Battery-Powered Transit - Is It Overrated?

Watch this video ad-free on Nebula: nebula.tv/vide...
Many transit agencies have started to push for battery-powered transit as a way to advertise their "eco-friendly" public transit offerings, but this is a misguided way of thinking and a bad way to spend capital - let's talk about why.
Support the Channel and Get Exclusive Content: / rmtransit
My Blog: reecemartin.ca
Twitter: / rm_transit
Instagram: / rm_transit
Mastodon: masto.canadian...
Bluesky: bsky.app/profi...
Threads: www.threads.ne...
Community Discord Server: / discord
Music from Epidemic Sound: share.epidemic...
Map Data © OpenStreetMap contributors
Nexa from Fontfabric.com

[@papyrussemi2848]

Greener trains are better than non-greener trains, but any trains is better than no trains.

[@erkinalp]

this

[@raahi.rahdihossain]

Best way to sum up this video. Thank you for this!

[@Steeeve_]

The problem with many projects is that we try to build too much at once. Smaller projects that could eventually achieve the same goal in incremental steps would prevent getting nothing as a result of cost overruns. Batteries could potentially enable us to add overhead wires over portions of a line while gradually adding more portions until we have full coverage or what we need. As you mentioned, something is better than nothing.

[@crowmob-yo6ry]

What I especially can't stand is when car-addicted suburbanites claim that "Taking away lanes from cars makes traffic and air pollution worse!" Looking at you, Randal O'Toole and John Phillips...

[@drdewott9154]

Jeez tell me about it, In Denmark where I'm from we hear that even in dense cities. Same about parking spots, where these same nutjobs go "You're causing needless excessive emissions by not providing adequate parking, making us go around for dozens of minutes looking for an available spot. I hear the same about not providing green waves at signalled intersections for car traffic or pedestrianizing streets, even though Denmark used to be a world class innovator in this field. Same for transit, it has been cut back both in cities and rural areas for over 15 years now, and its clear that both the politicians and the public dont even care much about transit anymore and see it as a lost cause, and something that can't be relied on, despite the opposite being the case just 20 years ago.

[@goldie819]

Only way to improve traffic is to get cars off the road. Only way to get cars off the road is to give viable alternatives to driving. I think there needs to be messaging targeting car brains with something like "Get the idiots off the road so you can drive in peace." Appeal to the egocentricity in a way that supports public transit and makes it clear that they can still drive if they want to.

[@rickdu705]

@@drdewott9154 i studied in Denmark for the first 6 months this year (i am from suburban canada), and hearing this from a local is frankly upsetting. i was truly impressed by all the pedestrian areas, but it sounds like most of them are just a relic of the past. though i will repeat that i am from suburban canada, in case you are wondering the kind of conditions i get used to seeing.

[@themanyouwanttobe]

It's the same mentality as "if you slow me down, I'm going to drive dangerously, so you're being dangerous by slowing me down."

[@drdewott9154]

@@themanyouwanttobe Yes. Driving instructors literally encourage going fast by claiming exactly what you said, that if you're going slow, like say 5km below the speed limit, you'll be an obstruction and make people do dangerous maneuvers, and therefore put the blame on you for making others break the law.

[@MattMcIrvin]

I've seen the argument where someone pushes for cutting bus service because some of the buses at midday are running nearly empty, and they'll argue that that empty bus isn't "green" because it produces more emissions than just putting those 1 or 2 passengers in cars. But they're not taking the knock-on effects of cutting that service into account--making it less regular and frequent makes it harder to use, and the more people need to plan to ride the bus, the less likely they are to ride the bus, even at peak times. It feels like flirting with a low-ridership death spiral.

[@crowmob-yo6ry]

The evil Cara Mendelsohn and Randal O'toole use this dumb argument a lot. So does the evil John Phillips of 790 KABC.

[@katrinabryce]

Yes, I use the daytime service a lot more now that the evening and Sunday service has been increased from 1 bus per hour to 3, because I know I can get back home with a maximum wait of 19 minutes at the bus stop instead of 59 minutes.

[@illiiilli24601]

100% this, empty buses are often loss leaders. As someone who is lucky enough to pick and choose when I take public transport, often gauge whether I take it by the frequency of the later buses, if it's still running every 15 minutes (30 in a pinch) to the latest time I expect to be out by, then I'll usually take public transport. I think Reece has already made a video on this though

[@AnotherDuck]

You always have to consider the entire service, not just specific buses on specific lines. Sure, you can have high-traffic-only lines, but then you still need to have a basic service that works well enough without those lines. Here in Stockholm, we have some lines that only run during rush hours. Those are generally express buses that run across from the metro and supplement the regular buses. But even without those, the bus service is still reasonably reliable. In essence, it's the reverse of what OP is talking about: Adding to the existing service to create that line rather than cutting from the existing service to create that line.

[@ab-tf5fl]

Another thing these people often don't realize is that cutting service during midday without also cutting rush hour service is often very inefficient. It means that, after the morning rush, the empty bus has to be driven back to the base, then driven empty again from the base to the route start before the afternoon rush. All that deadheading is a lot of miles driven with zero passengers on board. Rush-hour service is also very inefficient from a labor standpoint, as bus drivers prefer to be working a contiguous 8-hour shift, rather than working 2 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the afternoon, with an awkward 4-hour gap in between with nothing to do. Often, the union will required that such split-shift drivers be paid for some or all of this "gap time", in which case, the agency may as well just keep the bus running throughout the day, as it's a huge improvement in service for very little additional operating cost.

[@jezzarisky]

I remember seeing an argument of someone trying to dismiss the offset in pollution by comparing a single car to a full diesel locomotive, deliberately saying the per person offset wasn’t important. I did look up a study that assessed about how much the train emitted compared to cars, I don’t remember offhand but to ignoring that the train carries significant number of passengers at peak times that certain sections were overfilled by passengers per regulations and that this number was pulling thousands of cars off the road, saying that one should only compare a single car to the train was very silly

[@kaihang4685]

He should’ve compared how much energy a diesel locomotive with a full load of containers requires per distance then divide it by the amount of containers. Then ask him to find an equivalent energy draw for a container truck on the road for the same amount of distance. I have a friend whose grandfather worked on railways - he claimed that if the locomotive’s engine was “distributed” across each container, it would be the size of a fist. I think my buddy’s exaggerating just a bit, but he’s not wrong in imagining the sheer efficiency of freight.

[@KaiHenningsen]

@@kaihang4685 In any case, the vast majority of freight trains over here are pulled by electric locomotives using overhead wire. It's just cheaper than with diesel.

[@RMTransit]

IIRC it is not a high number of cars that you need to displace to produce less emissions

[@jezzarisky]

@@RMTransit I am terrible at remembering numbers, but for the UTA Frontrunners tier 0+ diesel engines I think put out similar emissions of like 50-150 cars, much better efficiency especially during peak times, and negligible during off hours.

[@GintaPPE1000]

@@jezzariskyMuch lower than that, depending on what you’re measuring. For pollutants like NOx and SOx, that sounds about right - for things like CO2, it’s much lower.

[@Patrick_wire]

One reason for a battery bus was more about local air quality rather than global climate friendliness.

[@HidingAllTheWay]

Also, to a lesser extent, noise polution.

[@DerekKraan]

I have to say that it is nice not having to suck diesel fumes when a bus pulls up next to you (on a bike). (In Utrecht where they changed all busses to electric a few years ago)

[@szurketaltos2693]

I don't really get this one. It seems that most of the argument is about bus depot idling, but at a depot you could just have shore power. In motion the emissions are not concentrated, except perhaps on a very well used BRT line.

[@barryrobbins7694]

Are the buses being replaced before the end of their useful life?

[@ab-tf5fl]

That is definitely a thing. Even if pollution from diesel buses is negligible in the climate change scheme of things, it can be a very big contributor to local pollution along roads where many bus route converge, resulting in extremely high levels of bus traffic. Pollution which anyone who rides the bus has to breathe while walking to it and waiting for it.

[@marcniklass8198]

I'm a driver for Erixx, who is running brand-new battery electric trains in northern Germany's regional service. (The one on the thumbnail) While there are ecological reasons, which predominantly are voiced in politics and to our passengers, another big reason to electrify the trains and not the routes, which were run with diesel, is to safe the money for the electric infrastructure and fuel costs. The entire contract for the trains and their maintenance costed 600m € and lasts for 30 years. Each year, 10m liter of diesel are saved. Of course, the electric energy has a price too, but ultimately it is a price thing.

[@RMTransit]

An the cost of electricity should fall a lot with the price of solar and wind falling so much!

[@Workaholic42]

@@marcniklass8198 Thank you for your service! I love the battery-electric Erixx trains here, quiet, fast, comfortable, no smell. If they are also cheap to operate, all the better!

[@the_retag]

Took a while to reliably operate tho​@@Workaholic42

[@shaswatsingh2629]

Germany's preference for snubbing clean, efficient, nuclear power for dirty, inefficient coal power for energy generation, which won't be phased out by late 2030s (very optimistically), makes electrification goals/agenda (cars, transit, etc) seem more like vote bank appeasement politics than actual concern for environment.

[@finnibat]

Coal has made up about 20% of electricity generation so far this year. This figure is btw decreasing quite dramatically in recent years. May I ask where you from? Because if you're not French or blessed with a geography that allows for a lot of hydro, bets are VERY high that your electricity is less green.

[@Pilgerobst]

Fun fact: The Thumbnail shows the Lübeck Central Station in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany (my home State). Both trains are electric however the train in the back is powered by catenary (Stadler KISS) and the train at the front is a battery powered train (the first ones in Germany) (Stadler FLIRT Akku).

[@RMTransit]

Yep! I referenced it in last weeks video too!

[@jacekwesoowski1484]

Here in Warsaw there's a certain section of the electorate that complains a lot whenever there's a new tram, bus or a even a new stop (the noise! the smell! those horrible POOR PEOPLE who ride trams and buses!), but if you told them the next trams you'll buy are going to be fusion-powered, they would all over it, enthusiastically celebrating how we're so very modern and ahead of the curve.

