WI: Pantograph Trucks

So, Siemens has been developing a system that they call an ‘eHighway’ and it looks like a really cool technology. If you’ve ever see a trackless trolley/trolleybus, you know the basic idea, a bus that draws its power from overhead lines, like trolleys and (some) subways do. This technology has been in common use in public transportation for over a hundred years, its very mature.

Siemens is using this same technology for semi trucks. The basic concept seems so obvious that its a wonder it hasn’t been considered until now. Thats not to say that it should have been developed in the early days, as Siemens’ system relies on what they call an ‘intelligent pantograph’ which seems to be able to better respond to highway conditions, particularly the likelyhood that the vehicle will have to temporarily operate off the power line. A related issue is that you need a robust system to power the vehicle when it is off the power lines, either good enough batteries to last until the truck returns to the line (which could be awhile, if there’s no power lines directly at the origin or destination), or a combustion engine. So, an advanced battery technology, or good hybrid engines (or be willing to tolerate heavy trucks!).

https://www.siemens.com/global/en/h.../road-solutions/electromobility/ehighway.html
https://www.inverse.com/article/38301-siemens-ehighway-electric-highway

So, ultimately, the question would be, how much earlier do we think this particular technology could be developed?
 
The big problem is the initial set up cost, that is a HUGE amount of infrastucture work that's going to be needed, road closures, delays etc, all stuff that voters hate. And it would be expensive too. The problem isn't the tech, its the political will to sink billions into doing it on more than just some 'test road' or small area, as to make this worth investing in, you'd have to do it on major national roads etc, otherwise it just wont be worth it.
 
The big problem is the initial set up cost, that is a HUGE amount of infrastucture work that's going to be needed, road closures, delays etc, all stuff that voters hate. And it would be expensive too. The problem isn't the tech, its the political will to sink billions into doing it on more than just some 'test road' or small area, as to make this worth investing in, you'd have to do it on major national roads etc, otherwise it just wont be worth it.

You put up the overhead lines when repaving the slow lane on the highway. Hell, you could probably also put up stretches during late night hours, if you really want to. Focus on routes that are heavily trafficked (areas near major ports) or areas with very predictable trucking routes (like mines and the like).

Also, in areas with an existing network for trolleybuses, I could see local delivery vehicles tapping into the transit system’s power grid this way.
 
The plan in the OP seems technically workable. What I am not so sure is that it would be feasible politically and economically as well. More below.


The big problem is the initial set up cost, that is a HUGE amount of infrastucture work that's going to be needed, road closures, delays etc, all stuff that voters hate. And it would be expensive too. The problem isn't the tech, its the political will to sink billions into doing it on more than just some 'test road' or small area, as to make this worth investing in, you'd have to do it on major national roads etc, otherwise it just wont be worth it.

I thought about the same thing when I read the OP. Setting up a system like this as any significant scale would be very expensive, and on balance I feel that it would only be something densely populated, highly urbanised nations could do. For my own country that has a small population spread out in a big land area, building hundreds and hundreds of kilometers of new overhead lines across wilderness would probably be deemed prohibitively expensive, especially considering the constant need for maintenance. As it is, after a number of big storms in the last couple of decades, there has been a major effort to get rid of overhead power lines as much as possible and to dig them underground. This makes the network much better able to withstandand extreme weather, something that appears to be more commonplace in the future due to climate change.

So, in terms of the costs of the needed infrastructure I can see the system of "trolley trucks" having a chance in (parts of) Germany, or the Netherlands, or, say, even the Czech Republic. But further north and east you go in Europe, the more likely it gets that the government sees that the benefits would outweight the costs.

Outside of practical economy, there is also the question of economic and business policy. Currently, most systems bound to overhead lines for power are limited to single urban areas and run by state- or city-run companies. They are practical monopolies. In terms of the system in the OP, it is also easiest to envision it as a public monopoly. One company to pay for the infrastructure and its maintenance, operate the vehicles and to get the benefits. Much like a railway company, say. But then of course we get to the typical arguments against monopolies. The problem, IMO, is that the system would not be very open anyway, even if they tried to avoid a monopoly. You probably could not avoid the state building and controlling the infrastucture, the initial outlay is that sizable. How would the users pay for it? Either it is paid out of general tax income, in which case the necessarily limited number of operators would benefit, but most taxpayers would not, at least not directly. You could set up a system to monitor the "grid" users and collect the money from them, but that might be a) an expensive system to set up and run in a trustworthy manner and b) if there is no direct government subsidy, a very expensive proposition to the companies using the system if they have to carry the entire cost. Like mentioned above, the constant maintenance of the system would cost significant money on top of building it and on top of ordinary road maintenance. Maintenance would also have to be very responsive in preparation for malfunctions, accidents, storms, sabotage, etc, as the line getting cut at even two or three points more or less simultaneously could conceivably cripple the system for a long stretch of highway.

In any case, adopting a system like this at the early stage of its use, at major scale, you would be tying yourself to a certain standard and either a single maker of the vehicles, or a small handful of them. So, the bigger the system would get, a more of a monopoly you would be handing out to the system provider(s). Everyone wanting to use the "grid" would need to buy their vehicles from Siemens, or whoever the system provider is, or at least have that company (or its affiliates) convert existing vehicles for the system, or order them built to the Siemens standards. And necessarily, these would be trucks for which the best performance could only be achieved in the vicinity of the "grid", they necessairly would be less useful farther away you stray from it. For truck companies operating in much of Europe, sinking a lot of resources to practically serve only in a small part of the continent it might also seem counterintuitive.

