Most PCC's seated between 38 and 48, and those seating 38 could accomodate about 80 standees easily, not crush conditions, and those seating 48 could accomodate about 40 standees, giving an overall capacity for the typical PCC, such as Brooklyn, St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland, Toronto, Boston, of between 88 and 118. Washington, DC's and Dallas were a we bit smaller, Dallas because of double-end configuration and Washington one window less length to accomodate the Georgetown carbarn elevator. Chicago, Twin Cities, Pacific Electric all had somewhat larger cars.
Looking at weight, remember these cars generally had a top speed of only 45-50mph on level track, did not have air-conditioning. It was an excellent and time-proven design that has stood the test of time.
Possibly there were some PCC's (El Paso's international line) that had only bowling ally seats, all sideways facing the aisle, and luggage racks in addition taking up space, and thus ended up with only 30 seats? If so, easily 100 standees could be accommodated. But maybe on this line they limited the number standees to make the customs inspectors' life easier. That is only explanation I have for your figures! A modern regular non-articulated transit bus, an old Fishbowl, or the classic GM standee window bus, all have more seats and more standees than your figures and all were less than the PCC's.
From the Jan-Feb 2008 ROLLSIGN, Boston Street Railway Association, www.thebsra.org
Refer to page 7: The ten PCC's from 1945 and 1946 rebuilt for Ashmont - Mattapan service have 41 seats. Length 46'
The light rail cars (single-articulated, three trucks) for the four Green Line subway-surface routes have either 44 or 46 seats. Length 74 or 72 feet.
Multiple unit PCC streetcar and light rail operation in North America, five properties:
Boston, 2 and 3-car trains Largest applicaton, nearly all PCC lines and eventually all cars
Shaker Hieghts, 2 and 3-car trains, all PCC's, both lines
Pacific Electric 2 and 3-car trains, all PCC's Glendale-Burbank line from Main St. LA Subway terminal
Illinois Terminal 2-car trains, all ten PCC's, local line to Grafton
Toronto 2-car trains, about 15% of the total PCC fleet, Bloor-Danforth prior to replacement by east-west heavy-rail subway, then possibly for a time on Queen Street prior to replacement by articulated LRV's.
The ten post-WWII St. Louis-built cars for Philly Suburban (Red Arrow) looked like double-end PCC's and were mu but were not PCC's. They had an older conventional type of electrical control system and used outside-frame drop-equalizer trucks.
The CTA also ran its PCC's in multiple unit sets on the L, single-car operation was found on the Evanston shuttle and Skokie Swift. I believe that Cleveland's rapid transit PCC's also operated in multiple.
daveklepper wrote: Multiple unit PCC streetcar and light rail operation in North America, five properties:Boston, 2 and 3-car trains Largest applicaton, nearly all PCC lines and eventually all carsShaker Hieghts, 2 and 3-car trains, all PCC's, both lines Pacific Electric 2 and 3-car trains, all PCC's Glendale-Burbank line from Main St. LA Subway terminalIllinois Terminal 2-car trains, all ten PCC's, local line to GraftonToronto 2-car trains, about 15% of the total PCC fleet, Bloor-Danforth prior to replacement by east-west heavy-rail subway, then possibly for a time on Queen Street prior to replacement by articulated LRV's.The ten post-WWII St. Louis-built cars for Philly Suburban (Red Arrow) looked like double-end PCC's and were mu but were not PCC's. They had an older conventional type of electrical control system and used outside-frame drop-equalizer trucks.
Muni's PCC streetcars were not mu equipped and only operated as single cars. Even today, MINI and Market Street Railway do not own mu PCC's. The replacement Boeing LRV's did operate mu, and so do the replacement Breda LRV's today.
Note my posting covered only streetcar-LRV North American PCC's. All PCC rapid transit cars, even those designed primarily for single-car operation (Skokie Swift originals) were mu-equipped. Most European PCC's were mu (Tartras). Exceptions were The Hague, Antwerp, and Ghent.
