Wirelessly Charged Electric Buses Set for Milton Keynes

Electric Buses with no overhead wires and no major changes to the road system.   Should Nottingham have considered this method instead of the Tram Network that is now being installed ?   See this article in the BBC Web Site.

This entry was posted in Nottingham City Council, The Tram Extension, Transport. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Wirelessly Charged Electric Buses Set for Milton Keynes

  1. Andrew Clayworth says:

    Wireless charged buses are a great idea. As a keen environmentalist the most important thing is to reduce the number of cars on the road. When people start to leave the car behind and use the tram which is an essential part of the integrated transport network then any surplus money can be used to to expand the network which should include wireless charged busses. I know that there will be initial pain but if the original transport networks had not been destroyed by Dr Richard Beeching under the Tory government in the early 1960s we would not be in this position now, but that’s what the short term economic policies of Neo-liberalism do for us.

    Andrew Clayworth

  2. Steve Barber says:

    Simple answer is NO, not instead for the following reasons:
    New high capacity ways are needed into Nottingham because of congestion. These could be a roadway, tramway or railway. The trouble with a roadway is that for the capacities involved it would be extremely expensive and environmentally unacceptable; each tram line has the capacity of two four lane dual carriageways. There would also need to be more car parking provided. The tram route being built is 70% on its own formation and the other 30% are either on very quiet roads (eg Lower/Fletcher Roads) or are where people want to go to or go from (eg Chilwell Road). The means of propulsion of the vehicles is of secondary importance, however, trams beat the rest on this too.

    Nottingham has invested heavily in electric buses which reduce pollution. It has been found that as battery technology improves there is less need for trolley wires or the recharging system suggested in the article (which incidentally is used on tram systems in France in locations where overhead wires would be unsightly). As it is, each overnight charge is sufficient for a whole day’s working.

  3. Fred R says:

    It’s an interesting and innovative project, but the story does say that it’s the first of its kind in the UK, so plainly this option wasn’t available when the Nottingham tram network was being planned.

  4. stevebarber says:

    Yes this has been around a while and has been widely discussed in light rail circles. However, it is rapidly becoming less relevant as battery technology and other stored energy methods become more efficient.

    At the end of the day it is only a different way of propelling vehicles along a road and does nothing to address the congestion issues.

  5. Ian Blakeley says:

    Lets face it we are talking about commuter traffic here, for about 5 hours a day split between morning and evening. If you really want to get people off the roads and onto public transport, you build huge car parks around the outside of the urbanisation and then prohibit commuter traffic thus forcing people to use the car parks and the public transport.

    Now sits back and waits to be shot at.

  6. Barry Morrison says:

    Then there’s no need for a tram to take people away from Beeston..Bingo!!!!

  7. Joan Wade says:

    This has been an interesting discussion and one which has clearly brought out the importance of building the tram with its dedicated route. I can see that having more buses even electric buses or, that worst of all possible worlds, trolley buses, would simply have added to congestion. Soon we will have two new tram lines and, with one of the lines, a new river crossing to take people in and out of Nottingham. Against this background I am pleased to see that Nick Palmer is asking people to think about what we want for Beeston and the local area. I do hope today’s meeting does not get bogged down in discussion about whether or not the tram should have been built or current construction issues but does make some attempt to look to the future that they we want for our area.

  8. Ian Blakeley says:

    I see that the idea of building reserved roadways for trolley buses or electric buses has not been thought of. Just like the specially built trackways for the tram. Possibly somewhat cheaper and with a lot less mess and congestion.

    • Joan Wade says:

      I recall this idea was thought about and debated locally over many years. It appeared to have little or no merit. Why would there be less “mess”? Such a dedicated route would appear to involve all the same work i.e. moving utilities as undertaken for the tram. The downside would be no smooth ride, less speed and uncertainty as to how permanent the route was – leading in turn to uncertainty for businesses thinking of investing in premises near to the route.

  9. David W says:

    There would be less mess because they are roads, which unlike so called light rail don’t require concrete reinforced piles to bedrock with reinforced concrete slab on top. Tram bed construction prevents any underlying work after the event without massive upheaval. The road approach allows sections of route to be closed whilst repairs etc continue, as the vehicles can steer through alternative routes. Examples of use are Exeter park and ride services, that use dedicated roadways through industrial areas.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s