by Stan Thompson

1
THE HYDROLLEY. . .
. . . IN CHARLOTTES FUTURE ! presented to ISA /
CAROP 24 March 2009
by Stan Thompsonchairman, HEAT Hydrogen
Economy Advancement Team Mooresville-South
Iredell Chamber of Commerce Mooresville, NC USA
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSJames Graebner, chairman of
the Trolley Committee of the American Public
Transportation Association, created the
PowerPoint slides on present and future
deployment of streetcars included here. Their use
reaffirms Mr. Graebners perspective. We hope to
show how the advent of hydrolleys hydrogen
fuel cell streetcars can bring about streetcar
reintroduction much sooner and at far less cost
than has been thought possible until
now.Jean-Paul Moskowitz of Alstom, France,
described a hydrolley concept, Fulltram, at
the Hydrogen Train Conference in Herning,
Denmark, June 7, 2006.
3
Buses vs. Streetcars

• Buses need no rails or dedicated
  rights-of-way...a huge capital avoidance
  advantage
• But developers prefer to invest along fixed
  transit assetsa great tax revenue advantage.
• Transit-focused development enables
  high-density urban infrastructure with lower
  per-capita cost.
• Streetcars mystique can tease more drivers out
  of cars.
• Resulting VMT reduction cuts pollution,
  greenhouse gas emissions, dependency on extracted
  and imported fuels, and all the negatives
  associated with road congestion.

4
Buses and Streetcars (continued)

• For the same vehicle weight, streetcars have
  only 1/7 the rolling friction thus, better
  range, lower energy cost.
• Typically, streetcars carry about 50 more
  passengers per operator than buses.

5
Streetcars in 1980 8

COURTESY, JIM GRAEBNER, APTA TROLLEY COMMITTEE
San Francisco, New Orleans, Philadelphia ,
Newark, Cleveland, Boston, San Diego, Pittsburgh
6

Streetcars by 2005 28
COURTESY, JIM GRAEBNER
San Francisco, New Orleans, Philadelphia ,
Newark, Cleveland, Boston, San Diego, Pittsburgh,
San Jose, Sacramento, Portland, LA, Houston,
Denver, Salt Lake City, Buffalo, St. Louis,
Galveston, Tucson, Seattle , Dallas, Little Rock,
Memphis, Tampa, Baltimore, Lowell, Minneapolis,
Kenosha
7
Seattle, Portland, Salem, San Francisco, LA, San
Diego, Tucson, Phoenix, Albuquerque, Denver,
Colorado Springs, Spokane, Boise, Salt Lake,
Sacremento, Austin, Houston, Corpus Christi,
Kansas City, St. Louis, Des Moines, Minneapolis,
Kenosha, Madison, Omaha, Chicago, Little Rock,
Memphis, Dayton,Toledo, Cincinnati, Columbus,
Lancaster, Philadelphia, Newark, Providence,
Kinston NY, DC, Richmond, Roanoke, Atlanta,
Savannah, Birmingham, Miami,Tampa, Grand Rapids,
Boston, Lowell, French Lick Indiana, Charlotte,
NC.

EXISTING AND PLANNED STREETCAR SYSTEMS 81
COURTESY, JIM GRAEBNER
San Francisco, New Orleans, Philadelphia ,
Newark, Cleveland, Boston, San Diego, Pittsburgh,
San Jose, Sacramento, Portland, LA, Houston,
Denver, Salt Lake City, Buffalo, St. Louis,
Galveston, Tucson, Seattle , Dallas, Little Rock,
Memphis, Tampa, Baltimore, Lowell, Minneapolis,
Kenosha
8
Everybody wants electric rail...
... but nobody wants the catenary.
9
THE CATENARY REBELLION

• In the past year, at least three transit
  manufacturers have announced wireless streetcars
• Alstom (France) now working in Bordeaux
• Bombardier (Germany)
• Shanghai Bashi Industrial Co Ltd and Shanghai
• Sunwin Bus Corporation (China) with Volvo
• all use hidden track electrification
• all appear to be even more costly than catenary

10
OVERHEAD EXPENSE

• In an APTA presentation last year, a paper by
  Ned Parker of LTK Engineering on diesel hybrid
  economics estimated overhead electrification may
  cost as much as 4.5 million dollars a mile.
• That may be low !
• Once installed, catenary maintenance is not
  cheap.