[@SupremeLeaderKimJong-un]

In the case of Caltrain, rail electrification specially makes sense as besides getting it ready for the line to be used by California HSR, compared to diesel trains, electric trains have reduced power loss at higher altitudes and can serve underground stations where diesel trains cannot operate! Not to mention, diesel infrastructure like fueling stations can be put to other uses! And running EMUs in particular means a higher seating capacity, since there is no locomotive, all cars can contain seats. And lower adhesion coefficients for driving (powered) axles, due to lower weight on these axles, weight is not concentrated on a locomotive! I'm in support of trolleybuses for bus electrification! Trolleybuses are a great solution for bus electrification for several reasons. For hilly routes like in Seattle and San Francisco, trolleybuses are better than motorbuses as electric motors provide much higher static torque at start-up, an advantage for climbing steep hills. No battery means lower weight and lower cost, plus less resource waste! Though I'm amenable to BEV busses as if they're part of a greater trolleybus system, they can be deployed to areas where running wires isn't feasible and can connect back to the grid once they return to the wires. Trolleybuses are especially great where electricity is abundant, cheap, and renewable, such as hydroelectric. Systems in Seattle and Vancouver in Canada draw hydroelectric power from the Columbia River and other Pacific river systems! And compared to trams, they're cheaper, there's easier training as the potential operator pool for all buses is larger than trams, they're quieter, and not to mention easier traffic avoidance! Pyongyang for example has trolleybuses! It currently has 12 lines and a total length of 56.6 km! As of July 2024, the latest line opened in 2022 on Day of the Sun when a new line from Songyo to Songhwa was opened, while the line from West Pyongyang to Thermal Power was rerouted, both to serve the new Songhwa and Kyongru-dong residentials districts! The first plans for a trolleybus network were proposed in 1957, though construction only began in 1960, after Kim Il-sung ordered it. The network begun operation in April 1962! Pyongyang has trolleybuses, trams, two Metro lines, and even bikeshare! Even Dayton, Ohio has trolleybuses, theirs started operation in 1933, and because they electrified their (former) streetcars in 1888, this means they've continuously operated electric transit service since 1888, so they've had an electric transit service LONGER than ANY other city in the US! Quite the achievement for a city like Dayton!

[@AverytheCubanAmerican]

Regarding Caltrain, diesel trains (alongside a BEMU trainset ordered) will be used for South County Connector service between San Jose and Gilroy, electrification between Tamien and Gilroy is phase two. As mentioned, electrification leads to quicker journeys as shown with Caltrain, electric rail's main environmental benefit doesn't come from eliminating diesel trains, but rather taking cars off the road by means of faster and more frequent service. Also worth mentioning that the line will interline with California's statewide HSR! And in the case of the Metra FLIRT BEMUs, Metra's locomotives are among the dirtiest you'll find anywhere so the FLIRTs are a welcomed improvement for the Rock Island District Beverly Branch's community, the FLIRT is much lighter than a traditional Metra train which means they'll do less damage to the rails and the tracks won't need as much costly maintenance, and they have great acceleration which for a line like the Beverly branch where the stops in Blue Island and Chicago's Beverly Hills are so close together, they'll lead to higher frequencies and faster travel times. A reminder that service from LaSalle St that serves the Beverly branch runs entirely in Cook County, the branch itself is just around 10.6 km! People will probably be like "But the winter in Chicago, that's bad for the batteries", but Stadler is a Swiss company, and their quality electric trains have operated in cold places like Finland, Russia, Sweden, and of course Switzerland. Ans when you consider the freight railways they have to deal with, Metra going the BEMU route for better service also makes sense. BEMUs are great for a frequent O'Hare service on the North Central Service. On the LIRR, as part of Suffolk County's Connect Long Island plan, their plans include electrification of the Port Jefferson Branch from Huntington to Port Jeff, the Montauk Branch from Babylon to Patchogue, and the Ronkonkoma Branch from Ronkonkoma to Yaphank, with Yaphank being relocated to a new station at East Yaphank to serve the Brookhaven National Laboratory, the home of the National Synchrotron Light Source II and the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, the latter of which has been the second-highest-energy heavy-ion collider in the world. The plan includes Siemens Chargers to replace the EMD DE/DM30AC locomotives. Caltrain's electrification is even helping protect history! El Palo Alto, the reason Palo Alto got its name (it means "tall stick" in Spanish), is a historic 110 ft/34 m tall coast redwood on the banks of the San Francisquito Creek! El Palo Alto germinated around 940 AD, when the Ohlone people lived there! The area of what's now Palo Alto was first recorded by the 1769 expedition of Gaspar de Portolá. When he made it to the area in November 1769, his expedition camped by the tall coast redwood! The tree is now along Caltrain's tracks! When the San Francisco and San Jose Railroad was built right next to the tree, the soot led to the tree to decline in health. But now, thanks to Caltrain electrification, this eliminates the impact of smoke. And I love bi-levels/double deckers so much, so it's great they're sticking with them as EMUs! A fun fact about double deckers, the LIRR was actually one of the first operators of double deckers in the US, as the PRR first built prototypes of them for the LIRR in 1932, the world's first all-aluminum double decker! They were EMUs! Though they weren't exactly true double deckers, they functioned similarly to a gallery car, as the idea was a single level with a centerline aisle, and two levels of seats, with the second staggered above the first. The 1932 prototype could sit 120, while the fleet that entered service in the 1940s could sit 132. They were discontinued in the 1970s, with all scrapped except one, the 1932 prototype, which is preserved at the Railroad Museum of Long Island in Riverhead! Which is also home to two preserved M1s, among the last! Bilevels wouldn't return to the LIRR until the 1990s with the C1s and C3s (C1s were sold in 1999 as they were just an experiment before the C3s and were mechanically incompatible with the C3s).

[@SamuelClemens-o6q]

Hybrid buses make a lot of sense for mid-tier transit systems. They are more fuel efficient, quieter at roll out, take great advantage of the stop/start nature of city driving, and are a bridge to a future transit system that is electrified via overhead lines. Additionally, the efficiency gains from hybrid motors means that their service life is far greater than combustion-only vehicles.

[@RMTransit]

Oh they make sense everywhere, no reason for pure diesel in 2024

[@moneycash-wg7wp]

You could argue however that people's perception is just as important. If a large transit agency has electric vehicles, other companies and agencies will follow, and people will feel like the journey they are making out of their cars is more worthwhile for reducing carbon emissions. But yes, focus on good service before electric service. London UK, where I live, already has great transport service, so electrification seems like a reasonable next step.

[@RMTransit]

I think perception is unlikely to be swayed significantly if service is not already good!

[@rorschak47]

Yes, it comes off as hypocritical when the council urges the people to ditch fossil fuels, while vehicles operated by the city are pumping out diesel smoke.

[@Talon5516-tx3ih]

It's hard to convince people that busses and trains are more environmentally friendly when they're spewing out diesel fumes. They need to be electric to win people over, that's the problem with this. Many times I've been at a platform where a diesel train sits for ages with its engine running, deafening everyone all the time producing clouds of fumes. If you're someone who isn't convinced but thinking about using transit instead of driving and you experience that, well nobody would blame you for going home at firing up the V8. Clearly you have nothing to be guilty about.

[@Airgotravelsworldwide]

I don’t understand for the rider what the difference between BEVs and Trolleys, yet some people hate trolley buses because they “need wires”. Some people also have no problem with wires for trains, just buses.

[@maxpowr90]

It baffles me too. People have no problem with the rat nests of wiring on utility poles; all of a sudden catenary is unsightly?

[@israellai]

Apparently wires look outdated and that's why people want to get rid of them at all costs. c.f. consumer tech

[@tau2647]

i honestly find overhead wires incredibly cute it adds so much character and detail to a street imo. i dont get why people dont like them. same with window a/c units i like the way those looks too

[@walawala-fo7ds]

100% hate overhead wires in trains. They are not necessary at all. We've had the technology of 3rd rails for half a century. Trolley buses are the worse however as their spiderweb of awful is all over the city even those that have buried all other lines. 100% support getting rid of all trolleys.

[@bahnspotterEU]

@@walawala-fo7ds Except third rail is nowhere near as capable as OHLE because it can‘t deliver voltages of over 1500V DC safely and it‘s much more dangerous to its surroundings because of how low to the ground it sits

[@GintaPPE1000]

Urbanists are partially to blame for this too. The obsession with electrification has caused some parts of the community to completely lost sight of the original purpose of electrification: to *upgrade* service in the densest areas with closer headways, faster acceleration, and higher speeds. BEMU fascination is just the newest manifestation of that misguided pursuit of electric rail just for the sake of having electric rail. Misguided feedback from advocacy groups results in misguided decisions from transit agencies who are merely listening to their stakeholders. Fact is, diesel trains remain a lower-cost option than even BEMUs to provide service to areas where the density or budget don't support electrification yet, especially if (like many agencies) you already have the diesel-powered equipment and it has plenty of life left. But instead of expanding service beyond the wires with newly-freed-up stock, we see agencies like CalTrain dumping all their diesel stock to show how clean and modern they are, because that's what their strongest supporters demand. Even the worst EPA Tier 0 diesel locomotives in North America only produces about as much emissions per mile as a couple dozen cars - and a typical diesel-hauled commuter train carries hundreds of people. *The cleanest solution isn't to dump the diesel locomotive - it's to get more cars off the road, by all means necessary.* If that means keeping diesel around, then do it.

[@haisheauspforte1632]

Depends, electrifying commuter rail lines in cities (like Metra in Chicago or GO in Toronto) is a must, but for random branch lines in Europe or Japan battery can actually be a reasonable, not too costly option (especially if the stations connecting to main lines are electrified already)

[@PhilliesNostalgia]

They dumped their diesel locos, because they weren't need north of Tamien, and south of it, there's only 4 stations currently. Electrification of the CalTrain mainline has been in the works since the early 90s, it even could have happened in the early 1920s (doesn't mean that the wires could have been ripped out though later on). If you're gonna electrify, do it like CalTrain, don't do battery, that's just inferior

[@GintaPPE1000]

@@PhilliesNostalgia CalTrain did the electrification right, no doubt. But saying the diesels weren’t needed is fundamentally untrue, because those four stations south of San Jose don’t get the same level of service as the electric corridor. Even during rush hour. Nor do these people have the benefit of one-seat rides to San Francisco unless they ride during the rush. If CalTrain was providing that same service and still had stock left over, then sure, dumping it or at least mothballing it pending future service extension makes sense. That’s not what they did.

[@PrograError]

Would it make more sense to get a Battery-Catenary hybrid, but only running on battery on the further stations outside of the Core section where it will run on catenary (something like how the Elizabeth (Purple) Line in London run, in terms of signalling) It certainly does not make much sense to invest in electrification for sections where the service levels are essentially non-existent, other than the few for the day or every few hours. Then again, it makes sense to just rely on DMUs then.

[@alexejvornoskov6580]

Electric trains are better in all aspects - not only in eco, but in speed, acceleration and power too. Only problem is that you need to invest into infrastructure, while diesel still can drive at 100 year old rails that didnt had maintenance for decades.

