[Manage]

[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message
File
Embed   (paste a YouTube URL)
Password   (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are JPG, PNG and GIF.
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5 MB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 154 unique user posts.

File: 1571323391246.jpg–(143.75KB, 1280x720, pandaexpress.jpg)
513
No.513
Is this board dead? I want to get into trains.
¨ No.515
1571324969245.jpg–(397.23KB, 1259x841, 1236478.jpg)
>powered by lithium batteries
>has a massive infrastructure more than capable of delivering all the power the train needs

>additionally: being a monorail

Let me guess... another hipster-designer attention-whoring fad for a real transport system?

Pic is another example of a monorail system - in Moscow, Russia - which is questionable enough even without the LITERALLY REDUNDANT use of batteries, captured among much more prominent modes of transport being tram and electric bus (aka lithium technology utilized right).
¨ No.516
1571325002534.jpg–(0.97MB, 1300x867, the trusty old space lada ready for takeoff.jpg)
It's a zombie board. Traiiiiinz!

We have had like three near death experiences recently, first when the original 1chan died, then when railchan was transferred to new 1chan and when 1chan finally migrated from futaba to tinyIB.

The future is said to be bright, great features are waiting us just around the corner. Mmmm, catalog - mmmm, referrer links! We just received inline enlargement of images and youtube embeds so hop on in and submit some fresh content!
¨ No.517
>>515
So, what's the future of the monorail? I see that in open streetmap it is currently marked on with the ominous dotted line.

What about the tram or the trolley bus? I think I remember you saying something that the trolleybus network was under threat while the situatiation with the tram has pacified.

Sorry about the heavy request, but if it hasn't become clear, I don't do the Russian language at all so most up to date information is out of my reach.
¨ No.518
1571334409473.jpg–(95.24KB, 1180x773, SNIM_Alsthom_CC05_1994_02.JPG)
>>513
Not dead but very low activity. I was away when 1chan had technical problems and when I returned the board is now restarted and most people are gone so there must have been some downtime. Not sure where the people moved to. Maybe /n/ on 4chan?
¨ No.520
1571339758159.jpg–(338.69KB, 1250x833, 1253572.jpg)
>>517
I've been talking on that topic here time and time again and you've been forgetting my answers time and time again:)

Current plans are, as before, get rid of that ridiculous thing which will then open the physical path for the much needed extension of the tram line around VDNH (part of it seen here >>515 ) from Ostankino to somewhere around Dmitrovskaya where it will connect with line to Dmitrovskaya, thus connecting Moscow's two separated tram networks, which will start being built right away as much more sensible and well-integrated replacement for the mono. The question is as always - when.


>the situatiation with the tram

The tram in Moscow is well cared for, with already 300 (three hundred) of the new Russian Vityaz-M low-floor trams delivered (pic related) in less than 3 years and another big order of something (possibly a mix of 4-axle and 6-axle cars from the same manufacturer, ПК Транспортные Системы) on the way, as well as numerous repairs, and the route quality and speed seem to improve marginally, but it lacks development. There were literally a dozen various extensions announced but all of them remain mere plans with only one existing as a project, and even it is aimed for 2022.
Right now Moscow focuses most efforts on the "heavy rail" (metro and MCD urban-rail) and for the street transportation it's mostly e-buses now, and the tram is in kind of an awkward position in the middle where it is kept as a matter of prestige but isn't seen as much of a high-value development vector nor a necessity. With this much budget Moscow has, they could build all these dozen of new lines and a couple of new depots from scratch literally in a year, should they want to.
¨ No.522
1571343928286.jpg–(486.19KB, 1244x848, 1505689.jpg)
>>517
>I think I remember you saying something that the trolleybus network was under threat while the situatiation with the tram has pacified.