What adopting such a system at an early stage would then mean would be to put many eggs in one basket, to gamble on the system being successful. To throw the nation or province to the mercy of technological path dependence. If we talk about Europe, for example, the first nation that adopts the system in a large scale is practically betting on that other nations will follow it as well - otherwise its longterm benefits are less certain. What if, after the system is up and running and billions have been used for the overhead lines, other necessary infra and a system tracking users for payments, etc, an unexpected advance in battery technology, or a new kind of engine, or somesuch, makes autonomous electric trucks again much cheaper and/or practical to build and use? Then you would be either saddled with the Pantograph Truck System for many years to come, paying comparatively more than you would with using autonomous trucks, or you might decide to scrap the system altogether, losing all the investment put into it that far.
 
Last edited:
Since we are going to add pantographs to trucks perhaps we could construct special lanes for their exclusive use? Perhaps to make them more efficient we could then join the trucks together under the control of a single driver? Maybe also lay metal rails in the special lane and replace the pneumatic tyres with metal wheels designed to run on the metal rails?

That said if the above was a good idea I'm sure someone would have invented it by now.

;)
 
Since we are going to add pantographs to trucks perhaps we could construct special lanes for their exclusive use? Perhaps to make them more efficient we could then join the trucks together under the control of a single driver? Maybe also lay metal rails in the special lane and replace the pneumatic tyres with metal wheels designed to run on the metal rails?

That said if the above was a good idea I'm sure someone would have invented it by now.

;)

Rails are a bigger investment, and also have the disadvantage of not being flexible in terms of destination. This system, so long as the trucks can operate off grid, gives normal trucking some of the advantages of rail.
 
Last edited:
Rails are a bigger investment, and also have the disadvatmage of not being flexible in terms of destination. This system, so long as the trucks can operate off grid, gives normal trucking some of the advantages of rail.

The question, I believe, is whether those advantages are worth the cost of building and maintaining the system.
 
Well, that question can only be answered by looking into the costs of maintaining catenary wires.

And the other parts of the infrastructure, and all the otherwise needed changes in the road and highway system, and the new vehicles and/or vehicle conversion. And then there are questions I mentioned above about who pays for the system and how, etc, etc.
 
And the other parts of the infrastructure, and all the otherwise needed changes in the road and highway system, and the new vehicles and/or vehicle conversion. And then there are questions I mentioned above about who pays for the system and how, etc, etc.

What other changes? Catenary wires are a pretty simple and old tech.
 
There's an important technical issue here, too. Any electric motor needs two wires, one pickup and one return. Rail vehicles use the track as the return. Trolley buses need TWO overhead wires, which makes it more complicated, especially where routes diverge. The infrastructure costs would be huge--and note that trolley buses are uncommon today, even in densely packed cities. Also, there's a lot more wires overhead, which would get popular resistance. If used on highways, the vehicles can not change lanes except at specific spots where the wires are configured appropriately.

Overhead wires are very maintenance intensive, especially in severe weather, so there would need to be enough traffic to justify the expense. Also, the advantage of a truck is that it can go anywhere there's roads; that's negated unless the truck has a full dual power system--more expense. Note that, in the USA, there are only five trolleybus systems today

Trolley trucks might work in a very limited area where emissions are a problem, but if the area is limited, battery would likely be more effective.

Good idea--always good to think outside the box--but I don't think this one works.
 
What other changes? Catenary wires are a pretty simple and old tech.

You are talking not about a simple technical fix, but a traffic system-level change in the affected areas. If we have much of the heavy traffic following a "track" as it were, more than ATM, certain parts of roads and highways must be preserved for that traffic, and possibly also reinforced for additional wear and tear, etc. All current routes that have lot of truck traffic are not suitable for such wires being installed, for example, so alternative roads and streets would have to be designated or even built. In city areas, routes have to be reorganized (for the benefit of light and pedestrian traffic, say) and new traffic lights and signs have to be put up, and so on. A lot of additional electric lines and wires need to be built, transformer stations and maintenance facilities added, and so on. See also NHBL's post above.
 
- The trucks would be running in the slow lane, where most of them run anyway. Constraining them to that lane through sheer practicality would be a nice improvement as there would be less weaving (at least from the trucks!)
- The trucks would be hybrids of some sort (Siemens is testing multiple types, and multiple types could be in use simultaneously), able to operate off the wires, so they could change lanes when needed. Biggest problem in this scenario is a taffic jam where they can’t get back to the wires. That would be a big problem.
- Increased wear and tear by focusing the heavy traffic on one lane means less wear and tear on the other lanes. Also, the outer lanes are the easiest to re-pave (the fast lane is the easiest, since you have to deal with far fewer exits).
- Paying for it is pretty simple, as the same company that is building the network is also supplying the pantographs. Easy enoughto track usage there. Actually, revenue becomes a problem if and only if this system is so successful that there are third party pantographs being bult.
- Yes, there aren’t many pantograph systems left in the US, but thats a general mass transit issue, as well as an aesthetic issue (which isn’t very relevant for highways or industrial areas). The tech is still widely known and understood.
 
Rails are a bigger investment, and also have the disadvantage of not being flexible in terms of destination.

I was attempting to be slightly humorous by using a similar argument as has been used against the concept of semi-autonomous truck convoys. I.e. why reinvent the railway? :)
 
Top