New Built 'PCC' Trolleys

#5 - Dyre Ave wrote:Well, with SEPTA putting the route 15 restoration on hold (again!)

Aw come on. SEPTA may have screwed up on the traffic issue at Callowhill, but its the city that first demanded the line's resurrection, and now won't allow the line to run.

Well I wasn't blaming SEPTA completely for the problems with route 15 - my point was that if the PCC-IIs are not going to be used in Philly, then let someone else have them. I did read about the difficulties with the city in getting the route back.

Didn't Ed Rendell threaten to pull city funding from SEPTA if they reneged (sp) on route 15 when he was Mayor of Philly?

Didn't Ed Rendell threaten to pull city funding from SEPTA if they reneged (sp) on route 15 when he was Mayor of Philly?

The difference now is that Rendell had some vision. The current mayor does not.

I gotta say I agree with PDXStreetcar on this. We need a standardized LRV which is readily adaptable to many systems but which can still be produced on the same basic frame. France and Germany to a lesser extent have had excellent success with the Alstom Citadis, the Adtranz NG and Incentro families, and the Siemens Combino series (excepting the frame problems which sidelined many of them this past summer). We here in the states seem to have some laughable idea that each system should have it's own LRVs making it unique from the other systems, and every time an LRT system is built in the US we end up reinventing the wheel to do what Portland did in 1996, or what Europe was doing 10 years before that, it's hugely wasteful and completely unneccesary. We don't need to make new PCCs, it's a 40 year old design that while extremely good at making a given neighborhood feel 'homey' has passed it's prime and needs to be retired. For all their good points, the PCC IIs are likely too small, have poor ADA accessability (do bus any manufacturers even do rear-door W/C lifts anymore?), and an unavoidable 'old' feeling. Ideally what we need is a 100% Low Floor LRV with modular AC Traction systems, configurable from 60 some feet in length up to 120 feet, with a complete and easy ADA access, and the provision for some sort of facade to hide the fact that every city is getting identical LRVs (another problem with the PCC). It'd be better if we could get them produced in the US, by a US company, but we appear to be sorely lacking in LRV manufacturers, unless Gomaco or Brookville wants to get into the business. I'd even settle for us just assembling Citadis or Combino LRVs under license here in the states, just something to stem the tide of one-off and boutique LRVs which have a run of 30-100 cars and are never produced again.

Wdobner wrote:I gotta say I agree with PDXStreetcar on this. We need a standardized LRV which is readily adaptable to many systems but which can still be produced on the same basic frame. France and Germany to a lesser extent have had excellent success with the Alstom Citadis, the Adtranz NG and Incentro families, and the Siemens Combino series (excepting the frame problems which sidelined many of them this past summer). We here in the states seem to have some laughable idea that each system should have it's own LRVs making it unique from the other systems, and every time an LRT system is built in the US we end up reinventing the wheel to do what Portland did in 1996, or what Europe was doing 10 years before that, it's hugely wasteful and completely unneccesary. We don't need to make new PCCs, it's a 40 year old design that while extremely good at making a given neighborhood feel 'homey' has passed it's prime and needs to be retired. For all their good points, the PCC IIs are likely too small, have poor ADA accessability (do bus any manufacturers even do rear-door W/C lifts anymore?), and an unavoidable 'old' feeling. Ideally what we need is a 100% Low Floor LRV with modular AC Traction systems, configurable from 60 some feet in length up to 120 feet, with a complete and easy ADA access, and the provision for some sort of facade to hide the fact that every city is getting identical LRVs (another problem with the PCC). It'd be better if we could get them produced in the US, by a US company, but we appear to be sorely lacking in LRV manufacturers, unless Gomaco or Brookville wants to get into the business. I'd even settle for us just assembling Citadis or Combino LRVs under license here in the states, just something to stem the tide of one-off and boutique LRVs which have a run of 30-100 cars and are never produced again.

Good idea. I'd just hope that it would produce a better product than the Boeing LRV in the 1970's, which if you recall was the inbred stepchild of trying to design and build a "standard" LRV.

Another problem we've got now is that so many cities have different loading gauges and other set-ups. Philly and Boston still use on-board fare collection (Toronto too) and low floors. Some cities are low floor, others are high, some are both. Also, a car that will fit into tunnels in Boston (perhaps Philly too -- its been eons since I've been on the streetcars in Philly) will unnecessarily small for new systems. Compare with Baltimore, for example. Their cars are HUGE (longer, wider, taller, etc.) compared with the older systems. It wouldn't make sense to hamper new LRT systems with cars that can function on SEPTA or the MBTA.

