Official Trackless Trolley Thread/Tracker

[MBTA3247]

Also, the wires give a sense of permanence. A bus route is (or at least feels) less likely to change if it's wired up. It's simply more attractive to ridership...

they have no rated peak horsepower

What does this mean?

Some either transit or real estate group did a survey years ago and found that trolleys raised real-estate values more so than bus lines which did not. The poles, wires, (and rails in some cases) gave a sense of permanence just as you say.

An electric motor's power depends on the current which it recieves. All trolleys have a relay on their master controller which limits the current, otherwise overloads and unexpected power and speed could occur during surges. In San Francisco, Muni's Marmon-Herrington's had a push-button that the motorman could press for fast acceleration and getting up a steep hill, along with heavy-duty resistors. What it did was merely increase the setting on the relay. They left the cars and diesel buses in their dust. If you ever have occasion to operate Boston's Pullman-Standard trackless trolleys up at Seashore, you'll find out that they crawl and appear under-powered due to the voltage delivered because of conditions (and wisely so !). Put that baby in Cambridge and she'll be a rocket ! (Anybody from Seashore know what you're putting out up there on the TT wire with other activity going on at the same time ?)

Paul's original statement is somewhat misleading. Trolleys do have a peak horsepower (if they draw too much power the motors will burn out), but for short periods it can be very high, allowing for rapid acceleration. This is made possible by using an external, essentially unlimited source of power, whereas internal combustion vehicles are limited to whatever their engines can provide.

Seashore's TTs use the same 600V as the trolleys, but on a separate circuit. Unfortunately the power station's current rating is less than what we really need, hence the poor performance of the TTs (and why the rapid transit and interurban cars almost always overload the power station when they come out).

[3rdrail]

I think not, Derekster. We are talking electric propulsion theory here, prompted by a discussion of the virtues of the trackless trolley. Any trackless trolley can be furnished to accept any reasonable amount of current through the use of resistors, wiring, windings, motor ratings, etc. There is a basic industry standard that most use, however as I have pointed out with Muni's coaches, that standard can be tweaked. Your argument pertains to a particular trackless trolley or system. It is not based upon the trackless trolley's potential, but based upon a particular specification(s). One of the books in my collection that I picked up is Hawkins' Electrical Guide #9 (for Electric Railways), written in 1917. In it, it lists 600, 1,200, 1,500, and 2,400 as "standard voltages" for street railways (p.2,535), going on to indicate that 600 is the voltage which incurs the least expense for supporting structure and maintenance. (This is why @600 remains common to this very day.)

[crash575]

I was just at the Watertown hearing. The subcommittee is against the trackless trolley's remove and will pass along this recommendation to the full town council and the town manager. The recommendation is for the town manager to send a letter to Belmont stating Watertown's opposition. Cambridge while not represented at the Watertown hearing sent a letter in opposition of the trackless trolley remove. Just for reference the actual remove would be discussed after the trackless trolley expected life has been reached (2019).

Belmont had asked the T to share poles for their street lights as part of an upcoming Belmont St. and Trapelo Rd. redesign. The T balked citing safety concerns and instead suggested petitioning Watertown and Cambridge for the removal.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

I was just at the Watertown hearing. The subcommittee is against the trackless trolley's remove and will pass along this recommendation to the full town council and the town manager. The recommendation is for the town manager to send a letter to Belmont stating Watertown's opposition. Cambridge while not represented at the Watertown hearing sent a letter in opposition of the trackless trolley remove. Just for reference the actual remove would be discussed after the trackless trolley expected life has been reached (2019).

Belmont had asked the T to share poles for their street lights as part of an upcoming Belmont St. and Trapelo Rd. redesign. The T balked citing safety concerns and instead suggested petitioning Watertown and Cambridge for the removal.

Eh? They already have trolley poles used as streetlight poles in Belmont. In fact, most new-installation streetcar systems do this pretty much whenever possible. That's a weak-sauce excuse. And alarming that the T would actually suggest petitioning the other towns for removal while giving a non-answer. What passive-aggressive garbage.

[crash575]

Street lights and "other utilities."

[3rdrail]

Has it ever been ascertained where this "proposal" got started with in Belmont in the first place ? This is 2011, not 1948 when politicians and businessmen did the same thing. I've got them ticked at me over at the thread about supposed hanky-panky with the MBCR, claiming that I'm interrupting the topic. The point that needs to be made here and there folks, is that before you take a "proposal" seriously, find out who's (really) in back of it. Reminds me of those "Arborway Trolley" meetings. "The public" wanted "this", but if you knew who they were and more importantly, where their interests were, you'd know that they actually wanted "that". Sometimes, merely to acknowledge an idea is to fulfill the author's agenda. (To bad George isn't still around. There's the man that could cut right through this.)

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

http://www.wickedlocal.com/watertown/ne ... z1Miy5RRbD

Well...guess that's pretty decisively the end of this little odyssey.