[@jatekvege4641]

I live in Riga, Latvia. There we have the same problem, our government is taking electric busses with burning of interest eyes. But frequency of service in most cases is not even better than before, but worse, because of that old reliable low-floor diesel buses are scrapped or donated to other countries. Same with trolleybuses, Riga has an incredible trolleybus network, but it's begging for repairs, and in some cases overhead wires just exist, but due to the poor of it condition trolleybuses run on diesel or hydrogen generators. So in the end instead of more reliable service and repaired existing infrastructure we have a couple of electric buses, that's all.

[@toetankgr]

I love Riga trolleybuses and trams they're so cool but had to wait 20 minutes for a tram at Zasulauks once

[@biedisunizlietne]

Part of the reason is that they can buy electric buses with EU funding, but not diesel :) Same reason why we have new electric trains but no new trains for diesel routes

[@biedisunizlietne]

Oh, and there's new EU regulation that states that 30% of new bus fleets have to be electric. Also for regional buses. Which means that Valka now has an electric minibus for the shuttle to the railway station. But, because the road to the station is unpaved, the new electric bus often in winter cannot get to the station 🤠

[@firstlast1932]

@@biedisunizlietne Why not plug-in hybrid buses? (or mild hybrid buses with a plug like Prague?) Eastern EU countries import used diesel trains like Desiro, RS1 or LINT for refurbishing. I guess there is no such option in wide gauge?

[@biedisunizlietne]

@@firstlast1932 It might be that such buses don't count as green enough anymore for the 30% rule 🤔 The second largest city just renewed it's bus fleet with CNG (12m and 18m) and battery (12m) buses. But if I recall correctly, CNG will no longer be considered green from 2025. And yes, there are no real options for 2nd hand diesel trains for broad gauge - at least not without fairly big investment to adapt them to our track gauge, loading gauge, signalling and safety systems. Quite the pickle to get people to use soviet era trains that can barely reach 100kph 😅

[@hammerth1421]

My hometown made it into the thumbnail! Let's fucking goooo! I live in Lüneburg and took that train to Lübeck like a week ago. The battery trains are really nice compared to the diesel stink that was there before. That's a branch line and the main line it's coming from is rated D only because the German rail infrastructure operator DB Netz pledged to repair all lines rated F by 2030, so this branch line is unlikely to be electrified by catenary until the 2040s. Btw, DB is planning proper national clock face scheduling by *2070* AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[@drdewott9154]

Damn. Around a decade ago the danish government planned to have a national clock face schedule by 2030, but plans slowly fell apart until the coalition for the agreement lost majority in late 2022, and so now it is all just lost indefinitely and left in a half baked state. Also Danish politicians are also very keen on battery trains for basically all branch lines and secondary routes in the country, most of which already runs exclusively with small 2 car DMU's like Alstom Lints and Siemens Desiros.

[@ft4709]

Oh no, the 2070 myth has jumped across to the North American comment sections. Please, just stop spreading that nonsense. It isn’t even up to DB anyways.

[@MrMakabar]

DB is already trying fairly hard to have a clock face scheduling. It is not perfect, but in many places it actually is working reasonably well, but is limited by infrastructure capacity. 2070 is the time, when DB hopes to have all of the infrastructure in place needed for it. That is partly due to some really complex projects being required for it, mainly upgrading large city center train stations and some new hsr lines. However in many places it is already working fairly well, if the trains are on time.

[@ft4709]

Since the Thumbnail pictures a German BEMU I think it’s only fair to point out that they’re actually pretty awesome. As of recently the only somewhat capable DMU you could buy for the German network was the Alstom Lint. Obviously the best option is always to electrify the line, however, resources are limited. Over here there’s plenty of services that operate on electrified lines for much of their journey but due to just a small gap that most likely won’t be fixed within the next 10-15 years due to other projects taking priority (and rightfully so) they have to be operated by DMUs for the entire journey. So it’s essentially the trolley bus situation you pointed out. In these cases BEMUs are just objectively a much, much better solution than DMUs: They accelerate faster, are much quieter, use the existing wires for as much as possible and provide a better user experience. They’re not even all that much more expensive since you get to pick between several different manufacturers whereas the DMU market is effectively monopolized. I wouldn’t even be surprised if these end up being cheaper to operate than DMUs. Not to mention: Those are mostly off the shelf EMU‘s but fitted with battery packs. So there’s still an incentive to electrify as that will allow you to get rid of those batteries but you can keep using the train.

[@ekultaylor4463]

Allowing for gaps in electrification infrastructure is why I'm in on battery trains. Things like tunnels, bridges, tight right of ways, and other complex engineering can be skipped, dramatically slashing the costs of electrification. I don't think public transit battery vehicles should be for long distances. They should be for smaller hops between islands of electricity

[@PrograError]

@@ekultaylor4463 IMO they could be used for long distance but in the extreme long distance that's more suited for EMUs, it shouldn't be used but instead to just upgrade the line. If the line is of a stopping service with many opportunities to regen, it may perhaps be suited, presuming the boxfare is sufficient for the basic upkeep shortfall compared with the diesel unit...

[@lionelfully]

Excellent comments both! Quick question, which company within DMU holds the "monopole" that you think of? I can think of Stadler, Siemens and Bombardier all building Diesel MU, and I didn't even check in Asia (and maybe Alstom does too, I just don't remember).

[@ft4709]

@@lionelfully Alstom was pretty much the sole supplier with their Lint platform on the German market for the last 10 years. Only other DMU I can think of was the Pesa Link (which didn't exactly perform well). Bombardier is now part of Alstom, so their product range only fuels that monopoly, Stadler only offers modified variants of their Flirt and GTW sets which aren't exactly DMU's but rather come with an additional engine car and offer worse capacity than either a BEMU or DMU and Siemens has stopped offering DMUs all together in favor of Mireo plus H and Mireo plus B. Last DMU they've built was the original Desiro classic more than a decade ago.

[@purplebrick131]

Exactly, you can't see this issue in a vacuum. If we're serious about net zero targets, we have limited time left. So its not about "which is theoretically better", its about what can deliver what we need most effectively in X time frame, this also applies for mode shift. And because of that Battery Buses and Trains make a lot of sense. I mean Schleswig-Holstein can phase out all Diesel trains on every brach line in less than a decade, you'd never achieve that in the time we have left if you needed to put up catenaries everywhere.

[@spych102]

Even if it’s not greener, it feels cleaner. This has been apparent for more than a century, and it’s where the votes and riders are!

[@Vitally_Trivial]

In the case of rail, I definitely don’t see the point of batteries beyond a few edge cases, but I think I am a lot more positive about battery buses. I agree that battery buses for the sake of press releases and photo opportunities is not ideal, but I still think they are worth it enough to say, outside of edge cases, we’re at a point where all new urban buses could be electric, either as battery, trolley, or hybrids of both. Of course, that doesn’t mean you need to start ditching buses that may have an additional 15-20 years of useful service left in them. Transit companies ought to be looking into electric buses as an addition to their existing diesel fleets, a combination of fleet expansion and rolling replacements as older vehicles retire. The rule of thumb is battery vehicles cost 1/3 in fuel, and 1/5 in maintenance, which of course will reduce operating costs, offsetting the higher initial capital costs. They also offer superior comfort, removing the diesel engine creating heat, noise, and vibrations, which can be annoying for passengers and fatiguing for drivers on buses. As batteries fade over time, they can be replaced with newer, denser, and cheaper traction batteries, such as I did with my old electric van. The old batteries can be repurposed into stationary storage for example, mine were used in military target practice drones even. Eventually they can be recycled in new plants popping up for that purpose, although I’m not sure how much they can be recycled if they were shot at by a tank. The real worry in my mind is hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, which in theory sounds nice, but in practice use 4x as much energy as battery vehicles. The extra energy required for creating hydrogen fuel has meant that hydrogen is often fossil fuels, usually gas, in renewable clothing. As well, it is a much less mature technology, which runs the risk of delaying the adoption of battery vehicles that are ready today.

[@TherconJair]

With the issue that trolley bus networks are being ditched for battery electric bus networks because it sounds nice and futuristic and might be cheaper in the short term due to deferred maintenance of the batteries while the catenary needs to be maintained throughout.

[@d1234as]

​@@TherconJairbattery maintenance and lower efficiency are more expensive that catenary maintenance. Catenary maintenance is not so expensive. The true cost is overhead lines installation.

[@szurketaltos2693]

The big concern I have about battery buses is depot size, for the same size depot you cannot run as many buses due to charging. Hot swap batteries could help, but too many in a small space is a huge fire hazard.

[@mindstalk]

Boston's MBTA has torn out its trolleybus wires, and bought battery buses... that needed to add unregulated diesel heaters so that they can work in the winter. Can't tell if it's incompetence or outright corruption. It's certainly not cleaner.

[@Vitally_Trivial]

@@szurketaltos2693 Nip that one in the bud, batteries are less likely to start a fire than internal combustion engines.

[@placeholdername0000]

Battery busses work, if you're going to buy a new bus anyway. You will see a variety of benefits, even if they cost a little extra. Yes batteries will be better in the future, but in many places the battery busses are good enough. Just don't destroy a perfectly good diesel bus that you already own, just to call yourself all electric. Edit: Spelling mistake.

[@OtherlingQueen]

The mistake is not giving the buses the ability to be connected to overhead wires, which they should be, instead of being run by batteries. The whole recent EV movement is a disgusting psyop by centre-right people to try and push expensive vehicles and ruin the planet in yet another way. Overhead wires were a thing for very long and we don't need battery-fueled transit.

[@mindstalk]

Even worse is tearing out trolleybus lines for battery buses that need diesel assist.

[@placeholdername0000]

@@mindstalk Do you mean hybrid busses? If so, that's a downgrade.

[@leozixiliu4646]

battery buses usually cost twice or so

[@mindstalk]

@@placeholdername0000 Battery buses that need diesel heaters in the winter. A la Boston.

[@katrinabryce]

If you go to London and take for example the 94 bus, that should persuade you that battery electric buses are now ready for prime-time. That runs about every 7-10 minutes and half-hourly through the night (or every 15 minutes Saturday night/early Sunday morning). Along Oxford Street, the traffic is pretty much entirely buses, and has high polution levels, so electrifying the buses and doing things like the Elizabeth Line are realistically the only way to solve that. You wouldn't even notice they are electric from being near or on one, other than the lack of diesel fumes, because they have very good performance, and for safety reasons have speakers on them that make engine noises when it is moving.

[@szurketaltos2693]

How are operations impacted? Particularly, bow does the amount of depot space compare? I suspect that perhaps in this case battery buses are fine, but not a huge upgrade taking everything into account.

[@katrinabryce]

@@szurketaltos2693 I don't think they have increased depot space. They certainly had to upgrade the electricity supply to cope with a load of chargers for the buses. The range of the buses is about 300km, which is more than a day of typical driving in London, and they take about 4 hours to charge (vs I guess maybe 10 minutes to fill up with diesel).