Now, the trolleybus system, sadly or not, is officially on its way out, more specifically of being fully reorganized into the electric bus network. Main arguments being, that wireless e-bus clears the city skyline from extremely excessive overhead wires (which is implemented along with putting all other street wires in the special shallow underground conduits - I would say it does work) and also by this very reason giving a vehicle more agility in traffic and versatility in use. Thing is, the trolleybus system was overdue to be re-done one way or another anyway, so instead of investing into full redevelopment of the trolleybus network, both the infrastructure and stock, Moscow authorities decided to instead invest way more, but into more perspective and potentially more capable type of transportation, thus gradually shutting down the trolleybus routes. Understandable decision for such a ridiculously wealthy city as Moscow, especially with its no-compromises attitude.

Of course, it's not only about replacing t with e, so to speak. Normal diesel bus routes are going electric as well. In fact, by 2030 Moscow is set to replace ALL OF ITS URBAN BUSES AND TROLLEYBUSES (which is combined over 7000 vehicles - SEVEN THOUSAND VEHICLES, and around 700 - seven hundred - routes, counting only municipal ones) to electric buses. So far there are 13 e-bus routes in full operation of which 4 replaced original bus routes. This is literally THE most ambitious e-bus project in Europe - which is actually fitting for the biggest city in Europe.

The rolling stock for e-bus is provided by Russia's two biggest automotive manufacturers, GAZ Group and KamAZ, being LiAZ-6274 and KamAZ-6282 accordingly, both designed to similar specs, Those are two-axle 3-door large capacity buses with fully low floor, equipped with Li-Ti batteries, both have nominal range of 70 km and a fast charging interface via pantograph, allowing for near full charging in 15 (24 for LiAZ) minutes, with additional interface via cable. The charging stations are provided some by Russian NPP Energia and some by KamAZ (who discretely uses some Chinese ODM hardware in them).
Interestingly, to accommodate for cold winters, they are equipped with high efficiency diesel heater, which is intended to be used below -15 degrees C and upon the startup to initially heat up the batteries, with electric heater operating in positive temperatures. Though it doesn't make them fully emissionless, despite the heater exhaling not a whole lot, it can be easily offset by replacing just a few bus routes per every dozen trolleybus ones (as it is already being done). Also you gotta remember that electricity, at least in Moscow, is also not emission-free by far (sadly, we have only about 20% of our energy coming from nuclear, unlike, say, St. Petersburg with its well over 50%), it's just cleaner than diesel.

There is currently 100 LiAZ and 162 KamAZ ebuses in the city. KamAZ right now is setting a new manufacturing facility directly in Moscow, someone gotta supply these 7000+ e-buses after all and LiAZ doesn't seem all too eager or capable for it.

On the pic is KamAZ-6282 in the now virtually wireless city center. KamAZ came up with way more competent design overall than LiAZ, I'm glad there is more of them. As you can see the wire-free policy (with main exception for tram wires, being very low-profile and barely obstructive) does work pretty well, you can't believe how pity this place looked before. Whether or not it is enough of a (main) excuse for completely ditching the trolleybus and investing literally unimaginable funds into redeveloping it into a completely new type of transport is up for debate.

P. S. I spent a fucking eternity struggling over my answer to your question, and I'm actually mentally exhausted with it, don't you fucking dare not read or forget it, as you often do with my posts. If you read it, just copy this text and save in a txt somewhere so you won't have to re-ask me this question over and over again. I know that I will do that.
¨ No.525
Don't waste your time with NewChina content, it's all bullshit
¨ No.541
1572102172570.jpg–(620.38KB, 897x598, sähköbussi lentoasemalla_0.jpg)
>>522
Thank you mr. Voz, I was rude.

That's by the way very ambitious, 7000 electric buses ON THREE HUNDRED ROUTES by 2030 with the level of technology we currently are at. 70 km range and 15 minutes of charging (which is fast already), I hear. THe diesel heater thing has been noted around here, and it has kind of soured people against it. The few test buses we've had in various cities have been riddled with reliability issues, sometimes hovering around 50-60% only.