Boston: All PCC's eventually made MU, including the original 25 "Tremont" class and the all-electric "City Point" class. All mu PCC's single-end, front-entrance, center exit with center doors on both sides, doors available for boarding of course depending on platform at prepaid stations. Exception: 25 ex-Dallas PCC double-end, front and rear door cars were purchased second-hand from Dallas, Texas. These were not made mu, used for specific shuttle services, although equipped with Tomlinson couplers.
Shaker Heights, Single-end, front-entrance and center-exit
Toronto, Single-end, front-entrance and center-exit.
Pacific Electric: Double end, front-entrance and center-exit, only PCC's of this type
Illinois Terminal: Double-end, front and rear doors. Body type same as first PCC's in San Francisco and the same body used for non-PCC Red Arrow cars.
May I take leave to make an exception? We have, in our Museum, an operating Twin City Lines PCC, number 322. That car is as it came from St. Louis Car Co. in 1946, with one exception. It was originally configured for 53 seated passengers, in 21 double seats, six single seats, and 5 seats at the rear in a curved transverse arrangement, as built, with a conductor's stall opposite the center doors. When the car was later converted to be one man only, a double seat replaced the conductor's stall and that raised the seated capacity to 55. The car will carry around 80 with standees. The car is a standard, 46-foot by 9-foot SLCC product, and weighed 38,000 lbs. TCRT had 141 of them. Los Angeles actually had some PCCs this size running on 3-foot, 6-inch gauge track!
On most PCCs, the balancing speed (maximum speed on level track, running empty) was around 45 MPH. The PCCs used on Shaker Heights could balance at a bit over 50 because their wheels were one inch larger diameter than standard PCCs. Our 322 still has the Shaker wheels on it, with which it was equipped at the time we bought it back from Shaker.
Regards: Tom Fairbairn
Dave, Twin City Rapid Transit sold 20 of its PCCs to Shaker Heights. Five of those, number 340 to 344 (SHRT 51-55) were shipped as single-unit cars with no provisions for coupling or train operation. To my knowledge, those were never modified, and I've seen pictures of the single-unit cars (as well as the MU ones) running as single units. The remaining 15 (TCRT 345-359, SHRT 56-70) were modified to have 26-inch wheels, couplings and MU controls. That work was all done at the TCRT Snelling Shops using parts supplied by SHRT, and the cars were completely refurbished, tested, and painted to SHRT colors here before shipping. All cars, including those TCRT sold later to the Newark Subway (TCRT 320-339/PSCT 1-20, TCRT 360-364/PCST 21-25, and TCRT 415-419/PCST 26-30), retained their TCRT seating (55 seats plus standees), and ran that way to the end. 91 cars were shipped to Mexico City and there somewhat modified. All cars to Newark and Shaker Heights were GE-equipped, the ones to Mexico City were largely, but not entirely, Westinghouse. Our original PCC, 299, was an air-electric using the Pittsburgh seating arrangement, all the others were all-electrics.
No real disagreement with the above postings, except that in my experience, I never saw the non-mu PCC Shaker cars in actual operation, despite many visits to the property. They probably were held in reserve most of the time. If there were not modified with the larger wheels, they would not have been capable of the same top speed, and that would encourage avoidance of use. Possibly by the time I started visiting the system regularly they were more of a source of parts than operating equipment!
Also, you probably mean (at the museum) 80 people comfortably, only about 25 standees. Pack 'em in, one person every two feet along the center aisle, not counting the front platform and the area around the center door, and you get about fifty standees, and you get a capacity over a 100!
daveklepper wrote:No real disagreement with the above postings, except that in my experience, I never saw the non-mu PCC Shaker cars in actual operation, despite many visits to the property. They probably were held in reserve most of the time. If there were not modified with the larger wheels, they would not have been capable of the same top speed, and that would encourage avoidance of use. Possibly by the time I started visiting the system regularly they were more of a source of parts than operating equipment!Also, you probably mean (at the museum) 80 people comfortably, only about 25 standees. Pack 'em in, one person every two feet along the center aisle, not counting the front platform and the area around the center door, and you get about fifty standees, and you get a capacity over a 100!