[@szurketaltos2693]

@@katrinabryce hm, I'd be curious to see how exactly that maths out but thanks for the first order approximation.

[@rrlabastida]

Exactly, I feel this video wasn't researched well and it is stuck at a reality wñthat was true maybe 8-10 years ago. I've been riding the electric BYD 153 in Islington for a while now and it's better than diesel, and from the analysis I've seen, much cheaper to run.

[@RMTransit]

@@rrlabastida 1) BYD's buses / tech have performed very poorly in North America. 2) We have not gone through an entire lifecycle, which as I mention in the video (which includes shots of some electrics in London!) is important for understanding the actual costs etc.

[@kiefershanks4172]

Using my very bad napkin math I worked out that a full size diesel GO train with 12 coaches has a break even point of about 60 passengers in terms of its fuel consumption versus if those 60 people drove the same distance. Those trains regularly carry 2000 plus passengers. While fuel consumption increases due to the sheer weight of bodies, the engine also operates at its maximum thermal efficiency under high load. In other words, fuel consumption per individual goes down significantly to under 1L/100km of diesel easily with a fairly average passenger load. Impressive considering GO trains spend a significant amount of time at full throttle. I'd like to see a car achieve anything close to that kind of efficiency.

[@derradfahrer5029]

I get your argument regarding good transit using diesel busses/train being far better then cars. But I think that using battery electric vehicles does have a few advantages compared to overhead wires, too. One Stadler Flirt Akku train goes for around 7 - 9mio €. One state in Germany bought 55 trains for 600Mio €, but that is with prepaid service for the next 30 years included. Normal, electric Stadler Flirt 3 go for around 5 Mio. So 40% to 80% extra. 1 km of overhead wire retrofitted to exiting rail goes for 1 mio €, with planning and land acquisition. And planning often takes a lot of time

[@samuell.foxton4177]

The UK average (Central London to the wilds of nowhere with a couple of buses a week) is that the average CO2 emissions from public transport are 50% those of car travel. This is way too high and I’d argue we should be aiming at least for 25%, even with an electrification of the car fleet. Some of the reasons it’s high in the UK are our reliance on diesel for rail (though 2 of the 3 remaining main lines which are diesel only being electrified now (Transpennine North and Midland Main), leaving the Cross Country Line as the busiest diesel only line in the future, and those trains already travel a substantial portion of their mileage as diesel under the wires… The UK is slowly catching up, and the increasing use of bi-mode trains will eliminate diesel running under the wires, at least for express trains (and the aforementioned CrossCountry) The second reason is our heavy reliance on the inefficient single entrance double deck diesel bus for urban transport (I know you like them, but spend a few days outside London where they are often the only option for urban transport, on corridors running at frequencies higher than their dwell times and you will change your view…), which leads to high levels of particulate pollution in the centre of our major cities. Electric buses are a good solution, and my local depot (Leeds Bramley) is in the process of going all electric. I can feel a great positive difference now I commute on an electric bus about 90% of the time

[@kaitlyn__L]

Glasgow's buses on the major routes going into the city centre have been electrified as well and it noticeably improves air quality and reduces soot on the streets they run on. Also, not having my bones shaken-about while dwelling at bus stops is nice :)

[@haisheauspforte1632]

Kinda surprised to see my local train in the thumbnail (I live right next to the rail line with the new BEMUs)

[@steelfabric]

Sydney's Parramatta Light Rail is partly battery powered. Some of the line has overhead wires, which drives the LR and charges the batteries, and part of the line has no overhead wires and is powered by the batteries. Not having overhead wires is visually pleasing, which is a benefit. The downside is yet to be determined, but may include battery fires and higher cost when the batteries need replacing. Time will tell. This line is still undergoing testing and hasn't entered service yet.

[@andrerenault]

I can see battery power as a range extension being useful for areas that are partially electrified

[@ekultaylor4463]

That's a model I'd like to see become a common pattern. Identify some easy, cheap spots for catenary and then use batteries to hop between the electrified segments. That would slash the costs of electrification and make it viable to bring to many different lines while keeping train acquisition costs and battery supply usage down. A best of both worlds.

[@Myrtone]

@@ekultaylor4463 That is what the tram-trains in Cardiff do.

[@RMTransit]

@@ekultaylor4463 I disagree! Catenary is super well developed and thus its uncommon for it to actually be all that expensive, if it is then the problem is probably not the catenary but your construction cost. You are trading off a one time saving of infra for perpetual major costs in batteries on the vehicles.

[@laurencefraser]

@@RMTransit That's basically been the reason not to use catanary for basically the entire time it's been a thing. It's basically the only reason Diesel is the standard in so many places rather than the rare, situationally applicable exception (like monorail)... the politicians and corporate types balked at the upfront cost of electrification, even if it would have been better in the long run.

[@redstonecrafter7777]

Great video as always, but I think that your criticism of battery powered trains does not make sense in a lot of cases (at least in Germany where I live). Over here, most of the railway mainlines are electrified, but many rural/regional lines are not which leads to many diesel trains running under power lines. For this purpose, battery trains are great since they can charge when running under catenary and use their batteries in not electrified segments of their route. This does not only reduce emissions but also improves quality and comfort because electric trains are faster, quieter, have better acceleration and aren’t stinky. Additionally, it allows these trains to run on underground downtown corridors where diesel trains can’t run and the transit companies save money because electricity is cheaper than diesel and the trains need less maintenance than diesel trains. Of course it would be better to electrify all railway lines like in Switzerland, but that’s extremely expensive and complicated here in Germany and normally takes at least 10-15 years to finish, so it’s better to run battery trains at first and remove the batteries later when the line is electrified.

[@TherconJair]

With the exception that infrastructure investments and electrification are deferred and will never be done. It's just the cheap way out. Battery electric trains don't have the same power, are heavier and require resources that can be used better in other places that need de-carbonisation. Also less efficient. a SBB had to pay DB to electrify the route Lindau-München. It's absolutely ridiculous.

[@Talon5516-tx3ih]

I wonder if Switzerland would have electrified all of its railways if they'd had today's battery technology.

[@katrinabryce]

In the UK, the approach has been mostly to have bi-mode trains - electric trains that have a pantograph or third-rail shoe or both, plus a diesel generator, and they run the diesel generator in places where there aren't overhead wires or a third rail.

[@Talon5516-tx3ih]

@@TherconJair Electrification requires a lot of steel, copper and concrete, not to mention the diesel powered equipment to do the work and the (probably diesel) replacement busses. It's also more infrastructure to maintain. You have to factor in all these things. But the best argument is that it'll simply take too long - decades to electrify all of Germany's railways and it's not as if there isn't other stuff to do. We then get into a daft situation where because somebody has decided that a 20Km branch line should be electrified we end up with diesel trains being in operation for another 15 years. Whereas in a lot of cases absolutely nothing is required for battery trains and they could replace the diesels tomorrow (assuming that one end of the line has overhead power).

[@bencns]

Not gonna lie, in terms of busses, and other large diesel road going vehicles I am completely fine with them being BEVs simply because of how much quieter it would be.

[@bahnspotterEU]

BEBs also run much smoother and accelerate far quicker than diesel buses.

[@Tacosnep]

Not to mention diesel exhaust is nasty, so it's a big quality of life upgrade

[@mindstalk]

One diesel bus is a lot quieter than 40 cars, even if they're electric cars.

[@geirmyrvagnes8718]

@@mindstalk Not at slow speeds typical of a city street.

[@mindstalk]

@@geirmyrvagnes8718 Typical city street speeds are fast enough that tire and air noise are most of the noise of a car. Even more so on the bigger and busier streets that buses usually run on. I'm in a well-off low-traffic residential neighborhood, and cars are _still_ by far the dominant source of noise. I have specifically paid attention on my walks: "what is the loudest thing I hear?" Almost always, it's cars. Even at one car a minute, that car will be main thing I hear as it traverses the block.

[@nolanpick6906]

Washington DC seems to be going for natural gas powered buses to reduce pollution, touting them as “clean”. I’d much rather have that as an intermediary than reduced service with electric buses.

[@thomasaly7624]

WMATA has decided to aim for full electric by 2042. On the surface, I wouldn't have much of an issue with that. However, they don't intend on expanding the bus fleet at all. Meaning your 30 minute bus route is going to remain that way for decades to come, which I despise

[@Sacto1654]

It should be noted that you could have battery-powered trains and buses, but you need find a way to charge the battery on a regular basis. Japan, for example, solved this on their railroads by placing a very short strip of overhead wiring at an end station so the train can raise the pantograph to get power to charge the battery, something that JR East did on a couple of lines in more rural parts of that country. By the way, it should be noted that there was a *HUGE* legal fight over the electrification of of the Caltrain line between San Francisco and San Jose. The city of Atherton actually sued Caltrain to not allow overhead catenary wiring, saying it would force the city to remove a whole bunch of trees on the Caltrain line inside the Atherton city limits. Fortunately, Caltrain won the legal battle, and as such the wiring was finally installed a few years ago not only to support the CalTrain line, but also California HSR trains.

[@mindstalk]

Did Caltrain even have to remove trees, or was Atherton just trying to block all transit improvements like a bunch of entitled rich people?

[@Sacto1654]

@@mindstalk Try the latter (mostly). Atherton easily the richest town on a per person basis in the entire San Francisco Bay Area, full of people with old school money and a number of tech executives. They fought the Caltrain electrification project literally to the very end, saying it would require cutting down several hundred trees along the Caltrain right of way that would destroy the “charm” of the town.

[@ab-tf5fl]

You would think if people put their heads together, it would be possible to both electrify the route and keep the trees. For example, you could run overhead wire on the parts of the route without trees and run the trains of battery power for the remainder. The wired sections would keep the batteries charged, and the required size of the batteries, reasonable. One would also think that even on sections with trees, it would be possible to trim branches to make room for overhead wire, rather than chopping down the entire tree.

[@laurencefraser]

@@ab-tf5fl depends on the type of tree and exactly where it's growing. And what state it's in (generally best to cut it down if it's core is rotted, for example). But yeah, if you're Actually Doing The Necessary Maintenance (and just... choosing not to... is a Very common way to claw back the funding from transport systems for a corrupt idiot's pet project), trimming trees is generally a non-issue.

