Remembering the Boeings

Discussion relating to commuter rail, light rail, and subway operations of the MBTA.

Moderators: CRail, sery2831

Re: Remembering the Boeings

Postby typesix » Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:08 pm

Boeings were not compatible with anything. Seashore is all poles, no pantograph operation.
typesix
 
Posts: 627
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:23 am
Location: Boston

Re: Remembering the Boeings

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:15 pm

NaugyRR wrote:
jwhite07 wrote:...Regarding Naugy's trip plans, if you live it up and stay at the Indigo hotel adjacent to Riverside, you can probably get a better deal on a room facing that "dirty ugly railroad yard". :-D I've stayed there before (well, back when it was a cheaper place), but those rooms have a fairly decent view of the west end of the yard. By the way, not going to be a problem catching a rebuilt Type 7 now... the challenge will be catching a non-rebuild in original paint!


Here's a question; did the Kinkis and Boeings ever operate trailed behind one or the other, or were they incompatible to be used as a set?

Another question regarding Seashore's Boeing; it's been since high school since I've been up there (actually got to run the Dallas car and had a blast), but don't they run basic trolley wire up there? Hypothetically, if the Boeing were made operable, it'd have to be rigged with a trolley pole instead of the pantograph, correct?


They couldn't trainline with other cars as MU's, but could couple in a dead-tow or dead-push situation with any Type 7's or Type 8's with no ill effects. They could not ever push/tow a PCC because of different couplers, however. I've even personally seen a B-B-7-8 sandwich pull into a station to discharge passengers from its dead half. The rerailer car--when it was still in-service before its propulsion crapped out--was the car that was doing the towing back to the yard for every dead 7 or 8 that derailed.


All MBTA and MUNI Boeings were factory-delivered with plug-ins on the roof for a trolley pole so they could take pantos and poles...and either omit the input that wasn't needed or have both on the roof at the same time for switching inputs on a mixed system. Being designed as universal cars for any buyer, the intent from Day 1 to make them able to plug-and-play with either or both types of overhead. Either Seashore just screws in any old stock pole into the pole input...or, since they don't need the pantograph they just take the pantograph completely off and replace it with a pole. I'm not sure if the electrical boxes stuffed on the roof during the mid-90's rebuild block the factory-design resting spot on the roof for the pole when it's in the down position.

The first T test units were delivered with poles + pantos because not enough of the system overhead had yet been changed over to dual panto/pole hangers, and MUNI was in the same boat. Until 1994 and start of the cars' midlife overhaul there were always at least 2 rostered units retaining the poles so they could be used over the active non-revenue trackage to Watertown. There are many pictures online from old fantrips of them running to Watertown. They even were tested in revenue service to Arborway at the very beginning, though that was only in the earliest days and there unfortunately no photos that have yet been posted of those early trials. Since all units, including the vast majority delivered panto-only, had the pole plugs by default the car numbers that were maintained with pole installations for access to Watertown & Arborway changed a few times from '77 to '94. It wasn't the same couple of units for the entire life of the fleet, as they could transfer a pole from one car to another whenever they wanted.
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7105
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: Remembering the Boeings

Postby typesix » Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:53 pm

LRV had to use coupler adapter to mate with a PCC. As factory delivered, LRV would not have been able to couple to anything without an adapter.
typesix
 
Posts: 627
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:23 am
Location: Boston

Re: Remembering the Boeings

Postby MBTA3247 » Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:39 pm

Don't the Boeings, 7s, 8s, and PCCs all have Tomlinson couplers? Why would there be an incompatibility there?
"The destination of this train is [BEEP BEEP]" -announcement on an Ashmont train.
User avatar
MBTA3247
 
Posts: 2593
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:01 pm
Location: Milton

Re: Remembering the Boeings

Postby typesix » Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:03 pm

Boeings from the factory did not come with Tomlinson couplers, they had a German? coupler and therefore had to use an adapter to mate with PCCs mechanically only, no trainline was possible. Couplers were troublesome and changed later to what is now on the 7s and 8s.
typesix
 
Posts: 627
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:23 am
Location: Boston

Re: Remembering the Boeings

Postby jwhite07 » Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:38 pm

Don't the Boeings, 7s, 8s, and PCCs all have Tomlinson couplers? Why would there be an incompatibility there?


