The NGT trolley scheme has traffic delay designed into it because of “traffic stacking”. All other traffic is halted by traffic lights while trolley buses move across the carriageway to turn onto the sections of the route that is dedicated to the trolley bus. The traffic stacking causes delay to buses by making them wait at traffic lights. There will be least 5 of these traffic-stacking points, in both directions, on the way to Bodington Hall. These are at, Woodhouse Moor (Library), Hyde Park junction, Headingley Hill (top), Shaw Lane/Alma road junction, and the Lawnswood roundabout. All other traffic including commercial vehicles, bicycles, cars, cabs, are in the stack. I don’t know what happens to emergency vehicles. The diagram below is complicated but it is the best effort to explain the system in the light of the lack of information from the NGT proposers.

The core of the system is a small transponder or tag that can be attached into each trolley bus. To interrogate, a reader sends out a radio signal to the transponder via an antenna. The signal carries enough energy to reach a detector. The transponder then returns a signal that carries the data that it is storing. This data has a unique, programmed pin. When a trolley bus is detected approaching the stack the lights change in its favour. Nearly all our buses already carry them and mobile technology tells the operator where the vehicle is. It also alters the fare stage on inboard machines and accumulates statistics for route planning.

It appears that the financing of the Leeds NGT trolley bus scheme is something the lobbyists who will profit from scheme, are keen to hush up.

In July 2012, the official NGT website ‘transport extra’ announced £173.5 million government funding to enable the Leeds New Generation Transport (NGT) trolleybus network to go ahead. The estimated total cost is widely reported to be about £250 million. Because the Government refuses to finance the whole scheme, this leaves a shortfall of £76.5 million that Leeds City Council will have to find in the “Age of Austerity”. Leeds has already been earmarked for a range of cuts amounting to £96 million in the current period.

This estimated £76.5 million can only come through a combination of more cuts to services, PFI loans, and rises in Council Tax. Cost overruns and debt servicing will be very large: a lot more than £76.5 million.

PFI (Private Finance Initiative) is notoriously expensive. It is likened to paying your mortgage with a credit card. Current analysis shows that £1 borrowed will require about £6 in repayment. The trolleybus financial load is too much for the City to carry.

All local councillors should now be asking questions about this aspect of the trolley bus.

The diagram below from the Guardian of 6th July 2012 best illustrates the cost of PFI:

The scientific method that represents power production efficiency in power stations and vehicle energy efficiency are called Sankey diagrams. I have attached one below. They are good at illustrating the problem with power stations.

Power production efficiency in power stations and vehicle energy efficiency, in any type of vehicle, are totally different matters. It’s wrong to confuse the two.

After the electricity is made in a power station, losing 70% to heat losses, it loses more in transmission to the city and more in transforming the current to the NGT system. After that the electric cable and the vehicle lose even more. The total efficiency is hard to calculate on the NGT, but it will be in the region of 10%.

Diesel engines with intercoolers, turbo chargers with digitally-controlled fuel injection produce very high efficiency-up to 50% is not uncommon. They are used on the new First Bus double-deckers.

Electrical vehicles have an advantage over diesel because they accelerate and decelerate faster. Also they produce no local pollution.

Both types of motors suffer on urban travel because they constantly stop and start.

The diesel still has a big very big edge in overall fuel efficiency over power station produced electricity vehicles such as the NGT.

There is no official information on the height of the catenary system, that supports the cables of the NGT trolley bus scheme. Unlike continental trolley buses, the system has to be of an unusual height because double-decker buses will travel under it for many sections of the route. The mast height of 6.5metres (about 20 feet) is my “guestimate” as safe clearance for a 4.3 metre bus is required. The power line will carry about 700 volts.

The design and build must allow for all conditions. Engineers will have in mind extreme conditions such as a winter gale.

The design of the route will acknowledge that no tree or branch can lean over this catenary system. There can be no circumstances where a branch can be allowed to touch the masts, cables or braces. Re-growth of a brashed (cut back) tree will not be permitted. The best method of ensuring safety and line continuity is to remove the tree because continuous maintenance will be difficult. An extensive tree removal programme will threaten our green corridor, from Monument Moor to beyond the Lawnswood roundabout. When you next travel along the route look up and estimate the lean of the branches over the A660 to get an idea of which trees will be removed. It looks like a very large number.

There are many examples on the web of what a trolley bus support system looks like. The drawings on the NGT website indicate little and give no measurements. The diagram above shows what it could, and probably will, be like. There is no hard information from the proposers of the NGT. The dimensions here are calculated on the height to accommodate a double-decker bus. The cute diagrams of traffic-free streets and gossamer cabling systems on the NGT website bear no relationship to the engineering and safety requirements and their visual impact.

There are very few single deck trolley bus systems that share the route with double-decker buses. Single-decked trolley bus routes tend to be designed for special routes not shared with high-sided vehicles. The NGT shares many parts of its route with double-decker buses. The diagram above shows the problem. It creates a very high catenary system. Double-decker buses raise the roof on the engineering. The heights above are researched but are estimates only. The power cables in the catenary system will carry up to 700 volts. So there won’t be any open-topped buses in the unlikely event of Leeds United winning a trophy anywhere near the NGT system.

It is very hard to get detailed information on the NGT Leeds scheme. There is none given on the NGT website except unrealistic pictures which are just a marketing exercise. The information I have given is based on other schemes, all of which use slightly different constructions of their catenary system.

The proposed NGT trolley bus for Leeds does not decrease carbon dioxide pollution; it just delocalises it away back to a coal fired power station. The transmission losses actually increase carbon dioxide pollution. It will do less than buses do as it can’t be deployed for school runs, specials, and can’t be used off its wires. It only covers a small part of the city. Bus lanes and cycle lanes will be removed. Mature trees dug up, Yorkshire stone walls removed and more concrete installed at junctions. The private companies that build and run it will make a fortune out of the initial public investment of £250+ million.

Only a deprivatised, locally controlled, cheap, integrated transport system will make a dfference to our mad, congested car culture.

The NGT has attracted much adverse comment in the YEP. An extract is given below:

“Wow! Buses on wires! I can barely cope with the excitement. It’ll be like riding on a bus. With wires!

We’ll be able to look up to the sky, and see wire after wire. I liked the wire, so I’m all for it! It’ll only cost the GDP of a small country, and I like buses too!”

We need more urban railway stations. There are six that could be rebuilt now. There are regional rail lines that could be restored such as the Wetherby line. Leeds should spend the £250 million as it sees fit and ignore this central Government publicity stunt. Its just an election promise which will just be cancelled in a few years time.

A large white elephant would be the most suitable logo for this scheme.