11
THE HYDROLLEY OPTION

• Onboard power lets buried utilities rest in
  peace.
• No catenary means no poles, guys, substations,
  transformers, complex grounding, shock hazards.
• No clearance problems when tall equipment is
  moved through town.

12
MORE STREETCARS SOONER

• 4 million less per mile lowers the cost bar
  for new lines.
• The Green tech, wireless neighborhoods,
  panache should lure young riders, especially, out
  of cars.
• If multiple cities and hydrolley builders
  collaborate, RD can proceed in tandem with urban
  planning, lowering risk for both and letting both
  move faster.

13
CHANGE FORCES THE ISSUE

• Like the steam-to-diesel transition, change
  tends to leave the last investments in a moribund
  technology stranded, undepreciated and
  short-lived.
• The first hydrolley deployment will probably
  precipitate rapid reduction in catenary equipment
  availability and an eventual price rise by those
  who continue to manufacture as scale economics
  decline.

14
THE CASE FOR AN ORDERLY TRANSITION

• If multiple cities and hydrolley builders
  collaborate, hydrolley RD can proceed in tandem
  with urban planning, lowering risk for both and
  letting both move ahead faster.
• Europe and North America need a reasoned,
  policysupported, generally understood hydrolley
  transition plan and a strategy for the best
  capital utilization including a cut-off date for
  new catenary streetcar system funding.

15
THE NATURE OF TECHNOLOGY CHANGE TRANSITION IS
A DANGEROUS, AMBIGUOUS TIME.
AT SOME POINT, THE RISK OF HESITATING IS ACTUALLY
GREATER THAN THE RISK OF INNOVATING, BUT STILL
SEEMS LESS SCARY.
16
It seemed like a good idea at the time....
National Railway Museum, York, UK
17
A WORRISOME SCENARIO

• This could prove very costly at the national
  level
• Because the non-technical press has ignored
  hydrail, many of the sixty-odd municipalities may
  (never having heard the hydrolley story) charge
  ahead to invest recovery funding in
  preengineering and environmental studies for
  catenary systems.
• By the time physical construction is ready to
  begin, the lower cost of hydrolley lines may have
  become so familiar that funding for catenary
  lines is cut off permanently and early outlays
  are abandoned without returning any value.
• The remedy get the word out quickly.

18
THE PENALTIES OF A HYDROLLEY TRANSITION

• A fueling station will be required somewhere
  on the line. The process could entail labor
  complexity. Catenary systems dont need either.
• The regulatory universe is shrink-wrapped
  around 120-year-old trolley technology.
• There are undistributed RD costs and learning
  curves are not free.
• There are electrolysis/fuel cell conversion
  losses.

19
THE ADVANTAGES OFHYDROLLEY TRANSITION

• Catenary necessarily adds to peak commute-hour
  load but hydrogen can be electrolyzed off-peak
  and/or by wind turbines.
• Hydrolleys can be a lead element into
  transition to the hydrogen economy.
• Hydrogen bus RD can be morphed into
  hydrolleys.
• High streetcar demand and low hydrolley cost
  can justify scale economy investment,
  jumpstarting the transition.

20
SOME DEFINITE MAYBES

• Maybe hydrolleys can run on streetcar lines
  but continue far beyond the area where
  electrification is cost-justified.
• Maybe disused rail spurs can be networked to
  rehabilitate dead industrial areas as loft
  apartment neighborhoods.
• Maybe hydrolleys can feed light rail stations,
  fostering upscale single family dwelling
  neighborhoods based on a nearly car-less
  lifestyle
• Probably hydrolleys can enable downtown to
  airport transit in several cities that cant
  justify light rail.

21
SOME HYDROLLEY APPLICATIONS
( Charlotte, NC hypothetical model )
22
presented with thanks from Mooresville and
HEAT to JAMES H. GRAEBNER and APTA
Contact information for Stan Thompson and the
Hydrogen Economy Advancement Team home/office
phone [phone] cellular phone 704
458-9410 e-mail hst2nd_at_aol.com