MBTA Bus Fleet Electrification

Yup, so shortsighted.
I never thought a town in the midwest would be showing big boston how it's done, but here we are.
Now they need to do proper BRT bus lanes.
http://daytontrolleys.net/

BandA wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 2:35 pm So, how long will these so-called Battery Electric Buses have to sit at their terminals charging between runs? Charging batteries wastes a lot of power compared to wired connection. Batteries are heavy, bulky, and will still be expensive in 2024. Lithium recycling is presently in pilot-project status, with actual recovery of the lithium only now beginning.

Most manufactures of charging equipment quote 2-9 minutes depending on route (distance and gradients to next changing point).

The existing Battery Electric Bus charging systems used by the MBTA use pantographs to charge busses, which suggests there may be some incompatibility between trolley busses and BEBs at the same terminals. (The pantograph system is an open standard with support from a number of vendors, so its not proprietary lock in either.)

The T will spend the next 18-24 months ripping out all of the trolley wire at North Cambridge, and erecting massive gantries over the layover/storage yard. These will hold the charging "rails" which the charging pantographs will contact. Within the carhouse property, the new system will be a lot more obtrusive than the current trolley wire. Other than that, it doesn't look like much will be done to the property. It didn't look like there will be any changes to layout, traffic flow, or substantial changes to the shop building.

They did admit that North Cambridge won't be with them much longer, probably only for the first generation of BEBs. Once the "big three" core garages are rebuilt (Cabot, Charlestown, and Southampton), they expect to close down North Cambridge (and presumably sell the property).

Even if the actual charging only takes a short time, this doesn't factor in the distance traveled to get to/from the yard. The T claimed in the meeting that they could meet all but one of their schedule blocks on the 71/73 with depot only charging, but that seems highly unlikely since some schedule blocks on those routes have vehicles out of the garage for 12-15 hours, with 200+ miles of travel, which is about double what the T's current BEBs can manage. Whereas right now, the trolleybuses stay out most of the day and drivers swing on/off at Harvard (Bennett alley), I suspect with the BEBs drivers will have to cycles the buses back to the carhouse at the end of their shift, with their "relief" driver taking a fresh BEB out. That's already a lot less efficient than the current setup.

The T is saying that the 35 BEBs at NC will replace all 28 trolleybuses for the 71/73 - so we're talking about needed a 25% larger fleet to do the same job. I'm honestly not sure where transit BEB prices are right now, but even conservatively speaking, we're talking an extra $3.5-5.5 million in capital bus costs to do the same job.

The T states that this will still represent a cost savings, since they cite needed $30 million to upgrade the current trolley bus overhead system, plus $1 million per year for maintenance on it over 30 years. This, frankly, seems insane, considering that the portion of the 73 in Belmont was completely rewired in 2016 for a fraction of that cost - but the T of course isn't presenting any of those numbers. Some advocates are digging into it, but it's been hard. The T also claims that the OHW system would require a "complete rebuild and transformation" to support in-motion charging, something which doesn't jive with experience in the rest of the world, but these type of arguments have been enough to win over the municipalities and state reps/senators.

If you want to see the streets with the trolley wire up, get out there now. Unlike say Philadelphia, I'm certain the T will move very, very fast to rip out the overhead. It will be a rapid, scorched earth campaign to make sure the system can never be restored without an expensive total new build and a major political fight.

RandallW wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 9:05 pm

BandA wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 2:35 pm So, how long will these so-called Battery Electric Buses have to sit at their terminals charging between runs? Charging batteries wastes a lot of power compared to wired connection. Batteries are heavy, bulky, and will still be expensive in 2024. Lithium recycling is presently in pilot-project status, with actual recovery of the lithium only now beginning.

Most manufactures of charging equipment quote 2-9 minutes depending on route (distance and gradients to next changing point).

The existing Battery Electric Bus charging systems used by the MBTA use pantographs to charge busses, which suggests there may be some incompatibility between trolley busses and BEBs at the same terminals. (The pantograph system is an open standard with support from a number of vendors, so its not proprietary lock in either.)

My understanding (from other advocates, etc) is that BEBs and IMC ETBs are actually very different internally. Battery buses have all of the power transformers/converters off-board in the charging stations, while the ETBs carry that on board. Even the IMC ETBs can do that since they don't need massive batteries, whereas with BEBs they have to try to strip out as much on-board weight as possible to make the batteries larger.

If you're thinking that this is insanely inefficient for vehicles which just go up and down the same path all day, then yes, you have picked up on the absurdity!

Whilst I agree IMC makes far more sense, isn't the 71/73 issue solved by putting charging rails in Bennett Alley? And aren't there plans to also serve e.g. the 75 and 77?

No, the T said that N Cambridge is going to serve 71/73 only...though I suspect this might change considerably by the time the garage reopens.

They have also said they have no plans for on-route charging facilities (i.e., anything away from the garage) at this point in the process. Again, I wouldn't bank on that being the final word on the situation.

