New Built 'PCC' Trolleys

queenlnr8 wrote: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.

Please pardon my saying so, but that thinking is exactly what is wrong with SEPTA at the current time. They're locked into the idea that their system is somehow special and cannot or should not accomodate articulated LRVs. The rest of the world outside Philadelphia has discovered the virtues of articulated LRVs, so why does Philly lag behind? A single unit rigid LRV is basically going to be limited to a maximum length of 54 feet with a CLRV-like rounded front, and the 51 foot subway surface LRVs show this size to be rather inadaquate for the ridership of those lines. Standee space is particularly lacking in the LRVs as its rare that the passengers will stand behind the rear doors. If a TA is foolish enough to increase headways when articulated vehicles are recieved (as many have), then I can see your point. However, SEPTA eventually will need an articulated LRV which can ease the near-dangerous crowding conditions on the subway surface lines and provide wheelchair accomodation.

SEPTA is not a works program, their budget is finite, and most that budget goes toward paying their personnel's paycheck, benefits and pension. You can argue that they have too many managers and such until you're blue in the face, but the managers are the ones calling the shots and will not eliminate each other. Sadly they're always going to pick a low seniority bus or LRV operator over one of their own to be eliminated even if it results in inconvenience to the passengers. So if a route would be better served with an artic every 8-10 minutes rather than a rigid every 5 to 6 minutes, then so be it. The ideal solution of course would be an artic every 5 or so minutes, since that'd allow for the easy handling of sudden crowds. But the added capital cost of articulated vehicles and minimal operational savings makes that an unlikely proposition unless the route has consistently heavy ridership. Besides, it's not like SEPTA ever let a little thing like having a route composed entirely of 40 foot rigid buses ever stop them from increasing headways, go watch the 23 board at Market or Erie, it's a downright painful sight to watch 50 people try to squeeze their way onto an already crowded Neoplan bus. Those people would have a much more comfortable ride without undue inconveniencing if we ran a Skoda LRV on the tracks rather than simply substituting a K-car like vehicle.

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

I'd be all for this, a return to the 1944 PTC system (with some modifications for changes to the city's demographics) would make for an excellent transit system. However, that transit system would likely be able to attract a very large number of riders if well operated. In such a system K-car like LRVs would be entirely too small for all but the lightest ridership routes, we'd have to look toward europe and their massive Combino and Citadis LRVs 6 and 8 unit articulated low floor LRVs for a way to deal with that kind of ridership.

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

Portland does.

One other thing to keep in mind is that most modern day Light Rail Lines are more like the old interurbans than they are like the true city streetcar lines---- PRW ( or separate dedicated ROW in streets) over a large portion of their lines, higher over all running speeds, actual station stops, etc, though, like the interurbans, when they are "in town", they run on the streets and stop at street corners. The "new generation" of LRV's, particularly the articulated/MU type are more suited to the "interurban" type lines than they would be to the old "city streetcar" type lines ( which, today. are almost exclusively bus operated).

With regard to SEPTA--- the city version of the Kawasaki LRV's were replacements for the PCCs running on what are essentially city streetcar lines, especially in West Philadelphia west of the Subway-Surface tunnel. The only real difference in character between the Subway- Surface Lines and the Bustituted Routes 23, 56, and, for the moment ( we hope) 15, IS the use of the subway east of 40th & Woodland to reach center city. Because of the configuration of Philadelphia streets, MU or articulated cars can be a problem ( PRT tried some train - Motor Trailer- operation in the 1920's, but had abandoned that idea by the '30s---- and the WWI era Hog Island Line- Route 45 was the only real city MU surface line---and MU operation didn't last very long after the end of that war)

The Red Arrow operation would appear to be more suitable to the MU/ Articulated type of LRV operation than the city lines are.

Also remember, the PCC II was a compromise---- SEPTA originally wanted to acquire new LRV's for the Subway-Surface Lines and to transfer the Kawasaki's to Route 15. The cost of new LRV's proved to be too much for SEPTA, which then opted to rebuild the PCC's into the PCC II's.

walt wrote:One other thing to keep in mind is that most modern day Light Rail Lines are more like the old interurbans than they are like the true city streetcar lines---- PRW ( or separate dedicated ROW in streets) over a large portion of their lines, higher over all running speeds, actual station stops, etc, though, like the interurbans, when they are "in town", they run on the streets and stop at street corners. The "new generation" of LRV's, particularly the articulated/MU type are more suited to the "interurban" type lines than they would be to the old "city streetcar" type lines ( which, today. are almost exclusively bus operated).