Although the overall basics of the design are similar, not all Tomlinson couplers are the same. Various types exist with different face dimensions, hook sizes, electrical contact block location and size, etc. The Boeings eventually got the same coupler design as the 7s and 8s have, and thus the three different type cars could be mechanically coupled, but not electrically trainlined (until the 7s were modified to run with 8s). It was never possible to couple an LRV of any type to a PCC without an adapter because the PCC couplers were of a different Tomlinson design. Even the T's rapid transit cars have Tomlinson couplers, but they're a different type than used by the LRV fleet, too. I don't think they're mechanically compatible, but maybe someone at Seashore can try to hitch the 0600s to 3424 and let us know how they make out!

Probably one of the most recent and certainly quite unusual uses of a coupler adapter was around the time of the 1997 Tremont Street Subway centennial, when Type 5 #5734 was towed behind then-brand new Type 7 #3719 to Riverside for a bit of work.
User avatar
jwhite07
 
Posts: 1409
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 7:39 pm

Re: Remembering the Boeings

Postby jrc520 » Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:59 pm

As shown below, the coupler heights don't match:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xhy7tSxkwuQ
jrc520
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:36 pm
Location: Woburn, MA

Re: Remembering the Boeings

Postby jwhite07 » Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:07 pm

Ha! Figures they would have tried exactly what I suggested. That "adapter" is a little tenuous though! :P
User avatar
jwhite07
 
Posts: 1409
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 7:39 pm

Re: Remembering the Boeings

Postby CRail » Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:26 pm

Regarding 3424 (Seashore's Boeing), preliminary inspection of the electrical components were grim. Due to corrosion, if power were put to the car right now it would result in some expensive noises and perhaps some mesmerizing pyrotechnics and THEN the car would be a static display. What's preventing the car from becoming operational is not a lack of "know-how" nor a lack of interest, it's the reality that those knowledgeable and interested have full time jobs/lives outside of the Museum and typically have other things to do higher up on the queue when they're working at the Museum. Getting the Boeing operational would likely need to be a joint effort between numerous volunteers and matching schedules between volunteers is often very difficult. As always, with more people showing up and saying "what can I do?" the project may seem less dormant. It should be noted, too, that prior to being staged on the display track, the car received some body and paint work.

It wouldn't be able to run with its pan currently (save for a few feet in each direction, this was done with the #4 EBT cars prior to their receiving poles), but ideas have been strewn about setting up a section of overhead to be pan-compatible in order to use that car (and future pan equipped cars) some day. This would be the the favorable course of action as putting poles on that car is NOT something I advocate! I would LOVE to get 3417 up there to be the power car as it WAS a pole car once upon a time and so the mod would be historically accurate. It's also an unrebuilt car and the only one with all of its plug doors (3453 had some center doors paneled over when it was converted to a sand car). If only USPS had flat rate shipping boxes that were 73' long.

Regarding couplers, the LRV couplers are tomlinsons except they have an additional piece which better lines them up to eachother when approaching a hitch. If that bit were sawed off, they'd be compatible. Heavy rail equipment has the exact tomlinson as a streetcar except it's a lot bigger and wouldn't fit. The exception there is that East Boston Tunnel cars, with their smaller truck assemblies, have streetcar scale couplers. We've pulled a train of blue line cars followed by 2 or 3 PCCs with a Type 3 plow all with direct coupler to coupler connections (we'd never tow multiple cars with tow bars).
Moderator: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Avatar:3679A (since wrecked)/3623B (now in service as 3636B).
User avatar
CRail
 
Posts: 2122
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 8:27 am
Location: Eastie

