Were Boeing LRV Cars a disaster when they were built?

I came across a old article from the early 80s on how MBTA cancelled the American builr Boeing cars because they were falling apart as soon as they were using them. Was Boeing the last gasp for American Built Light Rail in the US after Budd and Pullman Standard Closed up?

From Wiki- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Standar ... il_Vehicle

From their earliest days of service, the LRV was prone to numerous problems including, but not limited to; derailments on tight curves, which would seriously damage the car's articulation section, the shorting of electrical systems, premature failures in the car's motors and propulsion system, and the LRV's overly complex "plug doors" failing to operate properly. These problems caused the cars to have a very low mean time between failures. In Boston, this led to the LRV fleet availability typically being less than 50% of the total number of cars on the property for the first several years of service. The MBTA instituted a PCC rebuilding program to augment the LRV fleet and maintain Green Line service. In San Francisco, the problems with the LRVs led to the Muni Metro not reaching its full potential until 1982.

Moderator's Note: Truncated to fair-use quote and link, 8/6/2011.

I found about this in Railroad Magazine which ended publication in the early 1980s

The only thing good about those cars is that they rode smooth as silk on the 50 MPH stretch of the outer Riverside line whereas the Type 7's rock back and forth so violently from more top-heavy roof mounts that standees get thrown around like rag dolls on the trip. Type 8's are only marginally better.

Otherwise, the Boeings were craptacular all around and cars you'd let out a sigh and groan if you caught (which was pretty much your only choice for the C line for many years). Even the 1996 rebuilds they got did almost nothing for the herky-jerkiness on starts/stops, poor braking on hills, and their tendency to go into emergency when closing doors requiring a shutdown/reboot. Only the new folding doors were an improvement over the giant design FAIL plug doors they were saddled with in their original builds. The only thing endearing about them is their trademark buzz/whine sound on the first few seconds of acceleration. It was a lot more pleasant sound than the high-pitched AC traction whine of the Type 8's...kind of an affirmation that you were moving (which didn't happen too often). Beyond that little bit of railfan nostalgia you resigned yourself to having a coin flip's shot of being onboard when there was a system failure trying to start out of a station where the MU got all fussy and the brakes locked, with confused operator and inspectors taking 8 minutes pacing back and forth cab-to-cab with defeated look on their faces as they flipped switches to try to un-stick it. They were really really unusable at the end when they still had to get their corpses dragged out for rush hour to cover for the problematic Bredas.

My own personal theory about those cars is that they were designed by aerospace engineers (at that time the aerospace industry was trying to branch out so as not to be totally dependent on NASA and suchlike) who failed to realize the fundamental difference between space navigation and public transit. In aerospace you have a tremendously complicated vehicle in which everything has to operate perfectly -- once -- and you take as much time as you need to perfect it, halting the countdown if necessary to make sure everything -- everything -- is exactly right (in the TV news clips, how many people were clambering all over the space vehicle?). In public transit you have to have a specific number of cars ready to make the line every morning (you can't call the radio station and announce that we're postponing the launch on the Green Line this morning), and that means the components have to be robust enough to do that, day in and day out. I'm not sure the aerospace engineers ever understood that, or even that they had something to learn -- "hey, if we can put a man on the moon ...."
If anybody knows something different, let's hear it.

The Boston LRVs were tested on the Shaker Hts Rapid in Ohio of all places. I have a pic in my files I just cant find it. Cleveland opted for the Italian articulated LRVs which are on there 3rd or 4th rebuild to replace its PCC Fleet.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8226029@N06/4989570473/ for Clevelands latest rebuild.

gearhead wrote:I came across a old article from the early 80s on how MBTA cancelled the American builr Boeing cars because they were falling apart as soon as they were using them. Was Boeing the last gasp for American Built Light Rail in the US after Budd and Pullman Standard Closed up?

They cannibalized a good amount of them, and tried to hide the cannibalized cars in the tunnels! Pullman closed in 74, and Budd wasn't doing streetcars.

Boston should have never accepted the LRV's after witnessing the awful time that San Francisco was having with them. I hope that the lesson was learned to stick to proven, reputeable, streetcar manufacturers for the future.

3rdrail wrote:Boston should have never accepted the LRVs after witnessing the awful time that San Francisco was having with them. I hope that the lesson was learned to stick to proven, reputable, streetcar manufacturers for the future.

Who was around back then that was still building streetcars?

Lest anyone forget, even though this was touted as "Buy American", the body shells came from Tokyu Car Corporation.

3rdrail wrote:Boston should have never accepted the LRV's after witnessing the awful time that San Francisco was having with them.

Boston received its fleet first - San Francisco was supposed to get the first cars but the Muni Metro wasn't ready yet and the MBTA's PCC's were dropping like flies, so the delivery order was reversed.

San Francisco did not have nearly the problems with their Boeing fleet – they learned from the T’s mistakes and worked with the builder to ensure a much smoother startup and even took delivery of 30 of the Boston cars that were refused. George Chiasson wrote an extensive account of Muni’s experiences with its LRV for Rollsign in the mid 1980’s.

I hope that the lesson was learned to stick to proven, reputeable, streetcar manufacturers for the future.

That’s only part of it. Breda was a reputable manufacturer and we all know what happened with the Type 8 fleet. Realistic design specifications have to come into play as well.

RailBus63 wrote: San Francisco did not have nearly the problems with their Boeing fleet – they learned from the T’s mistakes and worked with the builder to ensure a much smoother startup and even took delivery of 30 of the Boston cars that were refused. George Chiasson wrote an extensive account of Muni’s experiences with its LRV for Rollsign in the mid 1980’s.

San Francisco had a horrendous time with the LRV's as this San Francisco Chronicle article will attest to. You are correct that we (Boston) were the lucky original owners, which is the basis for the "we were warned" sentiment in the article. (Trust me when I tell you that it was a long day ! ) If Chaiasson wrote that the LRV's had a smooth history, he was vastly mistaken.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... S16054.dtl

A former MBTA employee I know once told me of responding to 300 derailments per year when he worked on the Green Line -- courtesy of the Boeings.

http://books.google.com/books?id=wAEAAA ... &q&f=false
Popular Sceince 1976 shows the new LRVs and the Internet in its conception