These cars replaced the Shaker PCC cars in the mid 1980s. Since Breda has merged with somebody else these cars are on the way to the scrap heap after running out of parts. The PCC cars by the way have beat out yet another light rail car in lifespan.
I've always wondered why we didn't adapt, with safety upgrades, the time-proven PCC design when light rail became popular. Seems like a literal reinvention of the wheel.
John Timm
desertdogI've always wondered why we didn't adapt, with safety upgrades, the time-proven PCC design when light rail became popular.
Especially when so many European 'licensees' appear to have updated the styling, seating, fenestration, etc. to make the cars look more "modern".
I look at it as "automotive engineers" thinking they could do a better job ... and then using Japanese or Italian craftsmanship and engineering to build parts of the thing better or less expensively than we could in the USA. The LRVs in particular seem to have demonstrated that Japanese quality does not always survive lowballing or poor transport protection, and that the general field of power-electronics and control technology, especially during rapid effective obsolescence, in the era of revised "new transit" interest has NOT been particularly joyful. (They also show that a compromise one-size-fits-all design may NOT turn out to be the best way to design transit cars, but imho that's just ignorance by a helicopter manufacturer.)
I'm interested in seeing how the latest generation of lightweight and extremely-low-floor vehicles holds up in extended service. They certainly seem to be engineered and built much better ... on average. But when they fail, oh brother! (Equalizer cracking, anyone?)
RME The LRVs in particular seem to have demonstrated that Japanese quality does not always survive lowballing or poor transport protection, and that the general field of power-electronics and control technology, especially during rapid effective obsolescence, in the era of revised "new transit" interest has NOT been particularly joyful.
The LRVs in particular seem to have demonstrated that Japanese quality does not always survive lowballing or poor transport protection, and that the general field of power-electronics and control technology, especially during rapid effective obsolescence, in the era of revised "new transit" interest has NOT been particularly joyful.
A weird example of power electronics and control technology is BART with the first generation of cars using inverter grade SCR's for chopper control of DC series motors, something similar for the second generation, and with the third going to PWM 3 phase presumably with IGBT's. What puts the weird in BART is that the first generation of cars were upgraded to AC motors, but not the second generation - where the latter still uses thyristors. The later are not available "Off the shelf".
Since power electronics is still rapidly developing, especially SiC and GaN, we're still going to be stuck with problems maintaining components that have become obsolescent, if not obsolete as with the thyristors used by BART. The neat thing with GaN and SiC is that the switching frequency can be high enough to allow for inexpensive filters which will eliminate the need for special wiring on inverters.
As for "one size fits all", I still like ASEA's proposed LRV from the 1980's - available in 2 truck single car, 3 truck dual car and 4 truck triple car configurations.
What have prevented the contoinuation of PCC technology and design are:
1. The move to low-floor cars, necesstating a radically different truck design and body design.
2. Modern energy-saving speed control, first the chopper and then ac-motors and computer electronics.
3. Move to articulated and double-aticulated cars, even thriple-articulated, for greater capacity.
Note that 1929 Milan Peter-Witts, a very North American design, are still in service in Milan and San Francisco, and probably will be in service when 100 years old. The same may be true with PCC's ini Boston, Philadelphia (each one line), San Francisco, El Paso, and Kenosha.
erikem As for "one size fits all", I still like ASEA's proposed LRV from the 1980's - available in 2 truck single car, 3 truck dual car and 4 truck triple car configurations.
CSSHEGEWISCHThis is not a new concept, it's a variation of the PCC design concept.
So PCC designed for articulated car sets (and not just MU as in Cleveland)? No reason why that couldn't be done -- I'd just never heard it was done. (That was the design feature erikem was referencing with 'multiple size' in context.)
I'm not sure CSSHegewisch said that 1, 2 or 3 car PCC units were designed.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
From what I been reading Cleveland rta is facing a large operating deficit. It has all ready reduced service by 5%. Further cuts are forecasted unless a budget deal can be worked with the involved counties and the state of Ohio.
schlimm I'm not sure CSSHegewisch said that 1, 2 or 3 car PCC units were designed.
2 and 3 unit vehicles using PCC technology were operated in Brussels, they were being taken out of service several years ago.
