Trains.com

Preserve new generation of transit cars?

6251 views
59 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, October 18, 2013 8:23 AM

I can still remember the hoopla when the Highliners were first put into service in 1972.  They were a major upgrade over the existing MU cars which dated to 1926 when the electrification was put into service.  Air conditioning and upholstered seats (the old cars had rattan walkover seats) were huge improvements that commuters appreciated.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    January 2010
  • 49 posts
Posted by Software Tools on Monday, October 21, 2013 6:29 AM

But the bodies were identacle to SF's double-end PCC's and very close to the Illinois Terminal PCC's, somewhat wider than the Dallas-Boston double-end PCC's.

Well, the bodies for those three builds of double ended PCCs were based on the same design pattern, but they were all different enough that identical is not an appropriate term to apply to them.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, October 21, 2013 8:34 AM

The PCC car was an early example of modular construction, so you could get a lot of different appearances for cars with a mix-and-match approach.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, October 21, 2013 9:22 AM

I did not say the bodies of the three PCC designs were identacle.   Check what I wrote.   I said the Philly Suburban body, non-PCC, is identacle to the SF PCC body, and it is, except for some very very minor details of the exterior.   But actually, you are right, because the body bolsters, under the car and not visable,, must be different to accept the S.Louis semi-MCB outside-frame truck instead of the PCC truck.   Also mounting brackets under the car for very different control equipment.  

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, October 21, 2013 11:01 AM

Coolanything is impossible if u try really hard not 2 do it!

Tags: Baldwin
  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 5,017 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Monday, October 21, 2013 1:26 PM

A lot depends on what St. Louis used.  Westinghouse and GE had a variety of controllers, both unit-switch and cam, that would fit in the space and even on the mounting brackets of a PCC controller.  Chicago Transit Authority had a variety of experimental controls and truck types on their high speed cars (6127/8, 6129/30, 1-4) that all fit the basic St. Louis PCC body bolster - which was not covered by the PCC patents.  Some of the Chicago cars had as many as 4 different control systems over their lifetimes.

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Monday, October 21, 2013 5:19 PM

For the various styles, a pretty good article is here, although they classify the Red Arrow cars as PCCs.

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Hope, AR
  • 2,061 posts
Posted by narig01 on Tuesday, October 22, 2013 7:16 AM
If I ramble a little with this reply my apologies.

The track gauge for BART is 5'6". My opinion and a few others about BART are that the architects of BART were trying to reinvent the wheel. They got some things right and didn't listen to others who told them this did not work. Like not putting a step or ladder to climb into a car away from a platform(cost $3000 a car to fix in 1973). Or not installing ceiling mounted handholds for standers(it took a cleaning crew 7 manhours per car to clean the finger prints off the ceiling) . Also BART uses 1000 volt DC electrical power. That I remember the only North American user. Further Rohr put the dynamic brake grids under foam insulation. I can remember on two occasions trains being stopped at the MacArthur BART station after the brake grids had caused the floor insulation to smolder.(after a fire in the transbay tube the insulation was replaced during a major rebuild program) .
My opinion about some of the BART cars is examples should be preserved to show how not to build a rapid transit car.

Bridge units and the Key System. Having run a pair of units in mu I would say they act more like subway cars then streetcars. At least compared to NYCTA R-32's which I have also run(in a yard, don't ask) . One thing about the Bridge Units is they are heavy. Twice the weight of a Boeing LRV which I've also run. Also the bridge units have a more of a railroad air brake system. Compared to the R-32's self lapping brakes.
Also the Key System was not all urban. Piedmont, at the end of the C line, was more suburban than urban. Also South Berkeley,where the F ran, was pretty much open fields well into the 1950's (IIRC what I was told and from pictures I've seen of Dwight Way and Shattuck Av). South Berkeley still had a couple of dairy farms after WWII. The Key System was primarily a tool of Borax Smith and his associates so they could develop the area. A lot of development happened along the Key Systems transbay routes. Originally the F turned off of Adeline St at Alcatraz went east to Telegraph and then north on Telegraph to UC Berkeley. Downtown Berkeley didn't get direct transbay service from the Key System until after the SP's Interurban Electric Ry quit.
I commented a while back on feeling old when I saw San Francisco LRV 's in museums. Now R-32's are seeing their last days in New York. And the R-36's which I rode to worlds fair as a preschooler being converted into artificial reefs.