Just saying, very ambitious indeed to go all in with elektro-buses, but for wireless city center, I haven't ever understood. Catenaries belong to the urban environment! If anything, doubly so for charging the e-buses, so they don't have to spend 15 minutes on terminuses several times per day.
¨ No.547
1572219810278.jpg–(368.27KB, 851x588, This was totally a thing in Moscow some 10 years a)
>>541 Let's first address the elephant in the room.
>Catenaries belong to the urban environment!

The fact they are here for 50 or 60 years does not mean they BELONG here, nor does it make them less ugly. If anything, before them there were tram wires for a long time, which are actually much less obtrusive.
Some people say THIS (on the photo) belongs to the urban environment. Does it mean streets have to look like that?!

You have to remember, for a 12.5-million city there's just at most .02% of people who actually care about there being trolleybus wires (or trolleybus at all) among millions who care about the overall look of the street.
Is it worth getting rid of all the catenary instead of just putting more modern less visually-obtrusive variant of it instead? Doubtful. But as I said, it was just one of a plethora of problems with the trolleybus, both in terms of infrastructure and the rolling stock, which, considering the scale of the problem(s), were simply addressed by redeveloping the entire thing into the completely new mode of electric transport.

>doubly so for charging the e-buses, so they don't have to spend 15 minutes on terminuses several times per day.

This was looked into but the matter of the fact is, trolleybuses spend around 15 mins on an end point already, sitting here doing nothing, so instead this time was just used for charging, when e-buses came along.
There was one interesting concept proposed though, the tri-bus - the very same fast-charging e-bus but with additional, third, charging interface for dynamical charging via t-bus wires. Really easy to implement, perhaps even possible to retrofit. This might have been useful to extend the practical range of the current e-bus as well as possibly reduce the use of diesel heaters by leaving (or even setting up) the wires on the peripheral roads, highways or any streets where appearance isn't of a huge concern.
Because in Moscow usecase, the e-bus cannot rely purely on the wires (in case you are even willing to leave any in the first place), as in, the "extended-range" trolleybus: without the actual fast-charging interface (which trolley poles are not) there is always a risk that in less favorable conditions the thing will just deplete its charge without interrupting the schedule by spending additional time just charging, or making its schedule even more loose than for the e-bus (in which case it will be even less practical than the e-bus which reliably needs 15-20 mins per each, say, 50 km without any extra unknown valuables).
Though it seems normal e-bus is doing well enough to not really look into the tri-bus idea, especially given that, in its classical fashion, Moscow doesn't want any compromises in form of leaving any double wires at all. Welp, we are a rich city and the rich have their quirks.
¨ No.548
1572219935351.jpg–(404.73KB, 1200x754, 1158526.jpg)
>>541
>ON THREE HUNDRED ROUTES

That's actually about seven hundred (SEVEN HuNdReD!!!11111!111!11oneoneoneONEONE) routes. Overall Moscow has over a thousand ground public transport routes, and I think even about a thousand bus routes alone, but that's if we count also private contractors working by the standardized Moscow Transport regulations (Moscow's clever solution to marshrutka problem, which is a concern for every large city) as well as Mostransavto suburban routes which originate in Moscow and maybe some other more shady private routes, like to the big shopping malls (some of them are free to use, in order to lure the clients in).

>THe diesel heater thing has been noted around here, and it has kind of soured people against it.

You mean Helsinki e-buses have Webasto heaters as well? Interesting, though not surprising, given that *no one invades Finland in winter, not even the Soviets (who at the end of the day actually got what they wanted but somehow sneaky Finns managed to convince the entire world that they've lost decisively :D)*
At the end of the day, the diesel heater releases a tiny fraction of pollutants compared to diesel buses, considering it is engaged (at least in our case) only about three months of the year (and that's if you believe the rumors it is used in any negative temp on KamAZes, and not just below -15).