************************
Hi, Dave:
Dave, we try never to operate with standees at the Museum. I was referring to what people felt comfortable with while riding in actual service. Yes, they could be packed in as tightly as you suggest, but then there was a problem for people to get out of the car at stops. Most riders did not consider that tight a pack to be acceptable. I would assume that it was possible they occasionally did get a tight pack at peak hours. However, on a 46-foot PCC, there is around 40 feet of aisle. Dividing by two for the two-foot spacing gives 20 standees, plus ten more doubled up in the forward section of the car where there were wider aisles, for a total of 30 standing. 30 plus 55 seated = 85. That would still allow for people to get to the doors to exit.
All PCCs at Shaker Heights had the 26-inch wheels. The ones Shaker bought directly from us, all 20 of them, had the wheel conversions done here at the Snelling Shops. When I looked back over what I had posted earlier, I realised that it sounded as if that was only done to the MUed cars, and I apologise for the confusion.
Our 322 was bought by Shaker Heights from the Newark Subway, one of the two cars of ours they acquired that way, and went through the full conversions at Cleveland. The Twin City cars came with standard Carnegie resilient wheels, 25-inch. The change was made by installing wheel rims that were thicker than standard to create the 26-inch diameter with a wider than normal tread, and it is very obvious in photographs that show the wheels. It also involved grinding away parts of the frame bolts that were next to the wheels to clear the flanges, and relocating and reshaping the splash fenders. Because this raised the frame of the B-2 trucks 1/2 inch further from the rails, it also required the installation of unusual mechanical limiters at each end atop track brake shoes so they couldn't get under the wheels as the bars wore down, and special longer hanger bolts for the shoes. All of those mods are still on 322, but the couplers and MU controls mods were removed and the end skirts replaced.
Reshaping of the wheel rim dishing was a very simple and elegant method of changing gauge on the PCCs, and it was easily done with the Carnegie and similar wheels with the bolts around the wheel rather than the center nut. That and changing dimensions of the track brake hangers to suit the new gauge were pretty much all that was required.
To my uncertain knowledge, none of the ex-TCRT cars became parts units, either at Shaker Heights or Newark. There are still several of them scattered about, a few still in storage at Newark, IIRC, and a considerable number in San Francisco (ex-Newark) that are currently in operation after rebuilding by Brookville. I'm not certain what has happened to other Shaker Heights PCCs, other than the one that went to Seashore. So far as I know, every one of the ones that went to Mexico City have been scrapped.
Scattered in the collections he has posted, Dave's Electric Railways has several photos of SHRT PCCs running as single units. There are maybe 15 such pictures within the collections. I did not see any of the non-MU PCCs in these photos, however. The URL is:
<http://davesrailpix.com/shrt/shrt.htm>
Possibly I was confused by one simple fact which can be answered by a question:
On Shaker, were the non-mu PCC's also equipped with couplers?
If they were, I wouldn't know them from the mu PCC's. I also saw single car operation and even rode such.
As I'm not really familiar with Shaker, I can't fully answer that question. However, the cars from TCRT that were >not< MU equipped were SHRT 51-55 (TCRT 340-344). My sources do not indicate whether they were coupler equipped. I could not see any of those numbers in the photos on Dave's Electric Railways. SHRT numbers from 56-70 did get the MU equipment and couplers installed here. According to "Electric Railways of Minnesota," quote "[These] cars ... were to be rebuilt by TCRT for train operation." From succeeding paragraphs in that publication, I would infer that the single-unit cars did not get couplers or anything else mechanical except the 26-inch wheels, but that's a guess on my part. What was done to the train-operation cars was quite detailed in the writeup. The cars that were coupler equipped retained their anti-climbers front and rear, so it would have been possible to link the cars to anything else even without couplers, with a conventional PCC drawbar which every car carried at the right rear under the floor.
*********************
Air Conditioning!!! Thats IT!! The Old PCC Cars did not have it!...Rode the last PCC in Pittsburgh on the Drake Line and even though I enjoyed the ride it was a little stuffy.