[@rogersexton7857]

Thank you Reece for an excellent video! The problem in Britain, where I live, is that Diesel power has been demonised. To attract people back on to pubic transport it has to be electrified. However, 'Good old-fashioned poles and wires' are seen as too expensive. So the future of buses in Britain has (unfortunately) to be batteries. (Hydrogen is too expensive to manufacture, and difficult to store,)

[@mfbfreak]

Before having even watched this - no, it is not overrated. West Germany operated battery powered rail buses on former diesel branch lines from the 60s all the way through the 90s, with the so called 'Pot bellied pig' trains. They had huge lead acid batteries that caused a visible sag in the frame. Even with that much heavier and less efficient old tech, for 30 years or more they ran them in regular service. AFAIK there were even earlier battery electric rail buses. If they can do it for 30 years with horribly outdated tech, we should absolutely be able to do it today. You do have to use vehicles that are suitable to the conditions. The above mentioned were running on flat terrain and short hauls, with their maintenance station nearby where they were charged overnight like a fork lift. If you're running them with air conditioning, that'll draw a LOT of power, you might want to install a contact shoe system at every station so at least at the station stops, the entire train will run on 'shore power' and it can charge a bit. Let's also not forget hybrid systems. Diesel electric is only a battery and a charging system away from hybrid. However, it must be seen as a way to electrify lines that could otherwise not be electrified. Overhead power is still more efficient and you don't have the issues with pollution from mining the raw materials for batteries, and their expensive recycling process in case of lithium.

[@ghredale7833]

Caltrain are using the increased acceleration power of their new EMUs to increase service frequency without having to notably increase the amount of rolling stock on the move at once. The reduced time between stations drops total trip time by quite a bit, improving both service quality and system capacity. Going electric is a means to many ends! They are still keeping some of their diesel locomotives, too -- they still need them to go south of San Jose, where they didn't electrify.

[@GintaPPE1000]

They are not keeping enough. Service south of San Jose is a lot worse than north of it.

[@TheReactorLore]

Electric Multiple Units powered by third rail or catenary are much better for air quality than traditional diesel locomotives and Diesel Multiple Units, but battery-electric vehicles are such a silly way to electrify your transportation network that I believe it got its popularity from Tesla, Elon Musk, and electric cars in general.

[@oPlazmaMC]

elon musk thinks he can revolutionize transit by inventing autonomous pods that can transport 20 ppl at a time but because of signaling need just as much space around them as a regular train

[@lukasegeling5205]

In my opinion, batteries are best suited as an auxiliary power source. Putting a small battery into a trolleybus or train gives it some extra flexibility without the impact of a full-size battery. For example, if there is construction, a trolleybus could take a small detour through unelectrified roads, and a train could get to the nearest station during a power outage.

[@haisheauspforte1632]

They're a cheap quick fix and can absolutely fulfill that role, but they aren't a long term solution. I live on the rail line in Germany where these Stadler Flirt battery trains have been operating for a year now, they're actually quite good, better than buying new diesel trains. Electrification with overhead wires should be the end goal though

[@GintaPPE1000]

BEMUs didn't get their popularity from the EV movement. They are the result of urbanists losing sight of why electrification is important, and simply demanding electric rail for the sake of electric rail. A traditional diesel locomotive hauling hundreds of people is already many times less polluting than those people making the same trip by car, and it's cheaper than a battery-electric toy train - especially because many operators already have them, and said trains still have plenty of life left. But instead of pushing for agencies to expand service using the newly-freed-up rolling stock, urbanists instead call for them to scrap their diesel equipment once the shiny new electric trains arrive - look no further than CalTrain for an ongoing example. This kind of ass-backwards thinking has led to politicians and urbanists now clamoring for anything besides a diesel train, even though diesel train service is still many times cleaner than forcing everyone to do the journey by car or even by bus.

[@oPlazmaMC]

@@haisheauspforte1632 how are they better than diesel trains

[@miro_o]

You should check out our public transport system in Luxembourg. Firstly, it’s free in the country including busses, trams and trains. We have a fairly new tram in the city which also has batteries so it can go across the large bridge over a ravine which cuts the city and places where it would be difficult to put overhead electricity. A lot of the busses are now electric but not all. I noticed that mostly the ones which run through the city centre to reduce smog in the city centre. It’s a pretty good system.

[@Starkus23]

Thank you SO MUCH. This video summarizes my thoughts on battery electrification of public transport perfectly.

[@maslelviz]

My city Vilnius has a pretty robust trolley bus network. This year they bought a sizable fleet upgrade. They purchased vehicles that can use both overhead wires and built in batteries. Now they ordered a study on how to "efficiently remove" the overhead wires from the city centre🤦‍♂️. Apparently people hate the look of it....

[@eggballo4490]

The environmental impact of diesels and even steam locomotives is actually quite miniscule when compared to things like plastic, road vehicles, and deforestation.

[@JogBird]

i would want electric buses because they would be quieter. they would also be FAR cheaper to maintain than diesil buses.

[@laurencefraser]

Electric of any type is a big step up of diesel... but busses of any type are a big step up over cars... and overhead wire is a significant improvement over batteries so far as methods of electrification go. But of course, overhead wire has been around for over a century, so there's Plenty of tired old nonsensical arguments for the latest scam artist to drag out to convince politicians to discard it as an option (or even rip it out!) in favour of some new, inferior technology. Because trolley busses (even if they use something more like a pantograph than a trolleypole) aren't 'cool'.

[@cyrusol]

The German Umweltbundesamt (TREMOD 6.51) has a few numbers on this. The unit here is always: gCO2eq (grams of CO2 equivalent) per pkm (passenger km). Utilization of vehicles is 1.4 people per car and 16% of seats used for trains and busses (idk how they got to that number, perhaps it's the German avg). This of course implies for many cities the numbers for trains and busses might be far better than is shown below. Car, diesel: 173 Car, petrol: 165 Car, hybrid (mostly PHEV): 121 Car, battery-electric: 79 Plane, domestic flight: 238 (in American terms that would be a flight from LA to SF) Train, electric, long-distance: 31 (all of long-distance passenger trains are electrified in Germany) Bus, diesel, long-distance: 31 (to me this number is very surprising, shows how efficient even diesel busses can be) Train, regional, diesel: 90 Train, regional, electric: 49 Bus, local, diesel: 96 Bus, local, battery-electric: 72 Tram or light rail, local, electric: 63 (common tram W) electric bicycle: 3 (obviously has some drawbacks during bad weather or when it comes to transporting a lot of stuff but this should usually be preferred/primary way of getting around in any city) The numbers for electric trains or vehicles also depend on how clean power generation/the grid is and you know that Germany could still improve a lot in this regard so I expect a tram network in California, Texas, Florida or whatever to have much lower emissions. But these numbers still do show - in line with what you're saying - that the move from diesel busses to electric is kinda pointless, especially when considering the cost of electric busses. The move from car to bus would be way better but the very best thing would be the (electric) bicycle. Although, when creating a regional rail system, connecting multiple cities close to each other, then these numbers show that it's good to focus on electrification. And don't forget that for example India electrified almost their entire rail network within 5 years. So it's not like this would be an unbearable challenge or anything.

[@JHZech]

As a rider though, I appreciate electric buses not having fumes, being quieter, and having a smoother ride. The first two also apply to electric rail. If old buses or diesel trains are being retired anyway, why not buy a battery electric model? If you're already buying new vehicles, I see no reason to buy diesel nowadays.

[@zeugundso]

Depending on local legistlation going directly electric maybe the cheapest mid- to long term option. Since in many countries there are either future costs on CO2 emissions or subsidies for the purchase of electric vehicles going with "cheap but plenty" diesel options may only help in the short term while hampering future electric deployment. Personally I also have to say that I'm much more open to use the bus now since then new electric buses are just so much nicer. Would be interesting if there are any studies on transit uptake/acceptance just because of that.

[@ThomasNing]

Sydney is not replacing old buses with battery electric (although arguably we should because half of them run on natutal gas and are very expensive and noisy to run). But more than half of the new orders of buses are battery electric. It's not just for political reasons though; testimonies from our private bus operators are that they are SO much cheaper to run. They finish a typical 12-16 hour day with half battery, which means the batteries should last their designed service life of 10 years. After a couple years of service so far, they are forecasted to surpass those 10 years. The result is that operators (who have access to them) are prioritising running the electric buses over the diesel (and especially gas) ones. I know having the oversized batteries is not good for the unladen mass, and therefore efficiency of the vehicles, but with so much regen braking, that is slightly offset. And if it makes the operational life span that much longer, it is arguably worth the higher upfront costs (and environmental impact). Also, they're friggen fast. Faster than any combustion vehicle off the line, and still as fast as an empty 12L diesel engine bus after the launch.

[@keithmcmanus2406]

I like that you showed the MBTA when you said "cart before the horse" since all inbound commuter rail trains run backwards. (presumably so passengers don't have to walk past the noisy dirty engines at the North and South terminal platforms)

[@FemboyTrain]

Where I work we replaced most of our diesel trains with battery electric ones (Siemens Mireo Plus B) and now have more trains and run more services thanks to them. So it can work out in the right places

[@RodericCeorlred]

Fun fact: in Europe, railway lines only count as electrified when electric power is transmitted via catenary or third rail. Non-electrified lines with battery-powered trains count as non-electrified. This classification has to do with accessibility to other railway operators. According to EU regulations, railway operators must have access to constant flowing electric power if the railway line is classified as such.

[@MBkufel]

My city is one of three in my country that uses trolley-battery hybrids. 10 years ago they were little more than a gimmick (their range only allowed them to maaaaybe drive around a traffic accident, it was nothing more than 10 kilometers on a good day. Nowadays the new Solaris 18 metre buses can go so far, that there are routes that run mostly on batteries. The amazing thing about those vehicles is that if the route is planned out well, they don't ever have to schedule a stop for charging. EDIT: they're in fact so good that the city was able to pause any catenary expansion (I still question that decision) because providing more all-electric service to new areas doesn't require the wire to reach them.

[@purplebrick131]

With all respect, this video does come from a very North American point of view, where service is limited to a few trains a day. Thats not the situation in for example the place in the thumbnail, Schleswig-Holstein (shortened to SH) in Germany. If we are serious about real net-zero, we do need to get rid of diesel trains. In SH you have electrified or to-be electrified mainlines and a lot of unelectrified branch lines that mostly ran with old DMUs. This wasnt a question about what in theory is the better solution, its a question of "what delivers the effect we want to have in the time we have left to reach our net zero goals", because the time element is crucial. The DMUs were due for replacement anyway. Electrifying all the branch lines up here would take multiple decades, probably 30 years or more. Instead SH made a contract to replace all DMUs on all branch lines with battery trains in the span of under ten years, and upgrading the comfort level of those trains while they were at it. You couldve never done this in the time we have left with overhead electrification. Thats the situation over here and its very different from the woes of north american transit agencies, which maybe shouldve been mentioned.

