Translink trolleybus overhead department would like a word with you. Jk

90 Years of Trolleybuses in Prague: Anniversary with an Eye on the Future With an extensive programme, Prague is marking the introduction of trolleybus transport 90 years ago – while at the same time looking ahead to the future of.

With an extensive programme, Prague is marking the introduction of trolleybus transport 90 years ago – while at the same time looking ahead to the future of emission-free mobility.

4/4 The next conversions are expected by the summer and will introduce new routes 51 (ex bus 132) and 53 (ex bus 176). Line diagrams attached.

3/4 The hilly topography of the line is illustrated by this photo from Elektroline, the Czech manufacturer of overhead line equipment.

2/4 Here’s a map of the new route which is mostly wired (80%, shown in purple) with the rest run on batteries. Interestingly, this is a revival of a former trolleybus route after an interval of 56 years!

Next development of Prague’s second trolleybus system will be 3 hilly routes heading west of the Vltava river. Test running began on route 52 (ex bus 137) on 1st April. Illustrated is a Skoda 36 Tr TEMSA
📷Ústečák
1/4

I don’t know where you got your “meteoric decline” from. According to the IEA coal consumption has reached a plateau but it was expected to be 8.8 billion tonnes in 2025, up by 0.5% on the previous year.
That’s absolute numbers. As renewables increase, coal’s share of the energy mix will decline.

To think, Bournemouth bought a fleet of excellent new trolleybuses between 1958 and 1962. I remember riding to places like the Christchurch turntable, the town centre, the pier etc. Within a couple of years, management decided that “diesel was the future” and they were all gone. #lackofvision

Judging by the body shape, it’s likely to be a pre-war vehicle.

IIRC the new tram line is replacing the western half of trolleybus route 13. But don’t worry, the trolleybus system seems secure and new trolleybuses are in the pipeline.
The above is all subject to correction by Marco.

I tend to view declarations of American battlefield defeat in operational terms as very premature, but when it comes to how this ineptly planned mess has shredded any remaining trust in Washington among what were America's allies this already is a lasting strategic disaster for the US

Next landmark in Vancouver's trolleybus renewal programme. The pilot bus has been completed and is undergoing initial testing in Gdynia in Poland. It is expected in Vancouver soon - probably June this year.

www.urban-transport-magazine.com/en/first-sol...

With trolleybus and tram installations, more that 50% of wiring infrastructure cost is incurred on the foundations and masts rather than the actual wires. Does the same apply for mainline electrification?
Love that 25kV mainline electrification is no more expensive per km than 750VDC tram/trolley.

Not my century, I'm afraid, so I have had to expand the meaning of "favourite" somewhat.

Pelléas et Mélisande
Der Rosenkavalier
Peter Grimes
Madama Butterfly
Palestrina
Il Prigioniero
Francesca da Rimini
Wozzeck
Jenufa
Zazà

Bit late to this but:
Fidelio
Barbiere di Siviglia
Norma
La Traviata
Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg
Faust
Carmen
La Giaconda
Pagliacci
Andrea Chénier

More trolleybus expansion in Lyon, with the opening on 28 Feb of new "TramBus" route TB12 from Gare Part Dieu to Kimmering. The route will next be extended to Sept Chemins. The designation TB as TramBus is intended to signify the BRT nature of the line.
Photo: N.Tresontani

I’m not a civil engineer nor a quantity surveyor, but obviously a full metro involves heavy installations and heavy vehicles. So more substantial construction is part of the extra cost.
Then factor in bigger electric plant, heavy trains and complex signalling systems. They all add a lot of cost.

From what I read at the time of the project.

I agree that the overhead wires themselves would need replacing. The substations and feeders would be reusable, as would the support masts which form at least 50% of the overhead line cost.

Regarding your last para, do you know for sure? Would they not have done some future proofing?

I was just using ball park figures. My critics couldn't believe an elevated heavy metro would cost 4X as much as an elevated trolleybus BRT. They were wrong to assume the metro proposal was elevated but if it had been viaduct, your 2:1 ratio suggests $231m/2=$115m/km, which is 6X the trolleybus BRT

I've just written a short thread on metro construction costs but wasn't able to tag you in, even though I tried. It was a quote reply response to Diego.

2. I didn't say in my first thread that the metro proposal would be on viaduct. It was likely to have been mostly at grade/in cuttings, with an alignment parallel to the eBRT but through less density. The $1.5bn cost for the 18.5km line works out at $81m/km-matching the lowest cost mentioned in 1

1. Heavy rail and metro systems are v. expensive, much more than many seem to think. A recent article from the Transit Costs Project gave a weighted average of $231.21m/km while even the cheapest 100% surface line cost $81m/km.
@denisagar.bsky.social @alonlevy.bsky.social
transitcosts.com/new-data/

4/4 "We don't live in an ideal world. Often, some 'perfect' solutions are unaffordable and decision makers (whether in cities, businesses, or families) have to choose something that is good rather than ideal.

3/4 "A metro extension offers much greater capacity, somewhat higher speed, and greater labour productivity. On the other hand, this was quarter of the price, much quicker to install, and meets demand for the next few years. Ultimately the decision turned on shortage of capital.

2/4 "It is hard to be sure of accurate construction costs but the best I can find is a cost of $355m, equal ~$19m per km for the trolleybus project. In contrast the proposed metro extension was $1.5bn. So the eBRT is less than a quarter of the cost. How should you evaluate the two choices?

Denis is questioning the sense of the elevated trolleybus lines in Mexico City (and suburbs). So here's some information that I posted on "the other site" at the time.
"Inevitably there has been some griping from various pundits, who wanted a metro extension, not an e-BRT.
@alonlevy.bsky.social
1/n

It is a quicker and cheaper build than Skytrain. The electrical installation is compatible with LRT and no doubt it could be upgraded once demand builds up to a suitable level.
I’m not sure that the viaduct is constructed to carry the weight of a metro, which is much heavier than a BRT.

Totally agree. Even with recent improvements, BEBs have much lower productivity than trolleybuses with auxiliary batteries (or diesels). The lay reader of the article may not realise that a 15min layover is *not* normal. Labour is the major opex cost; 15 min breaks at each loop is a huge added cost.

Updating of Bucharest's trolleybus system continues. After receiving 100 Solaris trolleybuses (LH photo) about two years ago, it is now receiving 22 units from Yutong (RH photo). There are plans to call for bids on another 100 buses.

Which of the two models do you prefer?