So Adding the Air Conditioning we have to be adding on the extra weight
Hi Everyone,
The information in this thread is very interesting, but the title may be a little bit misleading. The "weight" of the cars or the rail or of anything else for that matter has nothing to do with the term, "light rail". I was at the FTA, then UMTA,in the late 60's - early 70's when we were trying to find a strategy to replace obsolete vehicles and to preserve the last vestiges of streetcar lines in the few US cities that had some trackage remaining, particularly where some of the allignment was on separate right-of-way or in tunnels.
" Light Rail" was a term of art which was coined based in part on British useage and in part to differentiate these systems from "heavy rail" Metro or subway systems. At the time, "heavy rail" was already a commonly used term to describe high capacity grade separated, high volume, urban rail systems. These are also commonly characterized by multi-car trains, high platform boarding, and third rail power distribution.
In contrast, "Light Rail" systems, are medium capacity (i.e lighter capacity than heavy rail) rail lines able to operate on rights-of-way which may be dedicated, but also which may be reserved or in mixed traffic. LRT systems may use single car trains, low platform boarding, and overhead power distribution. Othr terms in the running at the time were "Limited Tramline" and City-Rail".
Remember, at the time "streetcar" was a bad word; "light rail" connoted something new and modern and was more politically acceptable! By the way, a light rail vehicle often is every bit as complex (maybe more so) than a heavy rail car, and can weigh as much or more. The rails too are more or less equivalent, except for girder rail in street running situations.
For the record, "streetcar" is not really a separate rail mode, but can be thought of as the left end of the light rail spectrum!
Regards,
X2000
Metro is the name that I see used most often in International Usage for Subway>
Tram is the name that see used often for Light Rail Applications in International railway press> Ref- As in Janes World Railways (Janes also published a plura of numoroues other refernace books such as Janes Warships, Janes Artillery, ext)
Clevelands and Baltimores Systems may have both Trams and Metros---Although in Cleveland both the light rail and the Metro (Red Line) have underground Stations. (Tower City and Airport). Clevelands high platform subway cars system is a a vestage of the 1950s when a vast subway system was on the drawing boards and bonds were passed but the subway system got killed when the County Engineer at the time refused to sign off on the bonds. and of course the Green and Blue tram system that used PCCs was a vestage of the Van Swergins who built Shaker Hts (And most of the East Side Suburbs as well as Tower City and built up the Nickle Plate and controled for a short time 1/4 of the railroads between Chicago and New York.
transitrapid wrote: Metro is the name that I see used most often in International Usage for Subway> Tram is the name that see used often for Light Rail Applications in International railway press> Ref- As in Janes World Railways (Janes also published a plura of numoroues other refernace books such as Janes Warships, Janes Artillery, ext) Clevelands and Baltimores Systems may have both Trams and Metros---Although in Cleveland both the light rail and the Metro (Red Line) have underground Stations. (Tower City and Airport). Clevelands high platform subway cars system is a a vestage of the 1950s when a vast subway system was on the drawing boards and bonds were passed but the subway system got killed when the County Engineer at the time refused to sign off on the bonds. and of course the Green and Blue tram system that used PCCs was a vestage of the Van Swergins who built Shaker Hts (And most of the East Side Suburbs as well as Tower City and built up the Nickle Plate and controled for a short time 1/4 of the railroads between Chicago and New York.
Quite right about the definitions, but problem is, once a word's meaning gets nailed down it doesn't keeping it from growing larger or morphing into something different . . . tho' usually similar. I can't speak for Canadians, but I have never heard U.S. citizens refer to a streetcar line as a "tram." I have, however, heard the term "aerial tramway" used to denote what much if not most of Europe would call a "funicular" or a similar-sounding loan word in languages other than English. I think that term has been used to apply to the mountain-climbing type as well as the amusement-park stradding type of transportation.
In Las Vegas in mid-2005, we noticed that the people-movers shuttling lateral distances from some resorts to some others (Treasure Island to Mirage, for instance) are referred to as "Tram." (Not the monorail, which is called monorail.) These "trams" appeared to be cable-hauled IIRC. Undoutedly Vegas visitors from non-English speaking countries will glom onto the four - letter "Tram" more readily than having to figure out the grammar and meaning of "people mover." Also a tramlike icon (no cat. wire, no locomotive) was employed above the word.