[@1978dkelly]

I see North America’s reliance on battery over catenary as just another gadgetbahn-type phenomenon. We can’t actually just install the same infrastructure (catenary) used everywhere else so we have to come up with a unique, overengineered solution to a problem that’s more politically suitable to NIMBY stakeholders and intransigent freight rail operators who dislike the idea of wires over “their” tracks.

[@kotiksae]

Trolleybuses with a backup battery are a good solution for a lot of situations. For example, my city has quite frequent power outages which means electricity in overhead lines also disappears. So trolleys stop and people get either into cars/taxis or into minibuses. Recently my city has bought and tested new autonomous trolleys - they also look cool as hell.

[@smithydll]

The answer is always battery if you can't run a wire, if not immediately now, in the near future. The problem with public transportation is that vehicles are expected to last up to 30 years which means that there is a very high risk of stranded assets if the wrong choice is made today.

[@johannessamuelsson6578]

The expected service life of transit vehicles varies by region. In Sweden, operations agreements are tendered every ten years, and the winning operator often procures a new fleet of vehicles. On the other hand, I know that Australia has a 20 or 30 year expected service life for buses

[@fringestalin6263]

I loved your coverage of batteries because, as something of a rail enthusiast in the UK, I absolutely despite the recent obsession with including them on new trains. I can accept bi-mode and battery units as short-term stop gaps for long-term electrification, but they have not been treated that way and are instead used as cop-outs to avoid electrifying routes like the Great Western routes because it's easier in the short-term to just buy a train that can run under wires and it's own power even though it doesn't make them any more efficient than just plain electric trains and come with extra costs such as building batteries for new trains and maintaining them among other countless moving parts. Once again good old Switzerland does it right with practically 100% electrification. :)

[@markiliff]

1:20 You list benefits of electric vehicles, but somehow manage to skip over the one that many consider the most consequential: they don't belch noxious fumes into our airways

[@Newbyte]

But they emit more particles from tyre wear as they're usually heavier.

[@BritishTrainspotting]

@@Newbyte And can you provide a source as to the impact of inhaling worn tyre rubber particles that aren't even visible on people?

[@markiliff]

@@Newbyte …but not that many more. And they fewer brake particles on account of regen. And… sorry, what was your point?

[@erkinalp]

@@Newbyte applies to cars, not to low floor buses; most low floor BEV buses are only as heavy as their ICE counterparts, some are even lighter

[@DavidNewmanDr]

In quite a few places electricity is cheaper than taxed diesel, so electric buses are cheaper to run.

[@stickynorth]

And NO PM 2.5 emissions.. All oil powered public transit should be illegal...

[@RMTransit]

The energy is not the only cost for operating a PT service

[@adithyaramachandran7427]

I agree with you on battery trains. But buses may benefit from going electric, especially if stops are frequent. In urban environments the electric buses do benefit since they will be accelerating and decelerating often. Diesel is better for freeway & long distance buses, but not great for shorter distance urban routes.

[@patrickhanft]

This is a huge question of perspective! I do agree with most of the arguments made here and still think that electrification of busses and battery electrification of trains in my region absolutely makes sense! I do live in Hamburg, Germany. We already have very good bus services. On most lines they go every 10 minutes. On some lines (that really should be a tram, but that is a technology that must not be named here in Hamburg), they even go every five to three minutes. On less frequent lines they go at least every 30 minutes. "More busses" will usually not improve the system, because our limiting factor is not the number of vehicles but the number of drivers. Electrification of busses however, that started (slowly) a few years ago, are a great way for Hamburg to improve the quality of the ride. It makes the experience much smoother and less stressful. And as someone living on a big street I can also say: It definitely reduces noise emissions significantly especially in the night. Hamburg is a rich city, it has the money to drive these developments and enable less fortunate regions to be able to buy cheaper electric busses in the future. Also, range is not really an issue for all the lines where those busses are used. I don't see how waiting for better range would be necessary. Therefore: I absolutely agree that increasing services and using more cheaper busses will be the better way in many, many regions. It doesn't apply here. Similar arguments I would make about the battery electric trains in the neighboring state of Schleswig-Holstein, that can be seen on the thumbnail. I took them recently and they are sooooo much more comfortable than diesel electric trains. Them being electric now makes them not run rarer than possible. The range is really not an issue on these very short lines between Kiel, Lübeck and Lüneburg. They are recharched very quickly and they have such a better ride experience than diesel trains. Of course, in theory that could also be achieved by electrifying the line instead. And of course this is the much better solution in many cases (and is also necessary on some sections for the battery train, so it can recharge on these sections), but there are lines where this investment is just not reasonable and the battery train really is the perfect solution. Here in Schleswig-Holstein this is the case.

[@ericbruun9020]

Thanks to David Zipper and you for talking sense and calling out the virtue signaling. Lets hope more join in.

[@lawrencejob]

Hard disagree for my city at least. I live in the centre of Brighton and the sound of busses (the only public transport we have) is oppressive wherever you go. It’s easily 99% of the sound in the city. The electric or hybrid ones make an enormous difference to how it feels to walk in our narrow streets. The same goes for emissions. And these aren’t old busses. I only ride electric or hybrid busses for this reason. It’s also a problem for the industry - the range and quality of electric busses will only get better when more organisations buy them. You can’t wait for that to happen, and it doesn’t feel right to make another government or organisation take a risk on this technology alone.

[@old.not.too.grumpy.]

All very well and good for urban areas but what semi rural areas. Unlike in the USA Europe has many smaller town and villages where people live public transport can only be buses as the demand would justify the Infastucture costs of trams or trains. In many areas even the cost of running buses is prohibitive outside peak times hence bus services finish around 18.00. Meaning that without private cars life would be impossible.

[@Geotpf]

The United States is much, much more rural than Europe, especially in the area west of the Mississippi River and 100 miles east of the Pacific Ocean, plus all of Alaska. But even the eastern half of the country is more rural than Europe You are very wrong on that point. Now, in the US, most rural areas have horrible public transit or none at all. Rural areas in Europe have much better transit than rural areas of the US.

[@old.not.too.grumpy.]

@Geotpf I said semi rural. I live 10 miles away from 9th largest city in the UK Nottingham on a very large 40 year old housing estate, which is part of town and several villages that are now are joined together yet we have no bus service at all. I have to walk over a mile to the neatest bus stop. There are no buses after 6 pm. Americans often say we have great public transport in the UK. Outside of the cities, we don't. Many of the areas badly covered by transport in the UK would be considered as suburbs of cities in the USA

[@Geotpf]

​@@old.not.too.grumpy.On average, for areas with the same density, Europe has better public transit than America does. I don't think anyone could question that. Also on average, America is more rural than Europe is, so there's a double whammy there.

[@old.not.too.grumpy.]

@Geotpf in the UK outside of cities even in town a few mile outside cities public transport is nonexistent. I love with 3/4 of 3 cities we have no buses I can catch a train to two cities however I still have to drive to the station. It also cheaper to drive to the cities and park than to catch the train, which are often delayed or cancelled. Twice recently I caught the train 45 miles to Manchester. Both times the return journey took over 5 hours. To catch a bus I have to walk a mile and half and there no buses after 6pm I do not live in the countryside I live in a built up area. Outside cities in the UK the public transport is dreadful and very expensive.

[@jre353seriesenjoyer4]

Agree, nice to see my city in the thumbnail

[@themeparkgod6573]

The station in the Thumbnail is my local station: Lübeck Central and we're on the best way to become a 100% Zero Emission station with following lines: Lübeck-Hamburg-(Munich) (Electrified), Lübeck-Kiel (Stadler FLIRT 3 battery, maybe electrification in the future), Lübeck-Bad Kleinen-Stettin (electrification wip), Lübeck-Neustadt-(Puttgarden-Copenhagen) new highspeed line wip, Lübeck-Travemünde (Electrified), Lübeck-Lüneburg (Stadler FLIRT 3 battery, maybe electrification in the future)

[@jossdeiboss]

THANK YOU! I have been hearing more and more people (and unfortunately transit oriented people as well) talking about how WE NEED TO ELECTRIFY the whole US, because diesel trains are polluting! Such a dumb perspective. I really needed someone like you to tell everybody to just calm down and see the benefit of public transport, regardless on what motor they use!

[@rlwelch]

With AC transmission, the electrons themselves don’t actually flow! They just transmit energy through their oscillating electric fields. (2:09)

[@IndustrialParrot2816]

Yep the Energy is Transmitted through the Electrons like a Newtons Cradle

[@SuperSiggiboy]

Your point about adding more "dirty" buses actually reducing the overall city emissions really hits hard! This short-sightedness can probably be attributed to New Public Management. Everyone is busy thinking "how can I make my numbers look better", and no-one is looking at the bigger picture.

[@davidaldinger113]

Every electric transit vehicle should have both trolley and battery capacity. One other place where batteries should be put to use is in locomotive hauled train cars. Before HEP such equipment had batteries and when HEP came along batteries were removed. The reason batteries are needed in train cars is the possibility of HEP failure plus sometimes locomotives have had to be separated from the cars they were pulling leaving passengers with nothing until the locomotive was reattached.

[@Nouvellecosse]

As others have mentioned, electrifying transit is about more than climate change. There's local air quality in cities and local noise and vibration both inside and outside the vehicle. After all, the places with the most transit service also tend to be the most densely packed with people. Plus, while it's true that greater transit usage will directly offset more emissions than electrification, transit usage can actually be increased through electrification rather than the two goals competing. People prefer the cleaner and quieter vehicles making it easier to attract riders while the operating costs and total life-cycle costs are lower enabling agencies to afford more service. And for environmental impact, electrifying transit is more effective precisely because vehicles have such high operating schedules compared to cars that spend most of their time parked so it makes sense to use batteries where they'll replace the most internal combustion operation. Especially when the alternative would likely be diesel. And the point about investing now when batteries will be better in the future. So is there some point at which we can declare battery development "finished" and there are no more improvements to be had? We could be saying the same thing 10 or 20 years from now when we could have been enjoying more pleasant cities and reduced transit operating costs. If battery tech has developed enough that it can do what's needed for a cost that can be sustained, then we can't obsess over this future development FOMO because what we fear missing out on in the future currently doesn't exist and that fear causes us to lose out on good things that do exist.

[@RMTransit]

The thing is, local air quality is also made much better with 20 diesel buses than with 5 battery buses, etc etc

[@Nouvellecosse]

@@RMTransit I agree that if for some reason you needed to choose one or the other, it would be better to have more buses. But the point is, there's no trade off because the overall operating cost of battery buses is actually lower. So you can just have 20 battery buses instead of 20 diesel buses.