Mechanical devices wear out. Calgary is starting the same process of using sister cars to keep the old ones operating for a few more years.
http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/calgary-transit-s-first-ctrain-completes-its-final-trip-1.3165751
The PCC cars may be easier to rebuild since they have comparatively primitive electronics. Modern "black boxes" are capable of wonderful things, but go obsolete very quickly and can be hard to replace if they fail.
Here's the actual article.
The 74 active train cars in the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority'scommuter rail fleet are survivors.
Placed into service in the late 1970s, they've labored long past their 30-year life expectancy. They look remarkably good for their age. But beneath the skin, the stress is starting to show.
Their longevity is due largely to dedicated mechanics who pamper them inside a four-acre repair shop that looks as clean and well-lighted as an operating room.
It's an appropriate analogy, because the trains owe their lives to vital parts harvested from other cars of their generation. Those cars ended their productive lives on the rails more than a decade ago, due partly to Cleveland's declining population, and are kept only for their parts.
Nearly three dozen of these lifeless trains rest in an outdoor rail yard on the city's east side. RTA systematically harvests the cars, wheeling them into the E. 55th St. Central Rail Maintenance Facility for one final sacrifice.
One day last month, it was Car 830's turn to become a donor.
Car 830, a light rail car that traversed the east side on the Green and Blue Shaker and Van Aken lines, made the journey from the yard to the Central Rail facility on rails embedded in the shop floor. Mechanics hoisted it into the air to expose its underbelly, then methodically removed everything from gear boxes to electrical controls to wheels.
The whole operation was both a tribute and a sign of potential trouble down the line.
Thanks to their high-quality Italian origins, the parts are solid. With a little care and refurbishing, they can keep the 34 surviving light-rail cars running.
On the other hand, they may be just about the only way to keep those cars running.
The light-rail cars used on RTA's Green and Blue lines are more fragile than the stainless-steel Japanese-made heavy-rail cars on the Red line that connects connects East Cleveland through downtown to the Airport.
The trains are so old their manufacturers no longer make those models. They don't make many of the parts needed to keep them running, either. When RTA runs out of salvageable pieces from its stock of dead cars, two shop workers build replacement gear by hand.
"As far as I'm concerned, I'm gonna make them run until they tell me to stop," said Rail Equipment Manager Casey Blaze, who supervises all train repairs for RTA.
Eventually, a new fleet will be needed. And eventually is coming fast.
RTA has spent about $30 million in train car maintenance over the past decade, overhauling the heavy rail rolling stock in 2010, and the light rail cars in 2012. And it has spent $140 million over the past five years in rail infrastructure improvements, including new train stations, with $110 million more in such spending planned over the next five years.
"We feel because of the work we've done, the vehicles should be sound and reliable through 2025," said RTA General Manager Joe Calabrese. "We need to order new trains by 2020. You can't just go to the local train shop and say, 'I'll take two of these and four of those.'"
The new trains will cost an estimated $280 million. RTA doesn't have that kind of cash lying around. It just proposed a fare hike of 25 cents per ride on buses and trains to keep up with current expenses. Even with the fare hikes, RTA warns there will be service cuts.
Congress is finally hammering out a five-year transportation bill that includes a modest increase in transit spending. There's no guarantee RTA will get the money it needs for new trains from the feds, though, and no firm plan for coming up with the significant local share that would be required.
Ken Prendergast is executive director of a Cleveland-based rail advocacy organization called "All Aboard Ohio." He sounded the alarm recently in several blog posts, complaining that RTA hasn't laid out a clear plan for replacing the trains.
Prendergast contends RTA is reflecting a "worry later" attitude and warns that as light rail cars finally start to fail, RTA might be forced to run buses along those routes as a replacement. A rail shutdown, he fears, is unavoidable.
"The fact that they've been able to keep those things running that long and that well is a testament to Casey Blaze and the people at Central Rail. They've been able to do some amazing things with what they've got," said Prendergast.
"But this is about public policy issues regarding transit and a difference of opinion about how this lack of funding is perceived, handled and is responded to. RTA doesn't want to talk about a crisis, but I think a crisis can be a useful thing sometimes. Politicians often won't deal with an issue until it's at a crisis point. And we've got one coming down the track."
Calabrese says that's just not fair. He has been vocal to lawmakers, to the media and to citizen groups and the RTA board about the sorry state of investment in infrastructure needs nationwide and the particularly dismal contribution to public transit from the state.
"We're making known like everyone else what our plight is. Our plight is not unique. There is $100 billion in unfunded capital need in this country," he said.
RTA is researching whether it can save money by replacing both types of trains with a single style that can work on both tracks. It would require fewer trains, thereby cutting costs. But it might also require extensive rail and station modifications. Calabrese agrees the light rail cars are the more critical need, but says there is no scenario by which RTA's trains will be in such disrepair that buses will replace them.
"Absolutely not. There's no consideration of that and it would make zero sense," he said, noting continued capital outlays for new and renovated stations and the ongoing interior overhaul of the Red Line trains.
But 2025 will be here soon. Where, exactly, will the money for new trains come from?
"I don't know," Calabrese said bluntly. "But we have confidence that major assets that have great public support will get funded."
To Prendergast, that sounds a little squishy.
"It's like, 'Don't worry, we'll find the money.' Well, until we have the money, I'm worried," he said.
And Prendergast said that's just the immediate worry. A study pegs a Red Line extension into Euclid as a billion-dollar project that would pay big dividends in jobs. Other investment could help RTA realize a proper and truly regional public transit vision.
"We could stand to spend $2 billion on our public transit system, to be honest. And all of these things we could do to expand and make it a multi county regional transit system, we can't do," he said. "It's time to ask for all the things we need to make the public transit system great. We really need to be having a community conversation here on the future of public transportation, and the 40th Anniversary of the RTA is the time to do it."
RTA needs to think big, warn the community of serious consequences ahead and lead a vigorous conversation about the next 40 years, Prendergast said. "No one is inspired by merely surviving," he said.
Until such a discussion is had and until the hundreds of millions are found, the rail shop will continue to operate 24 hours a day, five days a week, with eight-hour shifts on Saturday and Sunday. Fifty-five-year-old Steve Novak will continue to turn metal bars into pins for the brake assemblies and replace the copper on gear-box armatures. Bob Griffith, 55, will bend sheet metal into speed-sensor covers with interior welds no one will ever see, but that reflect the immense pride he takes in his work.
Joe Sumskis, 34, and Jamal Thornton, 44, will turn the color of rust as they work to detach the wheel assemblies, called trucks, from beneath spent train cars.
And Blaze will manage the harvesting, reconditioning and storage of parts, the repair of broken trains, the updating of the interior of the few cars that haven't yet been freshened and the regular inspection of healthy cars to catch small problems before they become big ones.
"I don't see an issue as long as we keep up on the maintenance, like we do, and keep doing the inspections," said Blaze, who noted that a recent change in philosophy has mechanics focusing on defects that are most likely to put a train out of service rather than every problem, like a burned out bulb. The result: The average number of miles between service interruptions for the fleet has increased ten-fold since last December to nearly 300,000 miles.
Keeping the aging fleet rolling is a lot of work, which suits RTA train mechanic Don Myers, 40, just fine.
"We have job security," he said. "For sure."
RME (They also show that a compromise one-size-fits-all design may NOT turn out to be the best way to design transit cars, but imho that's just ignorance by a helicopter manufacturer.)
(They also show that a compromise one-size-fits-all design may NOT turn out to be the best way to design transit cars, but imho that's just ignorance by a helicopter manufacturer.)
Don't blame Boeing for that one. The one size fits all was at the insistence of UMTA. They believed these would be th last streetcars built in the US and didn't want to fund 2 different designs. Hence the Standard in SLRV.
BuslistDon't blame Boeing for that one. The one size fits all was at the insistence of UMTA. They believed these would be th last streetcars built in the US and didn't want to fund 2 different designs. Hence the Standard in SLRV.
Thanks; I feel better about it now. I can still remember when the first cars were still being built on the floor at Vertol, and we were entering a new era of transit excellence... as with the TurboTrain, I wish it had worked!
cx500 The PCC cars may be easier to rebuild since they have comparatively primitive electronics. Modern "black boxes" are capable of wonderful things, but go obsolete very quickly and can be hard to replace if they fail.
Electonics??? The controls for PCC's were a form of electrical machinery, using relays and motors. Some of the mechanical stuff would be a PITA to replace, but probably a couple of orders of magnitude easier to replace than 40 year old semiconductor devices. Things like burned out coils can be fixed by re-winding them.
The eletrical vs electronics reminds me of a debate between Schlimm and I a while back about the difference between the two subjects. Turns out in the era that the PCC's were being built in the US, "electronics" meant the study of electron flow through devices using vacuum or some ionizable gas, i.e. vacuum tubes, mercury vapor tubes or argon. At that time, solid state devices were not considered to truly be in the field of electronics.
Another though came up, with the avaibility of 3-D printing with metal and flexible manufacturing mills, it should be easier to get reproductions of a lot of the mechanical parts - with the exception of getting the metal properties right (grain, hardness, etc). The latter is why I'm encouraging my son with his interest in pursuing a degree in Materials Science and Engineering (he's a senior in HS).
South Shore had to contend with similar issues in maintaining the fleet of MU cars from the Insull era. The cars were so old that many of the parts were no longer available and had to be obtained either by cannibalization or custom-made in the shops.
erikemTurns out in the era that the PCC's were being built in the US, "electronics" meant the study of electron flow through devices using vacuum or some ionizable gas, i.e. vacuum tubes, mercury vapor tubes or argon. At that time, solid state devices were not considered to truly be in the field of electronics.
Well, actually, not quite -- silver oxide, for example, and crystals for radios were certainly in 'electronics'. The dichotomy (which persists in the modern IEEE) was in between the use of electricity for power (as in electrical generation and AC/DC) and the use of electricity at RF (as in 'radio engineering') I took schlimm to task for defining the radio side as 'information' rather than RF power emission and reception, but of course the principal sense of radio is indeed for communications or things like radar (which is radio detection and ranging) and where power transmission is involved in that field of electronics, it's usually something incidental, like balancing modem bits to avoid net charge buildup -- broadcast entertainment trumped Tesla broadcast power -- and probably a good thing, too! Both radio and power used solid-state devices fairly early (think germanium and then silicon rectifiers, and the early iPod-like fad that was 'transistor radios') AND tubes of course came into power use reasonably early on the power side (Ignitrons, anyone?).
Some of the problem with older tech is that newer, better, cheaper approaches become pervasive quickly. But some of it is also that early solid-state electronics were extremely static-sensitive, aged poorly, and were not (unsurprisingly, really) designed to be forward-compatible with later designs. Much of it was also proprietary and very expensive to develop. There have been preservation arguments that many 'famous' locomotives from the '80s will not see operating service as museum power because even 'radio hobbyists' can't keep some of their circuit boards intact and running ... and can't obtain the source code to know how to program functional replacements.
I graduated in 1961 with an EE degree with a power major. THe first electronics classes I took were in tubes, but the last two years were in discrete transistors. Went to work with a Electic Utility and the protective relaying communications were with tube electronics sending low frequency signals (40 to 200 kHz) over the high voltage (69-230 kV) power lines. The manufacturers soon came out with transister equipment. Then in 1964, our company started the expansion of our 345 kV system. It needed higher speed communications so we put in a microwave system that was all solid state except for the final klystron tube. Then in the 90's, data requirements made it economic to install our own fiber optic network which was the final system I assisted in designing. Initial teething problems with semiconductors in the early years was they could not handle some of the environments that they were placed into. Heat and cold could cause failures as could electromagnetic fields.
In the utility and railroad industrys, equipment is expected to have life times of over forty years. The PCC car design was made in 1939 and the last were made in 1952. Back then, electrc relays and contactors were state of art. Life cycles of electronic equipment today is five years. My PC that i'm writing this on is obsolete having been made in 2008 and running on Windows XP which microsoft no linger supports. So manufacturers want customers to buy the latest product, they see little profit in supporting old equipment. There can be profit to be made if a vender came be found to repair and or make parts for obsolete (mfg discontinued) equipment.
This thread is bring up some interesting points. The inability of getting replacement parts, source code, materials lists, manufacturing procedures needs thought when an agency is buying equipment expected to last 40 - 60 years.
We do not know exactly how the CAF order for the V-2s is worded for Amtrak to own all the designs. However Amtrak it should also own all the code, source code and manufacturing techniques. As well all agencies buying locos and rail cars of any kind should have the ability to get all necessary information to continue building equipment as part of the purchase contract if original builder ceases manufacturing for any reason. Comments ?
w
blue streak 1 We do not know exactly how the CAF order for the V-2s is worded for Amtrak to own all the designs. However Amtrak it should also own all the code, source code and manufacturing techniques. As well all agencies buying locos and rail cars of any kind should have the ability to get all necessary information to continue building equipment as part of the purchase contract if original builder ceases manufacturing for any reason. Comments ?
The point that Amtrak should be able to use all the intellectual property contained in a production run is a good one. Amtrak's equipment has the (regretable) tendency to outlive its manufacturer!
However, at the same time the manufacturer should have the ability to sell the design to third parties who may be competitors of Amtrak, especially in the area of state supported services. To take examples, should Iowa Pacific, the State of North Carolina or some other entity wish to buy a variant of the V2 design, that should be encouraged. Longer production runs are a plus for all of the buyers.
At the end of the day this is a matter of proper contract negotiation between the parties. I have doubta that Amtrak can be trusted to accomplish that without outside supervision.
blue streak 1The inability of getting replacement parts, source code, materials lists, manufacturing procedures needs thought when an agency is buying equipment expected to last 40 - 60 years.
One of the problems (with powered vehicles) comes in when the obsolete circuitry or cards implement approaches that the manufacturer considers proprietary, or which when run on newer hardware (or implemented/emulated in open software or systems) convey a competitive advantage that they wouldn't if not referencing the older design details. I believe that has been a specific issue with respect to older GEs.
I came up against this rather dramatically in exercise-machine repair. One of the original machines built by the Precor company in its early years was remarkably 'overbuilt' in quality, with a much better motor, frame, and deck than more modern (and considerably more expensive) models. This suffered a failure of part of its motor control (PWM DC) (which in those days was integrated on the same circuit board as the control panel. Since we were trained Precor techs, I inquired as to a replacement board -- Precor no longer made it, or had a used-parts source. OK then, what were the component specs and the schematic diagram for the board, so it could be repaired? Sorry - that was proprietary and we couldn't have it. In other words, scrap a 98% good machine and bill the client $5800-odd to replace it with new.
I didn't think much of that approach then, and still don't now.
My comment, not a quote:
I think a manufacturer like that should be taken to court.
Or he should, for a reasonable price, repair the machine himself.
blue streak 1 The inability of getting replacement parts, source code, materials lists, manufacturing procedures needs thought when an agency is buying equipment expected to last 40 - 60 years.
[/quote above]
daveklepperI think a manufacturer like that should be taken to court. Or he should, for a reasonable price, repair the machine himself.
Only a few reputable manufacturers maintain a full list of replacement parts 'indefinitely'.
Locomotive and equipment manufacturers I'm familiar with guarantee parts and support for a fixed period of time (for example, Baldwin/Rentschler/Ecolaire 25 years). Just as with computer maintenance agreements, once that time has expired you're 'on your own' with replacements. Of course, if there's sufficient demand, 'aftermarket' sources and rebuilders will be available to you, and if you know a good hobbyist community or people with requisite experience or skills you can often manage to make, or at least cobble up, something that works.
Sears maintained full documentation on Craftsman tools for many years, but when you asked about a part number there, it would be 'unavailable' from them (as it might have been for decades at that point). This is much the same approach that I wanted Precor to have -- if you're not going to support something you built, at least give me the information and perhaps procedures to use to work on it so that it doesn't compromise my clients' or my safety.
On the other hand, there is nothing quite so safe in locomotives as one that can't operate under any circumstances, just as there is nothing profitable to a company about fixing an old machine that might develop other difficulties when one thing is repaired. And in our present age of consumerist legal action, they might be held to some degree responsible if they provided information to fix something and the repaired machine caused injury to someone ... note that with current deep-pockets legislation, even an adjudged 1% liability could result in the manufacturer having to shell out millions upon millions, or settle for thousands upon thousands merely to avoid the prospect of millions.
Even in the face of that sort of disincentive, I regularly find people who are willing to explain their knowledge of and experience with tech to people trying to work with it. An example is Preston Cook with older EMD locomotives that are long out of any warranty.
My impression is that the outfit in Cleveland is little different from the Wilmington shops in the last days of the GG1s. And both have my utmost respect.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.