus.

George Leung (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, you clearly are just blanket reverting instead of fixing your issues, and just randomly accusing me of vandalism. Awaiting your reply. Specifically:

1. Point form -- if you have an issue, pleasure explain
2. On your explaination: Why do you refuse to integrate your explanation into the article. Not everyone is an engineer.
3. On the last two points, carried over from tram#advantages, are there any issues?

If you have issues due to the app you are using: stop, and wait until you can use the browser to edit it. George Leung (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Taking each of these separately:

The peculiar grammar was introduced not by me, but by an IP editor who appears to share your location, writing style, and location...that is, either you accidently logging out, or socking. On the other hand, it contains less inaccuracies than your other posts, so it seemed a good point to revert to.

Your writing about ROW is simply inaccurate.

You're the one who put in the information request? Then you are socking? Cut that out then.

Don't borrow from other Wiki articles without validating the information. Otherwise you are treating Wiki itself as a reliable source, and it ain't. The Claverton piece was close to commercial propaganda. It didn't belong there at Streetcar, either. Anmccaff (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• This is my edit on my mobile, with IP: [2]
• These four are your edits afterward, according to the history page: [3], [4], [5], And especially this one: [6] (using diff: [7]) .

I will, however, concede my "ROW" facts are inaccurate, or and concede not to use other wiki articles. However, I prefer point form. George Leung (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

At the risk of necrohippoflagellation, note my first edit, quoted above]. It shows quite clearly the source of the funky grammar, an IP edit which you have since claimed. You wanna fix it, knock yourself out, but please stop trying to lay it at other's feet. Anmccaff (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, first off, you have formatting issue.(You missed one square bracket)

So from the 1st edit of yours ([8]), clicking on the "previous edit", you will see my IP edit ([9]). [10] Does not have that issue (factually they are not accurate, but we are talking about your edits). George Leung (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

So from the 1st edit of yours ([11]), clicking on the "next edit" to second edit of yours: [12]

Third edit of yours: [13]

Fourth edit of yours: [14] EDIT: This is where you added the line.

They are clearly marked as your edits. EDIT: forgot to sign George Leung (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

EDIT2: Which program are you using for editing? Since I am assuming you are editing on good faith, the only other explaination is that either you yourself have issues goign between revisions, or your editor program. I would say the latter. George Leung (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I guess Mr. Deadhorse isn't a particular friend of yours? Look briefly at the diff between your IP revision and mine following. See the confusion about singular vs plural flowing right from one to the other? No? Anmccaff (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Right-of-way issues - Even for non-express lines, it is common for the lane containing tramways to have exclusive right of way; it can be further made exclusive by the usage of reserved track. Trolleybus must be driven like a motorbuses (more directional control) must follow the rules and situations of the road and traffic, unless the Trolleybus are utilized with bus lane or used as bus rapid transit. Thus, a tram system typically allow better travel time in comparison to Trolleybus and more consistent service.

+ Trolleybuses must be driven like a motorbuses, requiring directional control by the driver.

I will own up to my mistakes; however, you should look at your edits on [15]:

Trolleybuses must be driven like a motorbuses, requiring directional control by the driver. Because buses not fixed to a track, bridges, tunnels, and right-of-way must be wider. (Emphasizes mine). It should Have been " As buses are not fixed to tracks, bridges, tunnels, and right-of-way must be wider." Also, if you have to go with the singular vs plural flowing, you also suffered some in your edits.

Lastly, you keep having issues pulling revisions. I know you said you intended what you wrote, but I doubt you intended to pull your own revisions and having links that does NOT work. I am editing and viewing from desktop Chrome.George Leung (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: Anyway, I am satisfy with the current outcome. Point form is kept, errors are fixed. I do want to talk about wherther to include (in reference to Road based restriction) this line: "This disadvantage is less apparent if the proposed tram/light-rail route is used to replace existing road-running bus route due to existing road infrastructure.". I think this discussion point should technically be a new section in this talk page. George Leung (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Further explaination required

On #Disadvantages, one of the point is of following:

• Road based restriction - Rail vehicles can have tighter loading gauges than road vehicles. Tunnels and restricted right-of-way must be wider for unguided buses, since they can drift side-to-side more than a rail vehicle. Bridge decks for buses must also cover a wider path for the same reason.

While this is definitely correct, I think further explanation is needed, not in terms of engineering, but in terms of economics and city planning. So correct me if I am wrong:

1. If there were no existing paved roads, such as early 20th century, then this will be less costly to build.
2. However, if a transit system is trying to replace a diesel bus line, with a choice between trolleybus and tram, this advantage is non-existent due to existing roads (trolleybus can run in existing roads)
   1. (EDITED) Conversely, what if they want to rip out the old tram's bridges, tunnel etc so they can put a road, allowing buses, cars, and trucks to go through?

If they are wrong, put in the correct explanation(s) in here AND the article. Thank you. George Leung (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, no. About three or four times over. Even if there is existing infrastructure, any improvements, changes, expansion, etc can be built cheaper if you have tracks, for some aspects.

Next, the dedicated ROW for a dedicated lines is narrower for a streetcar, as is the part of the street it can occupy. This can mean the difference between 2 lanes of other traffic and three, for example.

Next, I have no idea exactly what you are trying to say with ##(EDITED) Conversely, what if they want to rip out the old tram's bridges, tunnel etc so they can put a road, allowing buses, cars, and trucks to go through?

Finally, someone -you by the look of it- decided that this was a subject best covered by bullet points. Unless you want to list -all- the potential effects of each, then just leave them to speak for themselves. Anmccaff (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

////
Thanks for the explanation. I see that you have integrated an earlier point I put in about dedicated RoW/reserved track, which I thought we are ignoring.

Even if there is existing infrastructure, any improvements, changes, expansion, etc can be built cheaper if you have tracks, for some aspects.
Next, the dedicated ROW for a dedicated lines is narrower for a streetcar, as is the part of the street it can occupy. This can mean the difference between 2 lanes of other traffic and three, for example.
Let's say a bus route is quite busy. It used to run along a 6 lane road, have a curb side stop every other block; a bridge to cross too, and one tunnel thruway (not much tunnels around my city, so this part is hypothetical). Since the ridership increase, they are planning to make it a trolleybus, since they have an existing network.
The proposed plan for the trolleybus is basically more frequent scheduling, removing some existing stop (but still retain the curb-side stop), no dedicated lanes, and replace the diesel bus with trolleybus. The cost are mostly on to extend the overhead line and possibly new purchase of trolleybuses
The proposed plan for the tram/light rail will go with a streetrunning line, but goes through the existing bridge deck and tunnel. No or minimal dedicated lanes.
In that light, the benefit that you listed (narrower bridge deck and tunnels) does not exist. It will be more economical to just use the existing road bridge/tunnel and laid tracks on it. Also, because it's not dedicated, the lane need to be kept wide so normal cars can use it too.
Even if the lane/track is dedicated for tram or trolleybus they would not have build new tunnels or bridges.

However, your point 2 (if using dedicated tracks, streetcar have narrower tracks, therefore can create more lanes) is what truly explain the point.
You should have put that in -- though to be honest that's less of a tram vs trolley/bus, and more of reserved tracks vs bus lane/BRT.

Next, I have no idea exactly what you are trying to say with ##(EDITED) Conversely, what if they want to rip out the old tram's bridges, tunnel etc so they can put a road, allowing buses, cars, and trucks to go through? Pretty much what they did in the mid 20th century -- they replaced tram-only bridges with road bridge, claiming it will allow other vehicles to utilize the crossing.

Finally, you can't just say "points will speak for themselves"; there's a reason why not BRT exist, and they are professional. This article is for normal people, not only for engineers like you.

I will await your reply, and hope you will either put in that point (about gaining extra lanes if using dedicated tram line instead of dedicated bus lane), or let me do it. George Leung (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverting elucidate request

I plan to add an elucidate request on #Disadvantage-compare to Trams - wider right of way:
{{elucidate|reason=Wider right-of-way is not a disadvantage in streetrunning mode due to usage of existing roads, bridges, and tunnels etc|date=August 2016}}
This is a modified version of an earlier one, in which I did added an opinion.

A reason I believe this need further explanation is of following (from above) Let's say a bus route is quite busy. It used to run along a 6 lane road, have a curb side stop every other block; a bridge to cross too, and one tunnel thruway (not much tunnels around my city, so this part is hypothetical). Since the ridership increase, they are planning to make it a trolleybus, since they have an existing network.
The proposed plan for the trolleybus is basically more frequent scheduling, removing some existing stop (but still retain the curb-side stop), no dedicated lanes, and replace the diesel bus with trolleybus. The cost are mostly on to extend the overhead line and possibly new purchase of trolleybuses
The proposed plan for the tram/light rail will go with a streetrunning line, but goes through the existing bridge deck and tunnel. No dedicated lanes.
In that light, the benefit that you listed (narrower bridge deck and tunnels) does not exist. It will be more economical to just use the existing road bridge/tunnel and laid tracks on it. Also, because it's not dedicated, the lane need to be kept wide so normal cars can use it too.
EDIT: A system that runs with minimal dedicated lane is Hong Kong Tramways, which only have dedicated lane around the station. Due to this, the lane need to be wide enough to fit even dump trucks.

While I believe I understand what he meant, he kept saying the explanation is enough. I don't; yet as of now, I am satisfied with just an explanation request tag. Please check to see whether the current explanation is sufficient enough. George Leung (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Platform loading

{{|(Though correct, removed platform loading from the comparison, as that issue is more related to light rail - BRT comparison. If kept, specified it with BRT.)}}

Well, no. One of the claimed advantages -which is sometimes a real advantage - of streetcars is that the same vehicle can be used for both Rapid Transit and a downtown circulator without complicated or expensive mechanisms to allow wheelchair boarding.

Note that a great many peoplemovers are, essentially, streetcars/light rail cars. It is much harder to do that with a fixed platform if your vehicle isn't guided.

Now, if you want to argue that this difficulty of using a bus with a high ramp isn't peculiar to trackless trolleys, but common to any bus-type vehicle, knock yourself out, but the distinction isn't important here. A streetcar on tangent track can have level boarding with minimal gap with very little fuss. That isn't true for any kind of bus. Anmccaff (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverse it about 12 hours ago after re-reading it. Just realized that even if both started out with a poorly implemented system (just sidewalk loading or run-to-the-middle stops, no dedicated line, etc), it's possible to add platform that eliminate gaps to the stops, which is much harder if not outright impossible for trolley/bus.

On a unrelated topic, can you address that tag issue and the explaination, which should be one and two section above this one, respectively. Thanks. George Leung (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Further explaination required on lane width

Continuing on the earlier discussion, since User:Anmccaff refuse to address...

Anyway, let's continue on the issue.

• His main argument is that the loading guage for rail is narrower to a trolley/bus on road. This I agree.
• His argument is that the benefit of cheaper improvements, changes, expansion on the system in a general case. This I do not agree. I believe it will only work if if have dedicated lane/reserved track

Regardless of whether it was used for all new construction, or whether it was to replace existing motorbus route with either a trolleybus or tram, the narrower loading guage as a benefit hinges on one factor: whether the rail(s) will occupy a dedicated lane.

The best way to illustrate this is with an example:
Suppose the original bus route run along a road that is 3 lane in each direction. It does not have dedicated lines. It goes through a bridge and a underground tunnel. For some reason they want to replace it with either a tram or trolleybus.

Infrastructure involve: stations, signaling, bridges, tunnels, roads.

Platform Stations issue is addressed as seperate point, which is true, but more related to being rail's constant path instead of the lane width. Signaling priority can be applied to both, and that have nothing to do with lane width.

Since existing road bridge and road tunnel already exist, even a dedicated lane build would not require seperate narrower bridge decks nor require seperate tunnels. It will be more economical to just use the existing road bridge/tunnel and laid tracks on it.

• no dedicated lane, or dedicated only in the area next to platform: since the lane is not dedicated, the lane need to be kept wide so normal cars can use it too. Thus there are no benefit offered from having a narrower lane, as the lane need to accomodate other traffic. Thus lane, tunnel, bridges etc remain the same. Surprisingly common.
• dedicated lanes: since it's dedicated, they can repaint the lane so that area of lane is smaller. If the road contain shoulders, then it does squeeze extra lane for traffic. However, if not, then they need to widen the road, which makes the project more expensive -- unless it was included as part of the plan to expand the road.

Thus, the "narrower lane as a benefit" does not exist unless it's being used in conjunction with either dedicated lanes, or partial dedicated lane (where the bi-direction tram way allows a car to use it as passing lane but not safe to drive as a lane completely.)

So, User:Anmccaff, please explain how is narrower lane width is beneficial for the general case. I can understand that it is beneficial for systems that have dedicated lines, but for those that does not it offer no benefit.

George Leung (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

illogical sentences

"Some trolleybus lines in the United States (and in Britain, as noted above) came into existence when a trolley or tram route did not have sufficient ridership to warrant track maintenance or reconstruction. In a similar manner, a proposed tram scheme in Leeds, United Kingdom, was changed to a trolleybus scheme to cut costs." 5.51.176.134 (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Trolleys that run on natural gas

Our state-of-the-art Scenic Trolleys run on eco-friendly natural gas, are heated in the winter, and air-conditioned in summer to ensure the comfort of all of our visitors. The Niagara Falls Scenic Trolley...

How to classify it? 65.95.194.171 (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Articulated Trollybuses

While there are several images, there's nil direct mention of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.184.79 (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Single cable, ground return via road pickup

For years I have wondered why trolleybuses don't use a single cable and ground return on the ground like trams. The article does not state why and I've looked everywhere and can find no good information on why trolleybuses all use twin overhead cables. Many cities have tram systems, with tracks on the road surface. One or more pickups under a trolley bus could allow such an equipped trolleybus to run on tram powerlines with a single overhead pickup.

I understand there are engineering issues to overcome, but it seems like it would be a good system as the overhead 'knitting' would be much simpler. Furthermore, modern battery electric busses could be equipped to be backwards compatible and run and charge from existing tram lines, reducing infrastructure investment costs, but would also not be limited to only running along the tram tracks.

Obviously the infrastructure cost to instal 2 overhead cables is cheaper than modifying the road surface. However where a tram system exists this is not an issue and facilitating the mixing of trams and trolleybuses seems a significant advantage, particularly with modern battery technology.

I presume this has been explored in the industry, so it would be good if someone with knowledge could add something on this. Lkingscott (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Off wire power developments

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ie-tram-bus-route-358-tfl-orpington-crystal-palace-electric-london-b1169418.html

Looks like something related to this section is coming to London (UK). 2A0A:EF40:317:8801:1A6:FAFE:7D62:72EA (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)