[@fauzirahman3285]

Overhead or third rail powers for trains and trams makes a lot of sense as it means they don't have to carry a powerplant or heavy batteries with them though I can understand why it would be expensive to wire up long distance especially when the service isn't frequent. Also a full diesel bus or train would definitely beat individual costs. Sometimes remaining in diesel means buying more vehicles and being able to provide more services. Wiring up the depot for electric charging can sometimes hold back providing more services.

[@Myrtone]

However, even trams do not, with current battery technology, need overhead wires throughout.

[@justsomeguy5103]

Battery powered electric passenger boats are in service in Norway, and it has been a bumpy introduction. There are numerous examples of issues such as reduced frequencies because of shorter range/more charging than anticipated; early morning commuter departures into the city having to be cut since electric vessels may not be able to charge overnight at rural locations; and even some swanky new electric vessels having to be taken out of service and replaced with whatever old stock could be procured.

[@kailahmann1823]

As your thumbnail is a battery electric train heading into my home city, I really need to say there is more than just the environment: These trains are also incredibly silent - and they are faster than driving; so much faster a "bike&ride" from the surrounding villages still beats driving! For a very long time this line had diesel trains often dubbed "wandering dunes" for their slow acceleration and the trains were basically empty.

[@marktownend8065]

The overhead/battery hybrid concept with in motion charging can also be applied to rail as being implemented around Cardiff for the South Wales Metro project. Battery equipped Stadler tram-trains will run on a partially electrified heavy rail network among other traffic including some 'trimode' FLIRTS that in addition to overhead and battery capability have diesel engines on board for the long unwired Vale of Glamorgan route that was considered too long for battery at time of ordering. In the valleys to the north, wires are omitted through complex junctions and stations and where bridge and tunnel clearances are too tight without major expenditure. Often in these cases structure clearance can physically acomodate a wire with pantograph raised, but electrical clearances at 25kV are inadequate so an earthed conductor wire can be provided through that area to avoid having to lower the pantograph. Where pantograph lowering is necessary for a wiring gap this is controlled automatically via digital beacons of the standard Eurobalise type. Having some modest battery capability is being considered for the entire South Eastern metro fleet renewal intended to operate entirely over a 3rd rail 750VDC network in South East London and adjacent parts of Kent. The intent is to allow service to continue through power isolations, whether scheduled for maintenance or due to unexpected faults, or to at least be able to reach the next station in a more widespread failure. Dangerous 3rd rail can also be removed from parts of depots with trains able to shunt around the yard on battery. Regen braking energy can more often be captured effectively if a unit has batteries because the power rail or wire is not always receptive to the current. Classic simple regen relies on there being sufficient other train load accelerating or climbing within the substation area to use what is being injected by the slowing train. More sophisticated substations can share current more widely, even export it to the wider grid (where receptive again) and substations can also incorporate storage to help manage peaks and troughs. If the vehicle has some battery capability, then braking current can be directed to storage instead of having to burn it off in resistor banks or worst still use friction brakes. On lines exclusively used by such trains, some simplification of the conductor infrastructure might be possible. Complex areas around junctions in particular might be simplified. In a further safety measure, stretches of 3rd rail might be removed around potential trespass access points, mainly station platforms and level crossing. Where desired some platforms might retain conductor rail that could only be switched on when there's a train stationary on the track. For extended layovers at turnaround locations in particular this would allow heating and lighting to remain on without depleteing the battery and allow a top up charge if necessary. I take your point about new better battery tech always coming on stream. I think that will drive some operators to change their fleets' batteries early, possibly multiple times over a vehicle's life, as better tech comes along. Older diesel fleets should be allowed to run out their original planned lives until a natural renewal time comes when electric tech would be deployed. Scrapping buses early in a grand act of total conversion is a waste of the resources they embed. I get the obsession with electric. Part of it is that diesel is so horrible in urban areas. Operators fear they may end up being painted as having the only visibly dirty vehicles on the streets when much other traffic is electric (it isn't yet of course). Battery buses are quick to implement, require little new infrastructure and will be delivered within a political term, which is all a politician wants to hear to start signing the cheques. That a hasty decision might be saddling transit agencies with further ongoing costs and difficulties in some cases no doubt barely crosses their minds!

[@johndwilson6111]

Where I live those who complain most about noisy smelly buses don't use buses and often petition to have their local bus services removed as well. It will be interesting to see how they deal with the advent of battery powered buses doing our local services over the next few years as the battery charging system is installed. I am hoping they will make fools of themselves as they have over other issues.

[@thomaspreudhomme9443]

What I love about RM transit is that on several occasion it made me change by mind on a topic thanks to its good argumentation. Until this video I was excited about my city (Cambridge) getting electric buses and now I'm wondering whether it was the best use of money. It came from a government grant for green initiative and I feel some new cycle path or new bus lane would have been a better use. More buses wouldn't have helped because AFAIK the problem is finding more drivers. Thanks Reese!

[@realDonaIdTruck]

I just watched one of your videos from two years ago without realizing it was old. I was so stressed out by the weaving and fast talking. Good to see the substantial improvement to your presentation. Looking good too!

[@barvdw]

I agree for about 80%, and about 5-10 years ago, I would have even agreed the full 100%. I defended the decision our local transit company (in Brussels) made for a last order of diesel and dieselhybrid buses some 5 years ago, because the cost of e-buses was just too high and would have resulted in a status quo in frequency, or even lower frequencies on many bus routes. I fought against a forced electrification before the time was ripe, and even now, I don't want ro rush to replace all diesel and hybrid buses before their end of usability. The delays in production and delivery of new e-buses have only reinforced that conviction. That said, I don't agree fully, while I don't think it's useful to electrify any long-haul buses in the foreseeable future, many urban routes are ripe for electrification. While not yet at their peak, prices for e-buses have dropped considerably, and their autonomy has only increased, so I'd say that for most short-haul routes, e-buses are a good candidate today. What is driving cost today is more the adaptation of bus depots to have more charge stations, the extra high tension lines to those depots, etc, an investment that is going to be needed anyway, so better get it over with. Because don't underestimate the local pollution in busy bus corridors, especially in cities with more narrow streets where the exhaust gasses can linger. When countries mandate an elctrification of the vehicle park, they can't afford not to be a frontrunner, or at least not lagging behind with vehicles in public service, such as buses. Many e-buses are also a lot more comfortable, they're not vibrating as much, don't make as much noise, they are much smoother overall. And they look swell. While I deplore the apparent loss of interest in trolleybus technology, especially when an existent system is removed in favour of batterybuses, I will support further electrification. Preferably in the form of trams and rail with overhead lines, but also battery buses where needed. But I will give you that it's completely bonkers to scrap perfectly serviceable locomotives before selling them because you don't need them on a line with OHLE, there are more than enough other lines without OHLE where they could serve a lot more years to come.

[@pancake5912]

i’ll hop on your live tmr and say it again but montreal is trying to electrify trucks with wires on its highways. adding so much infrastructure for it with the wires, its adding tracks and heating in the roads

[@weppwebb2885]

The frustrating thing is, they are nowhere close to the first ones to try this. Every country that tried (or region, I think we had two projects like this in Germany) came to the conclusion that it isn't worth it. Battery electric trucks work, at least with german laws for breaktimes there is no extra time required for charging. The extra weight of a pantograph itsn't worth it for trucks.

[@weppwebb2885]

extra ridiculous because canada doesn't even put up catenary for freight railway lines lol

[@Dqtube]

From a European perspective, battery trains have their place on lines that connect less populated areas, and you only have the morning and afternoon rush hours where it's a question of whether or not they have a connection. Also on a track that passes through protected nature or UNESCO sites, because they bring less smell and noise compared to diesel and there is no need to build new infrastructure, so NIMBY cannot block projects.

[@MrToradragon]

In my opinion BEMUs in Europe can also provide direct connection from some towns on branch lines to regional centres. But that perhaps depend on history and overall layout of railway network. In Czechia we have plenty of not so small towns connected to main line by short, often just few km long, lines. It is due to historical development in early days when those towns had refused proposal for main line to go through, or very near of them, so the line was build, 1-10 km far and in few years they had realized their mistake and had build a branch line, or the branch line was formerly a spur to some mine or factory. Those will hardly be electrified anytime soon (if ever at all as they are often given just the minimum necessary maintenance needed to keep them in operation) and are currently served by small DMUs so when people want to get to some regional centre, they have to change the train at the station where this branch line connects to main line. This obviously decreases appeal of train travel and people will choose either direct bus or private car. I think that the BEMUs can solve this issue by enabling direct service between regional centre and towns on branch lines. This can most likely significantly increase appeal service and get more people to use the train. Also the BEMUs can often recharge while running on the electrified main line, so no additional infrastructure is needed.

[@Dqtube]

@@MrToradragon I would say that before BEMU, we need to focus in the Czech Republic on the conditions on these short/branched lines and where it is technically possible to eliminate segments with maximum speeds of 50 km/h and below. Even BEMU won't get people to switch if the track is 2-3 times slower than a bus or car.

[@MrToradragon]

@@Dqtube I don't agree, getting over 50kph limit would often require completely new route for the line as the main constraint are, often, curves with small radius. That would be significantly more expensive than BEMUs that will allow for direct service. Also I think that places like Lanškroun* and Sobotín, or even Nový Jičín, will rather benefit from direct service by BEMU, than from significant line upgrade as those sections are quite short. Your suggestion is, IMHO, rather suited for long "branch" lines, like the one from Hradec Králové to Jičín or some other similar lines. But those would also benefit from various other upgrades, like new signalling and perhaps new triangles that would remove need for reversal of direction, which itself would cut down 5-10 minutes for each such operation and would also benefit the freight service on those lines. But that perhaps would be quite different topic, than electrification and BEMU as it would involve, most likely, significant changes to overall layout of railway network in Czechia as suddenly we would have to include the freight service into account which then could lead to completely different results regarding electrification and speed limits. * That one will perhaps be electrified during conversion to 25kV AC, if I am not mistaken.

[@stevedavis3828]

UK, West Midlands uses almost 100% electric buses throughout Coventry. The local Metro is also of a hybrid overhead - battery design, through most of Birmingham and the rail station link the trams operate on battery. The overheads were seen as a blight in certain areas.

[@stickynorth]

Just like Shenzhen it can be done. I don't know where his paranoia about battery scarcity is coming from other than watching too many Trump videos... SMH...