Also, it seems as though they are still considering purchasing at least some BEBs with left-side doors, which would allow the 71/73 to continue to use the lower busway which allows a direct exit outbound to their routes. They're saying that starting in March, those routes will run on the Sunday diesel routes at all time, which has them board on the upper level and travel through the Square on the surface to reach Mt Auburn St. This is a dodgy plan at best, as it forces riders making the direct connection from the Red Line to have a much longer trip outbound.

Putting a rapid charger in Bennett Alley would help BEBs assigned to 74/75/77/78/96, if/when that happens. Keep in mind those routes all operate from Charlestown, which is slated to be one of the last garages converted to BEBs. If by some miracle, the T does find BEBs with better than expected performance, then possibly a couple of the other routes could shift to North Cambridge during the Charlestown renovations.

If left-door BEBs are used, a recharge unit for 71/73 would have to go near the Common, probably at the Waterhouse St. layover. At that point, you'd probably be better off installing them at the outer ends of the routes, but who knows what opposition there might be to that.

Of course, with IMC ETBs, and some minor wire extensions, this is all in the service of replacing charging infrastructure that's already there. TransitMatters folks have done some good work on this, and it's quite likely that all of the routes listed above could be operated with IMC trolleybuses pooled with a larger 71/73 fleet, and using Watertown Yard as an additional storage facility.

A few of my photos from todays event.

https://twitter.com/BACLibrary/status/1 ... uqt3xfUfJg

The outing was both somber and festive.

Question for anyone who was on the trip and rode either the trackless or dual-mode during the first leg from North Cambridge Carhouse to Aberdeen Ave: did the trackless have to drop its poles and get pushed past the switches that turn left to go from Mass Ave into the Harvard Subway and right to go from Garden St to Waterhouse St? I suspect the answer is 'yes' given the state of the overhead everywhere else, but I'd like to be sure.

Don't recall whether that was the case yesterday (I did not make the fan trip) but I thought I recalled a recent time when the overhead was missing going south on Mass. Ave. after the switch with the left into the tunnel and before meeting up with the wire coming out of the tunnel to take the right turn onto Garden St. This would preclude morning pullouts from the (No. Cambridge) yard to prime the 72 line, instead forcing the 72 coaches to go to Bennett Alley, loop, and do an outbound pickup first Or send a 72 coach out Mt. Auburn to Aberdeen to do an earlier morning inbound.

From Garden St. right onto Waterhouse at the far corner of the Common is the "main" path for 71 and 73 coaches looping after dropping off in the tunnel and returning to the tunnel for the next outbound run,. So that part of the overhead must be complete and functional.

stevefol wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 10:07 am Whilst I agree IMC makes far more sense, isn't the 71/73 issue solved by putting charging rails in Bennett Alley? And aren't there plans to also serve e.g. the 75 and 77?

Charging at Bennett Alley would be difficult for 71 and 73 because these coaches have to miss it inbound to drop off passengers first. After loading outbound passengers the coaches must miss Bennett St. regardless of whether they loaded in the upper tunnel or in the lower tunnel or on the surface.

MBTA3247 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 20, 2022 12:19 am Question for anyone who was on the trip and rode either the trackless or dual-mode during the first leg from North Cambridge Carhouse to Aberdeen Ave:

I was on 4104 most of the trip and we were never pushed. The overheads came down a couple times early on, but we were never pushed.

I know for a fact that the 4104 was pushed through the loop at Aberdeen, over the bridge to Watertown Yard and back, through the straight section on Mt Auburn St in front of Bennett Alley, and through the switch from Mt Auburn St to Aberdeen Ave - all because the switches have been locked into the normal positions used by the 71/73 and even partially dismantled in a few cases (except for Watertown Yard, which wasn't energized).

It looks like it was pushed. https://youtu.be/46tVAld-1d8?t=104
I stepped off before this part to take pictures so I missed it.

I just hope the frequency of the Mt Auburn routes can be maintained. It’s a pretty handy way to get around.

One thing that kept the 71/73 as high-frequency routes was the fact that the Neoplan tracklesses did not have great capacity (they only seat 31, partly due to the left doors), though for fairly short routes, they do have a good amount of standing and circulation space inside.

The 73 was at times scheduled as frequent as every 4 minutes (!!) at rush hour, one of very few T routes to run headways that close. I doubt we'll ever see the kind of frequencies on those routes again, as a consequence of both the pandemic and the changes to operations once the tracklesses are gone.

Also the replacement service will have higher costs. I'm guessing the Neoplans also had ADA features that reduced capacity. I was never on one of the new ones, but the old Flyers and/or the AMC buses were so much wider & roomier than the GMC/RDS diesel buses, and the trackless versions were so quieter & non-smelly. As a small child I was on a vehicle that looked like a PCC but wasn't; I think it even had some wooden trim. It must have been a Pullman trackless trolley on the #71 out of Watertown...