>The few test buses we've had in various cities have been riddled with reliability issues

That's interesting, because when we tested your e-bus, it was praised for its quality and performance with some people suggesting to buy them, even though they are more expensive for only a partially low-floor model. Maybe we just got a cherry-picked unit.
There even was a licensed copy of it made by SVARZ (pic related) but it seems like it isn't coming anymore, since the e-bus delivery is already secured between two Russian designs.
Though there are rumors MB is going to set up its bus-manufacturing site in Russia possibly offering their eCitaro to Moscow adding to the Russian KamAZes and LiAZes without actually competing with them - after all there are concerns that two manufacturers will not be able to churn out 7000 units in 11 years, especially given today they have a hard time putting up with an order of much less yearly volume.
¨ No.585
1572631321925.jpg–(59.01KB, 615x409, Cardiff-Bus-Charging-Point.jpg)
I might have mentioned this before, but if unsightly catenary is a problem, you can install these unsightly charging stations instead. On the experimental trial in my city this thing could provide enough charge to keep the bus running in around 5 minutes.
¨ No.603
>>522
Your assessment is reasonably pragmatic, but I still must disagree to a certain degree. The wire argument is to a certain degree understandable (you make a fair point, wires don't "belong" in a city, they just tend to "be there" like it or not, but they're not a particular nuisance either).
But dismantling trolleybus infrastructure indiscriminately is not in any way a smart decision. One could argue that an excess of it isn't positive, especially on lower traffic routes. But on trunk routes, it's still a very valuable asset. Trolleybuses will always be superior to battery buses on trunk routes. They're lighter for lack of battery packs, more reliable, cheaper as it's a consolidated technology, and they're reasonably flexible especially assuming a bus lane which should be standard on any trunk bus line. Modern trolleybuses are equipped with backup systems, combustion or battery, that allow for detours and construction work, etc.. Not needing time to charge or change battery packs saves money and manpower, and again, assuming an intensely used trunk line this is a better saving than what goes into wire maintenance.

Here in Switzerland there's been some movement in the trolleybus area in the last couple of years, after several decades of stagnation. Trolleybus have been put into question with recent e-bus developments, and there have been cutbacks (most notably the full closure of the not very large Basel trolleybus system, but also some lesser used lines within other systems), but on the whole the conclusion is that trolleybuses do still make sense because of these advantages, so long as they're used on said trunk lines. The main focus is now being put on hybrid trolleybus lines, where the buses run under wires on part of the line, and on battery power on other parts, charging the battery on the go while under wires.

You may argue on different sizes of the cities and transport systems, but the conclusions can certainly be extrapolated. Being a rich country doesn't mean any interest in senselessly wasting money for the hell of it, nor is Moscow a poor city in any way.

The systematic closure of the trolleybuses is undoubtedly a mistake, something which will sooner or later be realized when it shows that converting all the former trolleybus offering (or at least the trunk route part of it) to e-bus does not add anything positive, and instead creates a significant expense and complication in its maintenance. My bet is that it won't even be carried out, in the end most of it will just be regular combustion buses, and even though electricity isn't that clean in Russia, it's still more efficient than combustion buses and moves pollution out of the city center.
¨ No.609
1572857611762.jpg–(413.47KB, 1333x750, 1264294.jpg)
(REUPLOAD, a few corrections made) >>585
These are definitely unsightly but they span only for a few meters at worst while catenary, even for a hybrid system with partial wiring, spans for kilometers. Again, even though that's certainly a positive change, I'm not making an argument that looks alone are worth replacing the trolleybus or even if it's worth in this case in general.

>>603
Solid reasoning dude, but just for sporting interest I will try and provide some context to what you said.