[@snaggy13]

Great points! Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[@charlesstuart5790]

One of the problems of conventional trolley buses is that they're as tied to the pantograph as a tram. Yet with tyres, it should be able to drive independently around obstacles or short sections of route where it's either not economically feasible to install overhead wires or it's physically impossible without massive reconstruction. You mentioned hybrid systems that I think cover this but I think those hybrid trolley buses should be overhead wire and battery and not overhead wire and diesel or petrol. I live in Bristol, a city with dreadful traffic. I could see easy installation of overhead wires in a core central area and perhaps the full length of the 24/7 services. But if trolley bus hybrids were introduced, outside the core areas, less frequently used bus routes could have a trolley bus working as a BEV bus. I think that a BEV range of twenty miles in the middle of winter would be easily enough for all the city's bus routes.

[@Myrtone]

All new trolleybuses have auxiliary batteries so they are not limited to wires.

[@urbanfile3861]

IMO the biggest goal of urban busses fleets electrification is maintenance costs. Even if you spend a lot by switching all your busses to electric at once, you would save money in subsequent years. Not just because electric engines are easier to manage, but over all because they last longer than IC engines. Therefore a bus can last many decades instead than 15 years or so. About recharging times. You could equip your city with fast recharging points for your urban busses (and many cities did). Obviously the busses themselves have to be equipped with a pantograph and a transformer to manage fast supplies. Normally in 5-8 minutes they can provide your bus energy to run 200 kms or so. They generally are scattered all over the city, at bus terminals and end of the lines, as in bus depots as well. Where, obviously, there are even plenty of 'normal' recharger from whom most of the busses supply while resting out of service

[@arokh72]

Newcastle, as in the one in Australia, north of Sydney, has an interesting technology for it's light rail service. Basically, they use capacitors to power the light rail, which is topped up by a pantograph at each stop. Sounds like a reasonable compromise between a full catenary based system, and battery system. Granted, the use case is quite limited, and whilst I don't know the power output, Newcastle is relatively flat and has a mild climate, so no snow and ice to deal with.

[@jamesau4296]

For Public transport, you either go full mobile like a bus(diesel one)where you can set up as you go or build expensive infrastructure(metro line, electrified, giant 200m train) where marginally carrying one more passenger don't cost much while everyone value for money is higher(metro faces fewer traffic jams, maybe higher speed 130-160km/h). The middle can be sucks (BRT just an extension from my statement on bus)

[@antonnurwald5700]

I think this is mostly about industrial policy. In countries that have an electric vehicle industry, it's a way to get transit agencies into the game as lead customers who can articulate their wish3s for future developments, and it's a way to help manufacturers get into that market. Also, environmental is a wide concept. It's also about noise and exhaust fumes in the city. Although admittedly battery EVs are heavier and produce more fine dust through tire abrasion. This is an issue.

[@martinbruhn5274]

I have noticed, that people only get aware of the environmental impact of transportation infrastructure, when it's about transit. Almost, as if roads were a natural occurrence, that pop up by themselves and are part of any functioning ecosystem. It's not a question of "do we build transit infrastructure, or do we not build infrastructure", if no transit is built, that will make it necessary, that more roads have to be built. It's only a choice, which infrastructure will be built, not if infrastracture will be built at all.

[@tarkelprice6875]

One place that really effectively uses electric buses is Vienna. They use mostly diesel and some hybrid buses in their fleet, but use small, battery electric buses for short services in the largely pedestrianized city center.

[@d1234as]

BEMU is a good solution exclusively on short low frequency short lines or on not electrificated peak only short extension on electric services, in any other cases overhead lines or diesel exercises are better. Battery trams in my opinion are not a good solution, catenary free sections must be minimized and used only where there aren't any other viable solution to electrificate (often for aesthetic reason).

[@The1Maldo]

When it comes to Electric Busses, I hope they push more to get more, they are so much nicer to be in, they dont smell bad they dont heat your face when they drive past you and they so much more quiet so great

[@stickynorth]

I just don't want the PM 2.5 in my brain and blood forever. That's very common contamination with diesel powered vehicles..

[@erinatornow]

In Leipzig, Germany, the transport agency does a good job of electrification by buying new electric buses for the high demand inner city lines and using the old diesel buses, that were replaced to offer more service on new lines to connect more parts of the city. And in terms of trains, nobody here would think of a fully battery powered train but only as a hybrid solution to bridge gaps in the electrification (overhead wires) that will still be constructed in the next decades

[@sblack53]

Trains/trams/trolleybuses with traditional electrification should have small batteries to add range between electrified segments on spurs, subdivisions, and sidings. They should be a stopgap and a fallback for outages but should not be the sole solution.

[@Tacosnep]

Re: Boston MBTA commuter rail adding BEMU trains - it's a means to multiple ends. They're in the process of improving throughout right now, and our local activist groups are rightly noting how electric trains can accelerate/decelerate much quicker, ultimately leading to better service. We have long term goals for full* electrification, but the practicality of it in some locations is very difficult due to pesky things like geometry. On the first line we're electrifying, it already has a good bit of catenary. The BEMU allows them to use overhead lines for propulsion and charging where available, and battery for the remaining segments. Thus we can electrify at a reasonable (and cheaper) pace. As a bonus, the diesel locamotives this displaces will be used on other lines, so service increases elsewhere too!

[@stickynorth]

Plus no PM 2.5 emissions to cause cancer, COPD and asthma.. A real concern for both riders and those around them!

[@watcherzero5256]

In the UK its not about reducing carbon emissions (which is a plus) its mainly about clean air and reducing NOx emissions in particular as some of our congested cities, or cities near motorways have NOx levels that exceed the safe guidelines. The biggest emitter of NOx is the diesel engines of lorries and buses, buses is something you can do something about. So probably by the end of the decade almost all buses in the UK will be battery or hydrogen powered or at least bi-mode. On rail its not about pollution its about those little bits of infrastructure that you cant electrify either because the tunnel is too low to allow a pantograph or you would have to raise dozens of bridges in a short section of track, or you would be electrifying a 20 mile branch line that only had 2tph. Battery is offering an ability for discontinuous electrification, you still run it as an electrical service rather than diesel under the wires. For instance in London in 2021 buses accounted for 2% of vehicle miles but 15% of emissions. While upto 10x more efficient per passenger mile than a diesel car they are still 5x more polluting than a petrol car.

[@elijahjbennett]

This is something I've thought for a while. This is especially true in Europe where under Euro 6 standards a conventional diesel bus can emit less polutants than a Euro 6 car, not just per person but in absolute terms.

[@zacappleton474]

You have in a point in general, but there are specific contexts where the battery-bus makes sense. Take parts of Southern California that have frightfully tiny air pollution budgets - people are still driving their old cars loads, goods movement isn’t cleaning up quickly, and backed up port freight and wildfires compound the air pollution problems. You might not have the air pollution budget to add or extend diesel buses, and you might not have the finances or political backing to string up caternary lines - so battery buses it is. Caltrain electrified because of HSR backing which will use the same corridor once that gets online. Thankfully that corridor is already dense, which makes the train viable to begin with.

[@Subway1306]

We get battery electric trains (Siemens Mireo plus b) on a local service route in my area and I think they make sense in this case. They plan to build powerlines on that specific track already for a decade now but get slowed down by excessive build regulations and financing problems (as its financed directly by the government, not a company). The transport company wants to route that line through a tunnel under the city for a better connection and higher tact. Diesel trains are not allowed in tunnels with underground stations so they only had the choice betwen continuing the bad service from the past years or invest extra money for battery trains and create a much better connection from the countryside to the major city in a short time without changing infrastructre. So batteries have their use cases, but ofc it would've been better just building the powerline.

[@Tilumbus]

I think capacitor busses might be a good compromise. Almost as effcient as trolley busses but without overhead line. So "notinmybackyard"-people wont fight it. Capacitors also need to be far less replaced than batteries.

[@JoyClinton-i8g]

Using Caltrain as an example is comical. Caltrain spent $12 million PER MILE just to install catenary. And this is for single wire feed, not for the dual wire feed for transit buses. If you want to drive your buses on multiple routes, and want to be able to change a route without bankruptcy, batteries look attractive. Take a hint: why don't electric school buses use overheat wires? Another hint: San Francisco uses overhead wires for buses NOT for environmental reasons, but rather because diesel buses can't make it up steep hills.

[@test40323]

totally agreed with prioritizing moving more people more quckly vs expensive feel good climate gestures. question: how does reece feel about ebikes/scooters and their potential competition with public transit? (non-intercities)

[@ab-tf5fl]

One concern I have about battery buses is that, if not done very carefully, it can lead to very brittle service (unless the agency is willing to maintain a fleet of spare diesel buses ready to swap in, if needed, which is really expensive). What do I mean by "brittle"? Well, let's imagine you have a bus that goes back and forth along the same route all day long. So, rather than equip the bus with a huge battery that lasts all day, you equip the bus with a smaller battery and install chargers at the layover points. All's good when the charger is working, but how to maintain reliable service to customers if the charger goes down for whatever reason? In practice, the answer to that question ends up being to simply run the route with diesel buses until the charger can be fixed. But, that requires the agency to have a supply of diesel buses available to swap in. Which is easy to do if only one route is electrified, as a pilot project, much harder if the entire fleet is electrified, systemwide. The same issue applies even on routes with trolley wire. My city (Seattle) has lots of trolley routes, but I also see diesel buses operating trolley routes all the time, due to one problem or another with aging wire. Even if a bus route is able to operate off the overhead wire the vast majority of time, without that fleet of diesel buses ready to swap in as backup, service would be unreliable. Another part of brittleness is making it very difficult to modify service routes. Going back to my previous example, let's say you have a route operated by a battery bus that is reliant on a charger at the route's end between trips. Now, let's say that, 20 years later, the city has grown and you want to extend the bus route another few miles. Moving the charger over to the new location, or building a new one, ends up being extremely expensive. So, you end up operating the extension with a new route that begins where the original route ends - great for the operator's convenience (both bus routes get to share the same charger), but, from the passenger's perspective, you are now forced to stop and switch buses at a seemingly arbitrary location in the middle of the trip, on your everyday commute, purely for the convenience of the batteries and the charging equipment. The best way to electrify bus routes with minimal brittleness is probably some form of battery/trolley hybrid, where buses run on-wire through sections in the middle of the city, where lots of bus routes converge, then use batteries to cover other portions of the bus route, where installing wire is less cost-effective. But, I'm not aware of any transit agency that is actually doing this; instead, every route is either 100% trolley, 100% battery, or 100% diesel.

[@uncipaws7643]

Numerous lines don't have the demand to justify the fixed cost of electrification and sometimes it's very costly to modify existing tunnels. Whether it's Nordlandsbanen in Norway or Thermenbahn in Austria. In these cases partial electrification is the way to go, with battery trains (of a capacity long enough for the electrification gap in every case). Nordlandsbanen does with diesel/electric hybrid trains for now and reserves the battery train option for the future, at 729 km it is still a little too long ...