Re: Remembering the Boeings

Postby AgentSkelly » Mon Jan 16, 2017 12:58 am

I once met a guy actually at Boeing in Seattle that his job was to provide "legacy support" for its non-aviation products over the years; one of them was the LRV which he got calls from MBTA well into 2007 on oddball things; but he had every single piece of documentation that Boeing made on the LRV at his disposal; and time to time, helped them with sourcing parts, but that became less of a thing after the rebuild of LRV by another firm.
New Westminster to Amtrak 516, whats up with the extra 4 axles, over?
AgentSkelly
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 10:05 pm
Location: BNSF Vancouver Terminal

Re: Remembering the Boeings

Postby ebtmikado » Sat Jan 21, 2017 10:02 am

MUNI installed trolley poles on a couple of its Boeings. Not a big deal. Seashore has mounted poles on 3rd rail cars without issue.
No big deal either.

Lee
ebtmikado
 
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:55 am
Location: Madison, CT

Re: Remembering the Boeings

Postby jonnhrr » Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:43 pm

ebtmikado wrote:MUNI installed trolley poles on a couple of its Boeings. Not a big deal. Seashore has mounted poles on 3rd rail cars without issue.
No big deal either.

Lee


Always wondered how they did that with the rapid transit cars given that they have no power feeders going to the roof unlike a pantograph equipped LRV and therefore someone has to snake a fat wire up through the walls and roof somehow.
Avatar Photo - P&W local from Gardner to Worcester at Morgan Rd., Hubbardston
User avatar
jonnhrr
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 5:58 pm
Location: Sabattus ME USA

Re: Remembering the Boeings

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Tue Jan 24, 2017 3:16 pm

jonnhrr wrote:
ebtmikado wrote:MUNI installed trolley poles on a couple of its Boeings. Not a big deal. Seashore has mounted poles on 3rd rail cars without issue.
No big deal either.

Lee


Always wondered how they did that with the rapid transit cars given that they have no power feeders going to the roof unlike a pantograph equipped LRV and therefore someone has to snake a fat wire up through the walls and roof somehow.


For those they attach a very small trailer--colloquially called "bug cars"--that just has a trolley pole and a bunch of jumper cables that clamp onto the third rail shoes of the HRT car. Since it's all the same DC voltage across the T (and many other very old systems) whether third rail, pantograph, trolley pole, or TT trolley poles...no voltage conversion needs to happen. The bug just acts as a glorified extension cord (usually with enough jumper cables to power all shoes on both cars of a married pair).

All three generations of Blue Line cars have had their pantographs outright swapped for proper poles, so they don't need a bug unless there's something wrong with the roof input and for some reason they need to use the third rail shoes as an alternative. It'll be the same with the Type 7's, Type 8's, and Blue 0700's in the distant future if they need to run on museum pole wire: just take the pantograph clean off and jury-rig a pole replacement. It'll be interesting when the Orange 01200's go, because those are built with roof-mount wiring identical to the 0600's for the never-enacted Reading extension that was supposed to switch to panto overhead north of Oak Grove. If the wiring is still in good condition after 35 years of non-use, the Orange Blossoms could feasibly get direct pole installations and not need to use a bug clamped to the third rail shoes. Will depend on what Seashore finds when they start poking around their TBD donor units. They'd be easier than the Red 15/16/17 donations to take out for a regular spin if they could get modded with native poles instead of requiring the bug trailer.
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7105
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: Remembering the Boeings

Postby MBTA3247 » Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:07 pm

That might be trickier than you think: I've noticed a number of the #12 cars no longer have the pantograph mounts and cable on their roofs.
"The destination of this train is [BEEP BEEP]" -announcement on an Ashmont train.
User avatar
MBTA3247
 
Posts: 2593
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:01 pm
Location: Milton

Re: Remembering the Boeings

Postby deathtopumpkins » Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:48 am

MBTA3247 wrote:That might be trickier than you think: I've noticed a number of the #12 cars no longer have the pantograph mounts and cable on their roofs.


I seem to recall reading that the T was removing most of the overhead equipment during recent maintenance work.
Call me Connor or DTP

Railfan & Roadgeek from the North Shore of Mass.
deathtopumpkins
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 8:56 am
Location: Somerville, MA

PreviousNext

Return to Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests