Similarly to the use of pantographs instead of trolley poles, the newer light-rail operations are using catenary overhead instead of direct suspension, even in street running. Even this is not a new idea as the North Shore used catenary on the Skokie Valley line and the rebuilt section of the Shore Line through Ravinia and Highland Park
Partial Quote:
RE: Philadelphia and Western -- with limited exceptions, all equipment tended to run as single units, not MU'd trains, and if you consider what the original equipment (restored) looked like:
http://www.davesrailpix.com/pw/htm/pw218.htm
Does it get more "trolley" than that?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hey, I don't make the rules! To the extent that the Brilliners could run steadily at or above 80 mph, we'd have to assign them to the category of "high-speed trolley," although that is rarely used in contemporary discourse (i.e., speaking of today) if "Interurban" serves. It probably could be written off mostly to the semantics of local usage, although in a global context (especially N. Am. versus Germano-Swiss usage and design), it might be more helpful if we said it could be viewed as a matter of degree more than kind. Function has a lot to do with it: Whether something has a trolley pole or a pantagraph for electicity collection doesn't matter to me as much as its speed. Whether it has a trolley pole or a pantagraph in the years from inception until just before light-rail era, the presence of the metaphoric trolley pole was more a matter of Anglo-American "accent" in its public trans as opposed to the Germano-Swiss pantagraph's accent (derived from or developed simultaneous with Swiss-type freight motors would be my guess, just a guess).
And from the inception of streetcars through the PCC era and on, the rest of the world and North America depended on streetcars (the U.S. alone uses "trolley car", I believe) -- urban streetcars that typically topped out at about 50 mph or 80 kph--not an absolute limit, but inefficient and running too warm at that speed (correspondingly very efficient and "bright" overcoming inertia--pulling away from zero mph. Such was the case from passenger-carrying trolleys of the 1890s to the PCC's of the late 1930s-early 40s and on thru the fifties. (But not in the past thirty-plus years of light rail; at that time improved A.C. motors came to prominence.) But note that even a traditional system can have bimodal motors, as in the Karlsruhe (Germany) system that uses high-speed traction in the country, the lower speed limit of induction motors in the city. Did the Brilliners have two different kinds of electric-motor system? Because if they had only the kind literally wired for high-speed, they would have made terribly inefficient trolley (street-) cars. In Karlsruhe (or at least were when I was there in 1980) the rural-quick traction motors were still balanced by fairly simple D.C. in design for the urban-streetcar induction-type motors. And they had the classic D.C. motor's advantage: much quicker off the mark than A.C. Note that even today, the best case to be made for D.C. in freight locomotives is that they are fast, and bright, and if you don't abuse them will cost less than in the long run -- but of course there's an argument about that going on in other posts at the TRAINS site!
Function matters too, of course: Note that the old Chgo North Shore line (that ceased ops in 1963 when the rolling stock went to Philly) was definitely classed as an inter-urban. It had high-speed motors and could not stop on a dime; yet even though the stopping points were predetermined, it and its second-cousins at the CSS&SB had motor (or motors) flexible enough to permit demand stops (at the South Shore, it's still "passengers use light at night" to flag the motorman to stop the car (or train) at a flag-stop). But the high-speeded-ness would have been useless if the car (or train) had had to stop every block or two. We may or may not let it confuse the issue further if we note that the Japanese-built equipment of the CSS&SB post-early 1980s looks more like a Metroliner than a bullet-nose or a souped-up trolley car. In Japan, I am told, the Japanese look at electric transit as a more or less smooth continuum of light rail, rapid transit, subway and elevated heavy rail, passenger trainsets and trains w/ locos, faster passenger trains ditto, and two (almost three) generations of HST. Whether something is classed as interurban versus high-speed trolley is pretty much a meaningless argument there. to me, whether the conveyance uses a single carriage or joined carriage doesn't matter much to me except insofar as the m.u. indicates high-speed service After all, Europe was big on streetcar "trains" in urban areas with the older technology pre-World War One. And building upon that, whether the cars are sealed off or vestibuled, that's more a matter of creature comfort than a determination of genre.
So to get finally to the question posed: is the first P&W car shown, a trolley car? Well, it has a trolley in good old N. American fashion. But a streetcar, or trolley car? No, not even if it was built from inception (ca. 1890 to beyond the PCC era (1960-ish)), not if it transcended the fifty-fivish mph speed imposed by D.C. induction. If it was truly high-speed then let's call it a high-speed trolley, a visual case of cream masquerading a skim milk, as it were. If you want to say the speed alone determines inter-urban-hood, I'd have to agree in cases where the design of each carriage or the power-collection was indeterminte between the two "species" of streetcar vs. interurban. I'm sure this argument has been had many times before over the years, and my feelings may be in the minority. Surely the point is to love and preserve such transit when possible, and admire the flexibility and skill of the prior generations in Philly who could adapt supposedly "outmoded" Electroliners to run as fast as ever in mixed urban-suburban tractilon. Again, was the oldest P&W car on the post, the first one, really capable of cruising at above, say, 55 mph?? I could only call it, in the style of its period, a high-speed trolley. The Kawasaki models running out west today do not bear that description, if for no other reason, than that "trolley" as term and Americanism was simply not applicable to that style of power-collection. So we either revive the term "high-speed trolley" (which would be OK with me only if it has a trolley pole), or stay content with the rather floating terminology of interurbans.
Of course faster trains ran during this period -- and just to repeat they had different kinds of motors to permit the high speed. Even the epochal GG-1 locomotive ran so hot the designers wrapped it in as much PCB fluid as they could. (There are men
Cleveland - Blue and Green lines first opened in 1913 (http://world.nycsubway.org/us/cleveland/)
New Orleans -- Service began on September 26, 1835, but wasn't electrified until 1893(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcars_in_New_Orleans)
It is interesting to consider the longevity of these routes, the communities served, the vision of the builders and the success of the operation. Especially when so many routes and even entire rail operations (citywide) disappeared.
Paul F.
paulsafety wrote: What are the oldest continually operating trolley routes in the USA?My three nominations to the list include:1) Sharon Hill, PA to Upper Darby, PA (Septa route 102, ex PST Media Line, ex Philadelphia and West Chester Traction, nee-Philadelphia & Garrettford -- 1904) 2) Media, PA to Upper Darby, PA (Septa route 101, ex PST Media Line, nee Philadelphia and West Chester Traction -- 1912)3) Norristown, PA to Upper Darby, PA (Septa route 100, ex PST Norristown Line, nee Philadelphia and Western)
What are the oldest continually operating trolley routes in the USA?
My three nominations to the list include:
1) Sharon Hill, PA to Upper Darby, PA (Septa route 102, ex PST Media Line, ex Philadelphia and West Chester Traction, nee-Philadelphia & Garrettford -- 1904)
2) Media, PA to Upper Darby, PA (Septa route 101, ex PST Media Line, nee Philadelphia and West Chester Traction -- 1912)
3) Norristown, PA to Upper Darby, PA (Septa route 100, ex PST Norristown Line, nee Philadelphia and Western)
************************************************************************************************ I don't know for sure, but I would guess New Orelans' St. Charles line belongs in the top ten. Perhaps a line or two from Pittsburgh, unless their transition to LRT disqualifies them. Maybe the Shaker Heights trolley, which I do think would still count as a trolley. You're probably right about the nos. 100, 101 and 102 above, unless the no. 100 Norristown line's prior history makes it an interurban instead of a trolley for most of its career; when it used high-speed Brill equipment for decades before it was replaced by today's Kawasaki equipment. (I think we'd all agree that some kind of line has to be drawn between a long-standing trolley route and a long-standing line that may not have been considered a trolley in its day.)
I'd guess the Commonwealth Ave. trolley from Boston out toward Cambridge could rank, but I don't know. I do, however, think it has been a trolley all its life. It does a lot of boulevard running.
Since this post started with Philadelphia, is it possible that some of the lines in their teens, the ones that start out in Center City underground and then go westward as street trolleys out to the neighborhoods (not suburbia) -- would any of them qualify?
My hunch is that the Muni Metro in San Francisco is too new, relatively speaking, to make the Top Ten. But I don't know for sure. Did it exist as a trolley (as opposed to cable car) before the big San Francisco earthquake (1909)?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.