[Teamdriver]

3rdrail Every town or city has a mr. big or the master cylinder that envisions what he wants things to look like and manipulates behind the scenes convincing people to join in with him.

[3rdrail]

For what it's worth, I think that it's more a case of "multiple special interests" (who if resources pooled can be effective), and the "squeeky hinge getting the oil".

[redline79]

This is distressing. At a time when gas/oil is rising we should be doing everything possible to use less of it. Not to mention the environmental benefits of doing so, the financial impact would be a great money saver. Why the T has not electrified the commuter rail, I'll never know. On a personal note, living in Cambridge I love riding these quiet machines.

[jmac42887]

This is distressing. At a time when gas/oil is rising we should be doing everything possible to use less of it. Not to mention the environmental benefits of doing so, the financial impact would be a great money saver. Why the T has not electrified the commuter rail, I'll never know. On a personal note, living in Cambridge I love riding these quiet machines.

I agree that TTs are a great benefit for the towns they serve, I wish they would expand the network. I know the Neoplan are not as quiet to the Flyers we had about 5 years ago, but they are soooo much quieter than the RTSs and the New Flyers going up and down Cambridge Street. Belmont needs to stop worrying about themselves (and their pockets) and look at all benefits the TTs give to the town(s), the MBTA, and the environment.

[redline79]

I agree that TTs are a great benefit for the towns they serve, I wish they would expand the network. I know the Neoplan are not as quiet to the Flyers we had about 5 years ago, but they are soooo much quieter than the RTSs and the New Flyers going up and down Cambridge Street. Belmont needs to stop worrying about themselves (and their pockets) and look at all benefits the TTs give to the town(s), the MBTA, and the environment.

Indeed, in fact I think some of the busiest and more frequent bus lines should go TT. For example the number 1, epically since about half of the 77 is now TT all you'd have to do is put the lines back up in Arlington and you'd have most of Mass Ave able to not only run as a TT but as one bus line, or at least have a bit more flexibility. Or, if not to Arlington, the 1 could terminate at Porter Sq, instead of Harvard. I'm sure that Arlington does not want the wires back up, and from what I understand Mayor Menion does not want them up in Boston. To that I have to say, the financial/economic benefits would far outweigh the NIMBYS and or the Mayor being un-happy or inconvenienced. Your right, the newer TT's are much quieter than the diesel and natural fuel buses currently running on the streets, which also brings about the issue of noise pollution!

[jamesinclair]

The 77 would be, by far, the easiest, as 1/3 of the route is already electric.

SL2 is also a no-brainer, and that area has absolutely no residents to complain about the views.

Another good one would be to look at which bus routes have problems in the winter with the hills. Trackless trolleys have no problems getting up steep inclines.

[3rdrail]

I've always thought that Readville would make a great replacement for Forest Hills as it's in a far less dense area with an industrial background, but even if they divided the surface lines, a great expansion and improvement would be to convert half of the bus lines to trackless at Forest Hills. Bring the Arborway back as a trackless barn/shop. Reroute anything that goes as far as Rozzie Square to Forest Hills. After that, use Readville. Stage a transfer area at Belgrade Ave. outside the commuter rail station and extend the 3/4 mile to there on the Orange Line as well as extending to Readville. (Both of these would be on already existing MBTA ROW.) Re-route all the Mattapan, Hyde Park runs out of Readville. Bring a couple of routes down Belgrade to Walworth to Washington, an easy transition with no sharp curves, to facilitate the Dedham Mall shoppers. You'd increase the convenience, ease up on the commuter rail, lessen air pollution, ease up on Washington St. traffic, and make bus routes shorter, making them less costly to operate with better headway. This is a lot of bang for your buck with an original outlay pretty el cheapo.

[jmac42887]

Indeed, in fact I think some of the busiest and more frequent bus lines should go TT. For example the number 1, epically since about half of the 77 is now TT all you'd have to do is put the lines back up in Arlington and you'd have most of Mass Ave able to not only run as a TT but as one bus line, or at least have a bit more flexibility. Or, if not to Arlington, the 1 could terminate at Porter Sq, instead of Harvard. I'm sure that Arlington does not want the wires back up, and from what I understand Mayor Menion does not want them up in Boston. To that I have to say, the financial/economic benefits would far outweigh the NIMBYS and or the Mayor being un-happy or inconvenienced. Your right, the newer TT's are much quieter than the diesel and natural fuel buses currently running on the streets, which also brings about the issue of noise pollution!

I think the only city that is willing to put wires back up is Cambridge, which I am all for. Somerville I could also seeing putting wires up since they have a lot of environmental and health concerns with the diesel fleet anyways. I am really hoping Cambridge would agree to expand their trolley network to include the #69!!! With the 77 and the 1, they could invest in more duel mode buses so they can have wires on Mass Ave in Cambridge and then Boston and Arlington do not have to worry about them.