As in so many linguistic things, what is correct has to give way to what works. And then what works, if it hangs around long enough, itself becomes enshrined in dictionaries and so on as the correct usage.
al-in-chgo wrote: I can't speak for Canadians, but I have never heard U.S. citizens refer to a streetcar line as a "tram."
I can't speak for Canadians, but I have never heard U.S. citizens refer to a streetcar line as a "tram."
Can you speak for TVland? I remember the 1st episode of James at 15, 1978. James had just moved from Oregon to Boston, got lost in the Park St subway station. I think they had a mixture of PCC's and Boeing SLRV's (Standard Light Rail Vehicles) in the scene. One of the passersby said "I just missed my tram".
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
gardendance wrote: al-in-chgo wrote: I can't speak for Canadians, but I have never heard U.S. citizens refer to a streetcar line as a "tram."Can you speak for TVland? I remember the 1st episode of James at 15, 1978. James had just moved from Oregon to Boston, got lost in the Park St subway station. I think they had a mixture of PCC's and Boeing SLRV's (Standard Light Rail Vehicles) in the scene. One of the passersby said "I just missed my tram".
I've only heard proper Bostonians refer to that mode of transit as "streetcah" unless they name the line by street, as in "Commonwealth." Probably the MBTA (the "T") has more formal nomenclature, but IIRC "tram" isn't among the terms.
Was the writer of that show born in the British Isles?
transitrapid wrote:noticed today that Baltimore Light Rail has 6 wheel axles and 3 sets of them on the train. 1 axel set in front-1 in the middle acticulated section and 1 in back....as opposed to Cleveland Italian Breda Cars that have 4 wheel axels....Get rid of the middle articulated axel set and reduce it down to 4 wheels per unit and you lose some weight,,,,,,
Perhaps one of the systems uses low-to-the-ground cars and one doesn't? And if so, perhaps the demands of keeping things low-to-the-ground requires that the trucks stay put in their traditional place at the end of cars or, if semi-articulated, the Breda cars have to dispense with the intermediate trucks to allow smooth passenger crossing between cars?
I don't have the right to say that one design is more advanced than the other, but does anyone know which system (Cleveland -- is it Airport or Shaker Heights??) or Baltimore (line to BWI I'm assuming) has the newer cars?
When I first started thinking about modern LRT design, I feared that the whole world was being "Siemens-ized." But now it seems (to my fevered little brain anyway) that there are a variety of design concepts and load-bearing solutions coming out of different firms in different countries all the time.
Anyone care to comment on any of that??
daveklepper wrote:Frankly, I think you are mistaken. The Shaker Heights Breda truck arrangement and the Boston Kinky-Sharo 8 truck arrangement are both the same. Both are single articulated, two car bodies with a center articulation joint above of center truck. On both designs the center truck is without motors and the end trucks each have two motors. (Just possibly the Breda motor truck has only one mono-motor with gears at both ends driving two axles, but this would be the only exception.) Boston also has low-floor Bredas, (their newest cars, just finally debugged after a too-long problem period) and the center truck is unusual with stub axles to accomodate the low floor, but this has become fairly typical for low-floor cars. The Shaker cars and the older Kinky-Sharo cars are not low floor but require using steps to board from sidewalk level.
If I am following you correctly, then the articulation (not motive power) is like a two-unit RoadRailer, axle-arrangement at each end and the same in the middle. Total of three. - a.s.
The P.C.C. I thought was of the finest trams (streetcars) ever to be made. Never had the chance to ride one, but I ride streetcars made after it, the Czheck "Tatra" T4R and T4D (theT4* is the 4th version, T1 it was the streetcar made after P.C.C.). Man, one of the finest streetcars ever to be made in Eastern-Europe. The T4R in Bucharest, when they where bought in the '70's could reach 80-90 km/s (50-56 mph). Some of them still run fast. Pitty that streetcars are gone from most U.S.A. cityes. The people can't see now those wounderfoul P.C.C.'s, streetcars very advance for theyr times.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.