So, at minimum, you'd need a few different designs. You'd probably still be looking at a pretty customized order for each city.

octr202 wrote:So, at minimum, you'd need a few different designs. You'd probably still be looking at a pretty customized order for each city.

It's my understanding (and I'm a disadvantage here, not being an engineer, just a math/computer guy) that many of the designs have a degree of built-in flexibility. For ex., bodies can be made wider or longer by simply using different components in the frame while still retaining the same overall layout. Same thing with the trucks - standard, PA broad, or even Toronto's 1500mm gauge are just a matter of adjusting some construction criteria. Auto manufacturers do it all the time - Saabs share components with Subarus (yes!) and the new Ford 500 has a Volvo S80 at its core, but they're very different vehicles.

Remember, the K-cars for the subway-surface and Media-Sharon Hill lines were all basically the same order but you have one set that's double ended / double doored with pans and couplers, while the others are single ended with poles and drawbars.

JeffK wrote:Auto manufacturers do it all the time - Saabs share components with Subarus (yes!)

Actually, there are better examples than that new 9-2X (which I haven't had the opportunity to drive), as that 9-2X is more or less a Subaru with slightly different sheet metal (which they did a decent job with in giving it some SAAB character, though the key is in the wrong place). The 9-5 (designed soon after GM bought a half interest in SAAB) shared a platform and some components with the Opel (GM owned) Vectra, but is still mostly a SAAB.

BTW, GM just announced they're gonna build a Euro-Caddy at the Saab plant in Trollhattan, at the same time they announced the next generation 9-5 is gonna be built in Germany.

and the new Ford 500 has a Volvo S60 at its core, but they're very different vehicles.

All you gotta remember is that V*lv* is a tractor company while SAAB is a jet fighter company (though GM didn't buy that part). SAAB is the acronym (in Swedish) for Swedish Aircraft Company Inc. I've flown on the SAAB 340 turboprop, and it's pretty impressive.

Matt Mitchell

anonymous 1984 900S
Kirsten: 1994 9000 CSE
Leif: 1992 900S
Tomtar: 2003 9-5 wagon
Hugin: 2000 9-3 5dr

But before we get back on topic, the last time I was in Göteborg, a very big deal was being made over the fact that some of the SAAB fighters used engines supplied by Volvo's aerospace division (pre-Ford, of course).

Tack så mycket!

Matthew Mitchell wrote: All you gotta remember is that V*lv* is a tractor company while SAAB is a jet fighter company (though GM didn't buy that part). SAAB is the acronym (in Swedish) for Swedish Aircraft Company Inc. I've flown on the SAAB 340 turboprop, and it's pretty impressive.

Ah, so that's why Volvos last forever while you're lucky to get 5 years out of a Saab? :)

I always liked the Saab 2000, it's too bad that none of the airlines seemed to be particularly fond of it. A turboprop airliner which could board passengers from a jetway seemed like a good idea to me. Perhaps some SEPTA-like thinking on the part of the airlines dictated that they'd invested too much in their tarmac bus fleets to let them go to waste. And Volvo Flygmotor always made the engines while Saab built the airframes, these days Saab Aerospace is owned by BAe. Really Volvo was just using US licensed engines, those are Pratt and Whitney JT8s in the Viggen and the GE F404s in the Gripen.

Returning to the subject: For all my ranting that SEPTA and other TAs should standardize, perhaps we should simply be happy that they don't go for custom built equipment and buy off-the-shelf LRVs which satisfy their needs. I've often espoused the merits of the Skoda Astra 3T which has given a good accounting of itself on Portland and Tacoma's streetcar systems, but this weekend I happened to find out that while the primary electrical contractor for the PCC IIs was Kiepe, the electric subcontractor supplying the motors was Skoda. It turns out the motors in the PCC IIs are exactly the same kind of motors, ML 3436 K/4s, which power the Astra 3T or 10T streetcars in Portland, Tacoma, Plzen, Ostrava and Olomouc. The PCC II version appears to be a de-rated version of the one in the Astra streetcars, only 67hp for each of the four motors in a PCC versus 115hp per axle for the 66 foot long LRVs. It may not be standardization on a national basis, but if SEPTA could get Skoda Astra 3T bodies imported to the US by Skoda with those motors, find a way to make Kiepe IGBTs work with the Skoda motors and bodies, and have Brookville put them all together perhaps we could both fufill the 51% assembled in the US requirement for the FTA funding, create vehicle fleets largely compatible with one another, and perhaps save SEPTA it's operating money in the long run. A future rebuild of the K-cars to the same electrical specs of the PCC IIs or Astra Streetcars as well as a purchase of Kiepe/New Flyer E40LFs (which use both similar IGBTs and similar Skoda motors, ML 3550 K/4s, to the PCC IIs) could further reduce the number of different parts to be warehoused and thus reduce the overhead cost to the system. It is dangerous to place so much of the fleet in a kind of sole-supplier, but the PCC IIs could certainly act as a test fleet for Kiepe and Skoda's equipment, if it works for them it's likely it'll work for other equipment. Additionally, the Astra models are all 96 inches wide, which gives 6 inches of clearance beyond what could be achieved by running K-cars on those lines, and which equals the width of the PCCs. 66 feet is certainly not an unreasonable length for SEPTA's system, only 6 feet longer than our articulated Neoplan buses, with a much higher passenger load. Finally it is very light as articulated low floor LRVs go, and extremely robust on poor trackage, which bodes well for operation on the somewhat decrepit SEPTA surface trolley system.

