Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

After bus fire, CT pulls electric fleet from service

ctinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 148 posts

Re: After bus fire, CT pulls electric fleet from service

#101

Post by dangerwill »

jdlshore wrote: post #100
woodruffw wrote: post #82

I think it's fantastic that smaller-to-midsized towns are bringing EV buses into service, but I'll mention my perennial bugbear again: all of these towns had dedicated trolley service under a century ago. The lines were torn up and replaced with less frequent, traffic encumbered bus routes. Hamden, for example, had three lines between it and New Haven[1]. [1]: http://www.hamdenhistoricalsociety.org/trolleys.html

I get that this bugs you, but what does it add to the conversation today? Those lines are long gone, and it's not like complaining about it will bring them back.

These lines would be unambiguously better (cheaper, much simpler materials, much less embodied carbon, faster and more reliable if given a proper right of way) than a bunch of electric buses in shared traffic so it makes sense to bring them up.

Re: After bus fire, CT pulls electric fleet from service

#102

Post by ZeroGravitas »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #15
viraptor wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your EV runs out of juice, you have to have it towed to a charging station. Maybe that's the situation near you currently, but as EVs get more popular, these services will as well. It's just inevitable. https://thedriven.io/2022/02/01/melbourne-start-up-launches-...

I'm sure AA vehicles will - if they already aren't - be supplied with a generator to put some juice back into electric vehicles on the roadside. Probably lighter, more compact, and less hassle than carrying around spare batteries.

The AA vehicles will likely be soon be EVs themselves, and allow sharing their own battery charge, just as some existing EV cars do.

Re: After bus fire, CT pulls electric fleet from service

#103

Post by nomel »

woodruffw wrote: post #82

I think it's fantastic that smaller-to-midsized towns are bringing EV buses into service, but I'll mention my perennial bugbear again: all of these towns had dedicated trolley service under a century ago. The lines were torn up and replaced with less frequent, traffic encumbered bus routes. Hamden, for example, had three lines between it and New Haven[1]. [1]: http://www.hamdenhistoricalsociety.org/trolleys.html

Trolleys have a fixed route, which is not ideal. Fixed routes is why you see buses going down the road empty, or with one person on them.

Re: After bus fire, CT pulls electric fleet from service

#104

Post by nomel »

teawrecks wrote: post #96
velcrohacker wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Umm, it did. In CT. Last month. https://archive.ph/FZ2wv

I don't see anything in this article about someone sabotaging the fuel line. In fact, they don't even mention how the fire started at all. Why is this article relevant?

Here's the comment flow:

> Even if its an act of sabotage, like someone shooting at the battery. It would not happen with a regular diesel bus.

He's saying, even with sabotage, it would not have happened with a diesel bus.

Then a link was posted showing a diesel bus catching fire, no sabotage required. Diesel vehicle fires aren't some impossibility, as a quick google search will make clear.

Re: After bus fire, CT pulls electric fleet from service

#105

Post by ZeroGravitas »

jdlshore wrote: post #100
woodruffw wrote: post #82

I think it's fantastic that smaller-to-midsized towns are bringing EV buses into service, but I'll mention my perennial bugbear again: all of these towns had dedicated trolley service under a century ago. The lines were torn up and replaced with less frequent, traffic encumbered bus routes. Hamden, for example, had three lines between it and New Haven[1]. [1]: http://www.hamdenhistoricalsociety.org/trolleys.html

I get that this bugs you, but what does it add to the conversation today? Those lines are long gone, and it's not like complaining about it will bring them back.

It's not safe on HN to tell the more obvious lies about EVs, renewable power, climate change etc. that are popular in certain circles due to the more technical audience so you get a lot of people with unusually strong views about how obsolete tech X is actually better for the planet than the solution that experts in the field have settled on.

Can't have people believing that experts and democratic governance is capable of performing even basic functions or the next stop is communism.

Re: After bus fire, CT pulls electric fleet from service

#106

Post by SigmundA »

Anyone know the brand of bus and type of battery pack? Can't seem to find the info. Mainly wondering if it is a NMC or NCA pack or more stable LFP pack. LFP's are much safer with much lower chance for thermal runaway but they will still burn, they are also cheaper have much long cycle life and don't use nickel or cobalt but have a lower energy density. City buses would be a great application for LFP.

Re: After bus fire, CT pulls electric fleet from service

#107

Post by teawrecks »

nomel wrote: post #104
teawrecks wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see anything in this article about someone sabotaging the fuel line. In fact, they don't even mention how the fire started at all. Why is this article relevant?

Here's the comment flow: > Even if its an act of sabotage, like someone shooting at the battery. It would not happen with a regular diesel bus. He's saying, even with sabotage, it would not have happened with a diesel bus. Then a link was posted showing a diesel bus catching fire, no sabotage required . Diesel vehicle fires aren't some impossibility, as a quick google search will make clear.

Well yeah, you can forcibly set anything on fire if you want to, the comment was specifically referring to compromising the fuel system of the diesel vehicle, which we have zero information to indicate was the cause.

Re: After bus fire, CT pulls electric fleet from service

#108

Post by googlryas »

dangerwill wrote: post #101
jdlshore wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that this bugs you, but what does it add to the conversation today? Those lines are long gone, and it's not like complaining about it will bring them back.

These lines would be unambiguously better (cheaper, much simpler materials, much less embodied carbon, faster and more reliable if given a proper right of way) than a bunch of electric buses in shared traffic so it makes sense to bring them up.

Not really, because you can rework bus routes about 10,000x easier than rerouting trolley lines. If there are very dense, well defined lines, then sure trolleys can be better.

Re: After bus fire, CT pulls electric fleet from service

#109

Post by mminer237 »

dangerwill wrote: post #101
jdlshore wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that this bugs you, but what does it add to the conversation today? Those lines are long gone, and it's not like complaining about it will bring them back.

These lines would be unambiguously better (cheaper, much simpler materials, much less embodied carbon, faster and more reliable if given a proper right of way) than a bunch of electric buses in shared traffic so it makes sense to bring them up.

How is building dedicated trolley tracks cheaper than buying a bus and running it on ordinary pavement?

And streetcars have no reason to be faster either. It's easier and historically faster to have a dedicated bus lane than a dedicated trolley lane, but there's just not enough will for even that.

Re: After bus fire, CT pulls electric fleet from service

#110

Post by woodruffw »

nomel wrote: post #103
woodruffw wrote: post #82

I think it's fantastic that smaller-to-midsized towns are bringing EV buses into service, but I'll mention my perennial bugbear again: all of these towns had dedicated trolley service under a century ago. The lines were torn up and replaced with less frequent, traffic encumbered bus routes. Hamden, for example, had three lines between it and New Haven[1]. [1]: http://www.hamdenhistoricalsociety.org/trolleys.html

Trolleys have a fixed route, which is not ideal. Fixed routes is why you see buses going down the road empty, or with one person on them.

I don't understand this point. Buses don't have inherently fixed routes, so that isn't why they go down the road empty. It's because, in many places, their routes haven't been replanned to compensate for suburban sprawl, and their service is bad.

The fixed-route nature of trolleys is not an inherently bad thing. In fact, it was the dominant (and eminently sustainable) form of urban expansion for over 75 years[1]. It turns out that fixed routes mean stability, which in turn means that businesses feel comfortable investing in long-term presence. Residents similarly find them desirable, since they can be certain that their streetcar won't be taken away from them (unlike a bus).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb

Post reply on HN