>Modern trolleybuses are equipped with backup systems, combustion or battery, that allow for detours and construction work, etc..
That is correct, and that's why many cities in Russia actually embrace the hybrid trolleybus concept. But current trolleybus in Moscow don't have a proper "range-extender" system, and backup power can provide only 500-1000 m of range in an "emergency". So it means that still it would require a massive investment into the trolleybus system. Sure, cutting the trolleybus system while modernizing the rest might have been a solid idea but here comes to play even bigger reason which I think was the main one why Moscow didn't settle on the trolleybus/batterybus hybrids, is that it is seen as a COMPROMISE. And current Moscow authorities don't like compromises in urban development, especially when it comes to transport.

Let's be honest, this project is largely "political": Sobyanin's team (while doing overall very nice work BTW) wants to be seen as innovators, the heralds of progress and rapid advancement, and settling on something half-that-half-this will undermine that image. As I said, something had to be done with the t-bus system anyway and they went for the most innovative and "progressive" option even if it's less efficient.

>My bet is that it won't even be carried out, in the end most of it will just be regular combustion buses

Oh don't underestimate the power of Moscow's determination, the replacement of t-bus routes by e-buses goes scarily swift. And they do seem to perform on "mainline" routes quite effectively, if anything they are actually faster than a trolleybus, in terms of acceleration. If anything, you could argue they will not be able to replace all the DIESEL buses by the e-buses by 2030 (because remember, Moscow replaces its t-buses AS WELL AS BUSES), and indeed the argument is made that, since despite they forbad themselves from ALL diesel urban bus purchases since 2021, they left a loophole that gas buses (as in natural gas and not gasoline, you silly 'mericans :D ) are still OK, they gonna cover with them (at least temporarily) where e-bus implementation fell short. Ironically, Moscow's electric grid on 80% is already powered by natural gas (and the other 20% from carbon-neutral sources like nuclear) so effectively the e-bus, AS WELL AS TROLLEYBUS is environmentally equivalent to a good-ol' CNG bus (which makes up for lack of these 20% of clean energy by delivering this energy directly without the shitton of conversions in the electric grid).
This is the main counter-argument I make to the transport fans screeching THE TROLLEYBUS IS ECOLOGICALLY CLEAN!!!11111, saying that to make it clean, first there should be a modern powerful nuclear plant for 2.4-4.8 Gigawatts be built somewhere close to Moscow region with the primary purpose of fueling Moscow grid (ideally built using brand new БН-1200 reactors which are known to be able to efficiently recycle the waste from regular slow-neutron reactors - so far only Russia uses this technology of recycling the waste while outputting commercially viable amounts of power to the grid, but that's off-topic) and only then say something about clean. Like, St, Petersburg, for example, electric transportation is indeed pretty clean (as in, CO2-neutral in particular - please let's not dive into that nasty nuclear argument) as the city gets half or even over half of its power from nuclear. Anyway, I digress and let's not make another argument out of that.
¨ No.613
>>609
>But current trolleybus in Moscow don't have a proper "range-extender" system, and backup power can provide only 500-1000 m of range in an "emergency". So it means that still it would require a massive investment into the trolleybus system.
Well yeah, similar or less than changing over to e-bus.

>Let's be honest, this project is largely "political"
No argument there, this was in a way my point, that it was politics over practicality or efficiency.

>effectively the e-bus, AS WELL AS TROLLEYBUS is environmentally equivalent to a good-ol' CNG bus (which makes up for lack of these 20% of clean energy by delivering this energy directly without the shitton of conversions in the electric grid).
>This is the main counter-argument I make to the transport fans screeching THE TROLLEYBUS IS ECOLOGICALLY CLEAN!!!11111
Fair point, although afaik an electric bus system powered by GNC plants is still more efficient and therefore cleaner than GNC buses. Not that at any point I denied what you say, but the point was that you're at least moving pollution outside of the city which is always useful.

In any case thanks for all your explanations. So bottom line, you'd say the trolleybus system is 100% on its way out, unlike the tram system which has been pretty much settled as a peripheral and feeder transport? Or do you see some lines being kept in the long term?

Delete Post