With regard to SEPTA--- the city version of the Kawasaki LRV's were replacements for the PCCs running on what are essentially city streetcar lines, especially in West Philadelphia west of the Subway-Surface tunnel. The only real difference in character between the Subway- Surface Lines and the Bustituted Routes 23, 56, and, for the moment ( we hope) 15, IS the use of the subway east of 40th & Woodland to reach center city. Because of the configuration of Philadelphia streets, MU or articulated cars can be a problem ( PRT tried some train - Motor Trailer- operation in the 1920's, but had abandoned that idea by the '30s---- and the WWI era Hog Island Line- Route 45 was the only real city MU surface line---and MU operation didn't last very long after the end of that war)

The Red Arrow operation would appear to be more suitable to the MU/ Articulated type of LRV operation than the city lines are.

Also remember, the PCC II was a compromise---- SEPTA originally wanted to acquire new LRV's for the Subway-Surface Lines and to transfer the Kawasaki's to Route 15. The cost of new LRV's proved to be too much for SEPTA, which then opted to rebuild the PCC's into the PCC II's.

You are correct that many LRV systems in the US today closely resemble shorter versions of Interurban routes. In some cases LRVs even operate over the same tracks and provide the same service as the former interurbans did, as can be seen in Portland with Trimet. The only two remaining "interurbans", the SEPTA Rt100 and the NICTD 'South Shore' line are effectively a Light Rail and a Commuter Rail line respectively. A short segment of remaining street running where the train has definite right of way should not qualify either as a Light Rail or even an Interurban these days. Thus, I would argue that the terms 'Interurban', 'Streetcar', and even 'Trolley' are effectively obsolete and that various degrees of Light Rail Systems encompass the definition vacated by those words. Light Rail like LA, St Louis, and Portland MAX (amongst many others) have implemented would fufill the old view of an interurban, one where a train runs on city streets in the CBD, is not FRA regulated, and runs on private ROW off the streets once freed of the space constraints of the city. The Light Rail system which makes the terms Streetcar and Trolley effectively obsolete is somewhat more difficult, few systems in the US have chosen to follow that path for their Light Rail as it tends to be harder to sell over a bus than an LRV with extensive private ROW. However the notable exceptions would include Portland Streetcar, and Tacoma Link. I might also call San Fransisco MUNI's surface portions of their Muni Metro light rail a streetcar like operation in ways similar to that in which SEPTA's Subway Surface is (more) streetcar-like. The same could be said of the MBTA LRV operations outside the downtown tunnel. In addition, systems all over Europe operate tram lines which are virtually identical to SEPTA's Surface streetcar operations with LRVs between 3 and 8 articulated sections long. Why wouldn't this work for SEPTA?Just because it failed in the 1930s is no reason to dismiss it today.

I don't have a real problem with the articulated/ MU LRV's, we have them here in the Baltimore area, on Howard Street downtown ( on the Central Light Rail Line) I just wonder if those units could negotiate the turns at 65th and Kingsessing Ave, on the 13, or the turn into 9th Street from Main in Darby, on the 11.

Another system built recently that we tend for pass over in discussions like this is the RiverLINE. While it is desiel powered, its operating characteristics and geography are very similar to those exhibited by interurbans of days past. large stretches of rural running and street running in the small towns along the way. String up some wire and I think we have a modern interurban that fits the classical deffinintion word for word.

Sean@temple

I have no doubt that the AAI/ABB LRVs used on the Baltimore MTA Light Rail would fail totally on the SEPTA streetcar system. They might fare slightly better on the Rts 101 and 102, but their high floor design is poorly suited to the line and it is possible that the loop at 69th St would be too tight for them. However, if SEPTA were to order LRVs designed to operate on the close confines, tight turns, and generally poor track of their trolley system, then there is absolutely no reason they couldn't order one of the myriad articulated low floor LRVs out of europe. In particular I would suggest the Skoda Astra 3T which I have been pushing for for some time now. The 66 foot long twin truck double articulated LRV measures 41 feet between truck centers, and the longest fixed section is the center section at 27 or so feet long. If the subway surface can accomodate a 51 foot long unarticulated LRV, then it should have no problem with a three section LRV with a fixed section which is nearly half that length. The same should prove true for the surface sections of the subway surface and surface trolley system.

As for electrifying the Riverline, I've suggested that over on the NJT Light Rail Forum. It's generally been pooh-poohed by folks who'd rather see the Riverline run once an hour at peak times with 2 comet coaches pushed or pulled by a GP40PH-2B. I would argue that to efficiently electrify the Riverline it make the most sense to go with a dual voltage electric system wherein the Camden section is the standard 750vdc overhead while the line north of 36th St or so would be 12.5kvAC@60hz like the MN New Haven line. This way the entire line can be electrified with a lighter catenary than 750vdc would allow, and only two or three substations (one the 750vdc Camden supply) would be required for it. This kind of dual voltage LRV has had considerable success in Germany where Karlsruhe pioneered the arrangement and Saarbruken has taken up a similar system