By way of comparison, my opinion, is there are many distinctive streetcars, interurban cars, rapid transit cars, and or railroad electric mu cars. Their are also many of these cars that can be grey areas. And grey is not a good color more like a rainbow with all different flavors mixed. As an example I will cite South Shore's new bi level cars. They would fit right in on say the LIRR or Metro North. Or how about the Staten Island Rapid Transit (SIRT) that used LIRR cars and R-46's. Or Portland that used streetcars on the same tracks as their railroad switching operation. Or say Tulsa Sapulpa Union (?) same again an interurban that used streetcars on the same tracks as their railroad. And how many interurban operations used Birney cars.

If you've read all this ramble I thank you for your patience.

Thx IGN
  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Hope, AR
  • 2,061 posts
Posted by narig01 on Tuesday, October 22, 2013 7:23 AM
Rbandr
Rio Vista started when railfans of the Bay Area Electric Railway Association (BAERA) started buying equipment off the scrap pile. Much equipment was bought for $100 dollars or less. The same was true of Orange Empire (OETM). Equipment was purchased. In the case of Rio Vista one of the members hauled the wood poles on a boat trailer. It was as much a labor of love as a gathering place.

Thx IGN
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:37 AM

Many interurban systems bought Birney's for their local streetcar systems, but that did not make these Birneys into interurban cars, since they provided only a local streetcar service.   The Sacramento Northern's putting third rail shoes on their Chico and Marysville-Uba City Birneys to get them to and from the Sacramento Shops for overhaul did not make these Birneys into subway cars.

(And I am not implying that anybody did say so, just making the statements.)

Most fans and possibly the system itself did consider Key System and inteurban system, but in fact it probably was more a suburban electric railroad, like Philadelphia and Western and Red Arow and Shaker Heights, but much larger.

Again, it is "Docklands Light Rail: OFFICIALLY!!   But high platforms, third rail, completely separated RofW with elevated structure, subway, underground stations, train operation, train-doors on cars, and three-truck articulated cars a bit heavier than any CTA car or any old CRT 2000-series steel heavyweight.   Light Rail?

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, October 23, 2013 10:13 AM

The only CRT steel heavyweight in the 2000 series of which I'm aware was CRT 2717, which was somewhat heavier than the USS Nevada.  All of the other CRT 2000 series were woods.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 5,017 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Wednesday, October 23, 2013 4:28 PM

CSSHEGEWISCH

The only CRT steel heavyweight in the 2000 series of which I'm aware was CRT 2717, which was somewhat heavier than the USS Nevada.  All of the other CRT 2000 series were woods.

And the CTA 2000 series are all pretty lightweight!

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:00 AM

Do I mean the 4000's?   The plushies, the baldies, etc.?    I guess I was confused because the BMT 2000's are "the steels, the B-types, but actually A's, B's, BT's, BX's.    The wood BMT cars were all 0-1999 except for rebuilds into Q's and C's.    But the Budds were the 2200's.  The Pullman's?   The Spam Cans were the 6000's, from my memory.   Help!!!   I left the two CERA CRT-CTA equipment books with the ERA in New York.   A mistake?

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:10 AM

Aside from the aforementioned CRT 2717, the only steel cars operated by Chicago Rapid Transit were the various 4000 series cars, many of which were later converted to work motors by CTA.  Baldies were the work motors that had various rooftop appurtenances removed so they could fit in the subway between Logan Square and the Kennedy Expressway, which had especially tight clearances, even for CTA.

The CTA 2000 series cars were built by Pullman-Standard in 1964 and were the first high-performance cars.  They spent most of their service lives on the Lake and Lake-Dan Ryan lines.

The 6000 series cars were the PCC's built by St. Louis Car from 1950-1959 and lasted in service into the early 1990's.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, October 24, 2013 1:23 PM

The 2000 Pullmans and 2200 Budds must have duplicated the numbers of the CRT woodies that had been scrapped or were being scrapped.   The early 6000's were built new.  From what date and which number did they use componants from PCC streetcars?   Must be after 1952.   The articulateds were 5000-5003?

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Thursday, October 24, 2013 6:43 PM

daveklepper
The articulateds were 5000-5003?

5001-5004.

I find this to be a good resource.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Friday, October 25, 2013 3:22 AM

Thanks.    Apparenly, the first 200, 6001-6200, were totally new, while 6201-6730 used the elecctricals, seats, windows, mecanicals from the streetcars,

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, October 25, 2013 8:42 AM

CTA 6201-6720 and single-unit cars 1-50 were built using various salvaged parts from the traded-in postwar PCC streetcars (Green Hornets).  None of the pre-war cars (Blue Geese) were included in the trade-in arrangement.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Saturday, October 26, 2013 1:31 PM

I think I remember a Green Hornet at Union.   Is that correct.   Is there also a Blue Goose?

Is the red rocket  (144?) still in good shape?

And the Electorliner?