Standardization on a national basis would be nice, but as Octr202 mentioned, it may well be largely impossible given how the US has treated it's LRV systems. However, I'd be happy to settle on standardization and reduction of parts inventories within the SEPTA fleet. Its certainly better than them trying to go off and order a custom built LRV like the Type-8 or trying to squeeze an SD660 onto the 23 or one of the Subway Surface lines.

Of course before we can buy new low floor LRVs for the 15, 23, and 56 we need to have a sea change in how both SEPTA, the State, and the City look at transit and their own infrastructure.

Regardless of the style (PCC, Peter Witt, etc.), I think there's a big demand for low-floored but historic-styled vehicles.

As originally posted, there are a lot of cities now looking into streetcars but torn between two options, the visual appeal from a historic vehicle and the operational benefits of a low-floor vehicle.

Personally I prefer the look of the PCCs, historic yet modern, but I contacted GOMACO to see if they'd consider creating a low-floor version of their vehicles and am waiting to hear back from them.

Has anyone envisioned how a PCC-type shell could fit on a Skoda car?

What I am talking about is a NEW streetcar with the PCC styling. All new everything... trucks, motors, electronics... all new body, trolley pole, etc. EVERYTHING state of the art, but in a single car design, nothing articulated. I believe that articulation may have benefits of holding mass people, but then the MTAs can cut service. The single car design can have MANY more runs than an atric.

This is what I am dreaming about. Converting ALL bus lines back to permenent streetcar lines.

(Oh, and CALL it a streetcar, NOT an LRV.)

All of this ( PCC II's vs "Standardized" LRV's) is ironic. The major selling point of the original PCC's ( and the main advantage they had over the Brilliner) WAS standardization. How times have changed!

All of this ( PCC II's vs "Standardized" LRV's) is ironic. The major selling point of the original PCC's ( and the main advantage they had over the Brilliner) WAS standardization.

That's awesome. In a similar irony, I read a book a couple years ago called "Trolleys of Montgomery County." In a brief blurb near the end the author lamented the rise of the PCC trolley, and decried it as "too bus-like and sterile." He also added a comment that, to paraphrase, said he couldn't imagine anyone having the love for the PCC that he felt for Brilliner's and their like.

How times have changed!

Indeed.

PARailWiz wrote:
That's awesome. In a similar irony, I read a book a couple years ago called "Trolleys of Montgomery County." In a brief blurb near the end the author lamented the rise of the PCC trolley, and decried it as "too bus-like and sterile." He also added a comment that, to paraphrase, said he couldn't imagine anyone having the love for the PCC that he felt for Brilliner's and their like.

Actually, the Brilliner was not that different from the PCC. Both car types were developed at about the same time ( late 1930's), and had a similar appearance. ( The Brilliner's front end was somewhat more squarish than the PCC)

The J.G. Brill Co., had certain problems with the design of the PCC ( essentially the truck design and the welded construction-- Brill preferred rivited construction). AND- Brill didn't want to pay the patent royalties to the ERPCC that were required whenever a PCC car was built--- so Brill opted to design and produce its own car--- which, though not really inferior to the PCC, didn't generate the anticipated sales-- again partially because of the "standardization" aspect of the PCC, and the 10 double ended, high speed suburban versions built for the Red Arrow in 1941 turned out to be the last rail cars ever produced by Brill.

Anyone wishing to know more about the PCC can look up the book:PCC The Car That Fought Back. It's out of print but may found in libraries and also has a section about the Brilliners. It 's good reading about what the PCC was meant to accomplish.