Talk:Trolleybus

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree—why should that section be in another article? — Lumbercutter 02:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trolleybuses throughout the world

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Switching from one set of wires to another

message: Too many bus images that do not add info- most should go into a gallery - Leonard G. 04:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to implement this and moved low-res and not too informative images into a gallery. Cmapm 18:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallery needed

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tourist trolleybus 

message: "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)
replies: text: No. Frese was surname of factory's owner. KonstKaras (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ... 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)
thread_title: Should "at [the] Frese machinebuilding factory" translate as "at a milling machine factory"?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Future of Trolleybus 

message: In this edit 
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)
thread_title:  Dr. Ernst Werner von Siemens ? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Common trolleybus and tram platform 

message: 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)
thread_title:  De-wiring 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Boston, MA 

message: 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)
thread_title: Silence

message: 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)
thread_title:  Legislation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Belgian trolley buses 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Video Files 

message: 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)
thread_title: File:CJWG110K3.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Notice 

message: 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)
replies: text: Hi ! 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: disadvantages

message: ...quite probably Wiki itself.
*
Note that the term in question is always bracketed?  Anmccaff (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: From which we see:
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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This cite doesn't in fact support the contention; it is edited to some name convention.... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Too damned many pictures. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Low floors 

message: I plan to add an elucidate request on #Disadvantage-compare to Trams - wider right of way: 

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)
thread_title:  Reverting elucidate request 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Further explaination required on lane width 

message: "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)
thread_title:  illogical sentences  

message: : 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)
thread_title:  Trolleys that run on natural gas 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Articulated Trollybuses 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Single cable, ground return via road pickup