And the  Indana RR car?

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, October 26, 2013 7:59 PM

daveklepper
And the Electroliner?

The one at IRM has been fully restored, and is a delight.

The one at Rockhill Furnace is shabby, but runnable.  It is in no danger.

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Hope, AR
  • 2,061 posts
Posted by narig01 on Sunday, October 27, 2013 5:53 PM
Just a random thought.(maybe I should start a new thread). And maybe a little off topic
In the category of stuff that should be preserved.
An. AEM 7 toaster.
  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Hope, AR
  • 2,061 posts
Posted by narig01 on Sunday, October 27, 2013 6:05 PM
And to continue what about some Amfleet cars?
I was thinking about Amtrak's E60's. They are good examples in some ways of what not to do especially when compared to the AEM7.
The same could be said to a lesser degree of the SDP 40F. Compared to the F40.

Thx IGN
  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Sunday, October 27, 2013 6:35 PM

IGN, this thread has gone so far of the (MIA) OP's original question that I doubt it matters anymore...

An E60 is at The Railroad Museum of Pennsylavania.

IIRC, only one SDP40F survives, and it is considerably altered since Santa Fe used it in freight service. Last I heard of it it was in Portland, OR?

I second the call to preserve an AEM-7.

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Hope, AR
  • 2,061 posts
Posted by narig01 on Sunday, October 27, 2013 7:53 PM
NorthWest. I'm not sure about the Santa Fe SDP40's. A quick look at wikipedia said that their are also a couple at Pueblo. Status and state unknown. (Possibly crash test vehicles at this point?) .

I saw about the E60, there is also one at Union.

Personally I think the AEM 7s are good for many more years if someone were to say buy them and keep around for lease units or other purposes. At least the ones remotored with AC motors

Thx IGN
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, October 28, 2013 1:15 AM

I agree about the AEN-7 AC's, and I doubt that Amtrak will want to get rid of all of them.   They should keep four or five as switchers for Penn Station, Summyside, Philadelphia, and Washingtonton, possibly also Boston, to do all the switching that can be done under catenary, reducing the need for diesel switchers at these locatons, and particularly reducing the  need to use road power to do swithing at Penn NY.

And again, I want the innards of three AEN-7 DC's to revfve a GG-1 and two more to revive the cosmetically restored EF-4/E-33.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, October 28, 2013 8:48 AM

The AEM7 with its full-width carbody would make a terrible switcher.  However, I do think that it might be useful in transfer service between Penn Station and Sunnyside, a duty that PRR assigned to its L6's many years ago.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, October 28, 2013 9:06 AM

With a three-man crew, one man in each cab and one on the ground, it would make a great switcher.   A full-width carbody is no problem if each cab has a man in it.     For that matter a two-man crew could make it work, with the ground man in the non-operating cab any time the loco is about to move or is moving.   Obvoiusly, continuous communication between crew members is essential for the concept to work.

In fact, I saw an AEM7 being used as a switcher at Penn-NY about 19 years ago.   They probably still do this.   They do not use diesel switchers at Penn Sta.  NYC.

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Hope, AR
  • 2,061 posts
Posted by narig01 on Monday, October 28, 2013 11:09 PM
Would an AEM7 work better as a switched if one were to use a radio control from the ground. Also I would think some kind of platform to stand on.
If Amtrak is smart they should try to hang onto the fleet as reserve engines. If they could find someplace to store some coaches it would give Amtrak a reserve capacity at least in the NE corridor .
The Pennsylvania RR used to keep all sorts of reserve equipment for contingencies.

Thx IGN
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, October 29, 2013 5:48 AM

The AEM7 works perfectly well as a switcher the way it is.   USA diesels with full cabs don't work well as switchers BECAUSE THERE IS ONLY ONE CAB!!!!

The standard PRR electric switcher, probably about 100 of them including the LIRR labeled ones at Bay Ridge, was an 0-6-0 BOX CAB B-1.   Controls at both ends, just like an AEM-7.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, October 29, 2013 7:13 AM

Unlike an EP-3, 4, or 5, GG1, or EF-3, one can "change ends" on an AEM7 easily without climbing down from the "motor."   But switching passenger yards and terminals does not, in any case, involve quite the number of reverse movments that switching in a flat freight yard does.

B-1 box-cab electric switchers were used at Bay Ridge (freight), Sunnyside, Penn Station, NY, 30th St. Sation Philadelphia, and before closure, Broad Street, Philadelphia.   Steam was used at Baltimore and Harrisburg, and the LIRR used steam at Sunhyside for freight.   But the LIRR used DD1's on peddler freighs with set-outs and pick-ups.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy