Similarities:
Mostly on private right-of-way, but occasional street running
Greater following topography of the land, with less cutting and filling than standard railroads.
Frequency of stops greater than standard railroads
Overhead wire current distribution with dc typical, with exceptions.
One-man operator collecting fares and running the car/train possible, with exceptions
Passenger service the main reason for construction, but freight can be important from zero to possibly more important than the passenger service in practice in a few cases.
Road grade crossings typical, over or underpasses not typical, the exceptions
Single car operation up to seven or eight-car trains, but the longer trains the exceptions.
Differences
Interurbans used mosly double-truck cars, articulated cars were exceptions, the Electroliners, Milwaukee Electric, and Washington Baltimore and Anapolis. Modern LRVs are almost all articulated 12-wheel and 16-wheel vehicles
750V DC usual instead of 550-600V DC.
Proof-of-payment fare sysems typical for LRT as opposed to on-board fare collection and manual ticket checking for classic interurbans.
Pantographs typical for LRT, trolley poles for classic interurbans
Onboard communications to passengers via public address and/or visual screens for LRT, but not for classic interurbans
Handycapped access for all LRTs, often with low-floor cars, but not considered with classic interurbans.
Interurbans handled their own freight business and used elecric power, while freight on light rail is handled by a separate freight railroad using diesel power.
Interurbans were private tax-paying companies, while LRT is usually govenment owned and subidized.
Per what Dave said:
Let me suggest to any who haven't read it the Classic Trains Summer 2013 issue, the "Interurban Special". It's available as a back-issue.
I'm not particularly interested in interurbans but this issue was absolutely fascinating and held my interest from the first page to the last.
This one didn't make it to the recycle bin! It's that good!
daveklepper Similarities: Mostly on private right-of-way, but occasional street running Greater following topography of the land, with less cutting and filling than standard railroads. Frequency of stops greater than standard railroads Overhead wire current distribution with dc typical, with exceptions. One-man operator collecting fares and running the car/train possible, with exceptions Passenger service the main reason for construction, but freight can be important from zero to possibly more important than the passenger service in practice in a few cases. Road grade crossings typical, over or underpasses not typical, the exceptions Single car operation up to seven or eight-car trains, but the longer trains the exceptions. Differences Interurbans used mosly double-truck cars, articulated cars were exceptions, the Electroliners, Milwaukee Electric, and Washington Baltimore and Anapolis. Modern LRVs are almost all articulated 12-wheel and 16-wheel vehicles 750V DC usual instead of 550-600V DC. Proof-of-payment fare sysems typical for LRT as opposed to on-board fare collection and manual ticket checking for classic interurbans. Pantographs typical for LRT, trolley poles for classic interurbans Onboard communications to passengers via public address and/or visual screens for LRT, but not for classic interurbans Handycapped access for all LRTs, often with low-floor cars, but not considered with classic interurbans. Interurbans handled their own freight business and used elecric power, while freight on light rail is handled by a separate freight railroad using diesel power. Interurbans were private tax-paying companies, while LRT is usually govenment owned and subidized.
Most of the differences you list are due to the advance of time, with subsequent advances in technology ( use of pans, articulated cars, low floor with political pressure [ADA] etc.) changes in the political environment ( public vs. private ownership, ADA etc.) and subsequent structure issues (publicly owned transit agencies not handling freight). Are there any cases where an all "new" LRT line has freight service? I think it's almost all on LRT routes that were built on active freight ROW.
Your comments are correct in entirety. Regarding the last, again you are correct, but there is always a possibility for the future. Why not? All it takes is an industry along a new LRT line seeing an opportunity to move from truck receipt and distribution to rail by making the investments necessary for the sidings and witches and, if not already present, the interchangne facilities where the LRT and the frieght railroad abut or cross. I think eventually we will see one or two examples.
daveklepper Your comments are correct in entirety. Regarding the last, again you are correct, but there is always a possibility for the future. Why not? All it takes is an industry along a new LRT line seeing an opportunity to move from truck receipt and distribution to rail by making the investments necessary for the sidings and witches and, if not already present, the interchangne facilities where the LRT and the frieght railroad abut or cross. I think eventually we will see one or two examples.
A couple of other differences you might add to your list. Interurbans often handled time sensitive "freight" on its passenger trains, like package express, milk or newspaper. This could have been done in the motor man's vestibule, a combine or a seperate express car. Interurbans often entered cities on someone else's tracks (local street railway) with the resulting provision of two levels of service along that segment, streetcar and Interurban. Interurbans frequently had very minimalist structures at stops. Interurbans frequently had only primitive if any signal systems. Interurban ROW was usually unprotected (no fence). Most LRT operations provide far more frequent service than the Interurbans. Oh well just a few thoughts.
Concerning freight on an LRT line, part of the proposed rehabbbing of the old Erie Northern Branch in NJ is building it to freight standards so in the off hours freight deliveries can still be made to the few remaining CSX customers on the line.
That's assuming it ever GETS rebuilt into a LRT line.
The new Denver Fasttracks system could be interurban as well.
wothwhile additionns, bus, thanks!
The Lehigh Valley Transit Company's interurban Liberty Bell Route from Allentown PA to Philadelphia had two types of freight operations: Newspaper and perhaps other station-bound small express items were handled aboard a limited-stop high-speed interurban passenger coach, and purpose-built trolley freight cars ran in up to 3-car trains with package contents. I believe that theirs was reputed to be the last trolley freight operation in the US, ending in September 1951, when I rode the last passenger run. See the 1989 book "Liberty Bell Route" by William J. McKelvey.
Although I haven't been near the place in about 10 years, the East Troy rural trolley operation in Wisconsin, now owned by that municipality, has survived due to a freight-originating facility along the line. Passenger trips are run during the tourist season, and dinner trains or the like at other times. I believe that its history exceeds 100 years.
I think the main difference between the "classic" kind of interurban (more later on what I mean by this term) and a modern light rail system isn't so much the distinction between the "old" technology they used in the early 20th century and the "modern" technology of today. Rather, it was the type of service performed.
Modern light rail systems are commuter railroads. Most "classic" interurbans were not - they were essentially rural streetcar lines, albeit often capable of higher speeds on open track than a city streetcar. They were mostly designed, not for commuter service, but for short distance, town to town, or town to city travel for people like traveling salesmen, casual travellers and the like (and were a vast improvement in the local transportation available at the time). Most "classic interurbans" would have made very poor commuter roads, primarily because of lengthy street running, in both the large and small communities they served. When interurbans were built, street running was often considered an asset, because it allowed service right into the centers of cities and towns, which facilitated the cheap, local service that most of them were trying to provide. But it became a curse as street traffic exploded with the growth of the automobile
This was an important reason for the virtual extinction of the interurban rail industry in the 1930's - the local services they were designed to perform was easily performed by the automobiles of the period. People simply stopped riding the trolleys and took their cars instead - easy to do with the availability of cheap autos and the explosive growth of hard paved rural highways in the 1920's and 30's. A modern (albeit non-transportation) parallel is the decline of printed newpapers in favor of electronic media.
Had interurbans been able to transform themselves into relatively high speed commuter operations (like a modern light rail rapid transit line) they would have been better able to survive the onslaught of the automobile (true, the poor economics of commuter rail service would have eventually done them in, but they at least would have been performing a service that people continued to use). And, if you look at the relative handful of "interurbans" that survived the 1930's, most of the survivors were roads which had physical plants that enabled them to make this transformation - think North Shore Line, CA&E and South Shore Line in Chicago, Pacific Electric in California, Laurel Line in Pennsylvania, and others like them.
Another characteristic of most interurbans which survived the 1930's is interchange carload freight, which most "classic interurbans" were physically unable to handle. The three Chicago area lines that survived the 1930's handled appreciable volumes of carload freight (some more than others), unlike the Chicago area roads that didn't survive, Ditto the Illinois Terminal (an important freight road which was less of a commuter road than the surviving Chicago lines, although it had a decent commuter operation in the St. Louis area) and the Pacific Electric in California (the PE, in fact, was one of the heaviest carload freight carriers in California).
Of course, whenever one makes generalizations as I've just made, there are always going to be outliers. And the Lehigh Valley Transit Company has to be one of the most fascinating outliers in the interurban industry. Right to its end (1951), it was still performing services of a "classic interurban", although I imagine much of its traffic near Philadelphia and Allentown had taken on a commuter like service towards the end (the ability to reach the 69th Street rapid transit terminal over the high speed P&W with connections to the Philadephia rapid transit system was an advantage few "classic" interurbans had). I don't think that LV handled any carload interchange freight either. It was proably the last of the "classic interurbans."
"But wait" you may say. "LRT systems have a lot of street running too". Well, that's true. They certainly have street running, but nowhere near the amount of street running that most "classic" interurbans had. For example, the Lake Shore Electric (Cleveland-Toledo) - one of the better built "classic interurbans", had lengthy street running in its terminal cites and many of its intermediate communities, both large and small. While it had some commuter service (particularly in the Cleveland area), it was trivial compared to the commuter services of roads like the North Shore. LSE's only chance of developing into a major commuter carrier was to get off the streets, something that was far beyond its financial resources. Now, contrast this with the street running on modern light rail systems - say San Diego, Los Angeles or Dallas Yes, they have street running. But it's not miles upon miles of street running fighting city street traffic and stuck behind city streetcars stopping at every block from the city limits to downtown. In the three cities I mentioned, the LRT street running portions are mostly in reserved traffic lanes and aren't very long (someone may point out that a good portion of the LSE's street running was side of the road through the west side of Cleveland. But the interurbans still got stuck behind city streetcars, stoppping every block so it wasn't exactly a high speed operation).
Finally, to my knowledge, the East Troy operation is no longer hauling carload freight and hasn't done so in some time. In fact, I'm told by someone I know who works for CN that the switch between the East Troy trackage and the CN (ex WC, ex Soo) at Muckwanago has been removed. Also, I believe the municipality no longer owns it - it's been sold to the historic group that runs the tourist trolley operation.
Wow, Falcon, great post !! Per my knowledge, LVT never handled interchange freight (no equipment with RR couplers) although it did have two interchange track connections of its own: One in Allentown (don't remember the RR) and one near Hatfield (Reading RR). The latter was reputedly used during construction of the line in the early 1900s and the former was used when LVT parlor car #1030 (ex IRR #55) departed on a Pere Marquette flatcar (I watched the tie-down process) for the Seashore trolley museum. Via LVT's trackage connection with the Philadelphia and Western, there was also access to an interchange track near P&W's 69th St. Terminal, which might've been used for rail delivery of new trolley cars from the Brill plant.
Falcon48 Finally, to my knowledge, the East Troy operation is no longer hauling carload freight and hasn't done so in some time. In fact, I'm told by someone I know who works for CN that the switch between the East Troy trackage and the CN (ex WC, ex Soo) at Muckwanago has been removed. Also, I believe the municipality no longer owns it - it's been sold to the historic group that runs the tourist trolley operation.
I find your list of similarities and differences accurate overall, but I'd add, if it's not too obvious, that LRT is usually intra-urban, or at most connects a large city and its suburbs, whereas classic interurban operation connected more distant cities & towns with each other.
Pittsburgh is an example of both. Port Authority's LRT system matches all the criteria on your "similarities" list except that during rush hours only, fares at busy stations are collected at off-car booths and two-car trains are the norm. Otherwise the operator collects fares, both cash and tap cards. All 85 LRVs are articulated with pantagraphs. It's a passenger only system, no freight, as with the trackage rights on San Diego's system. (Some European systems handle urban freight off-hours in specially designed LRVs.)
Pittsburgh's 14 mi. Blue Line/Library, has both an LRT and interurban flavor. Like the Red/Beechview/Castle Shannon and Blue/South Hills Village Lines, it runs from the new Allegheny Station on the north side, under the Allegheny River, through the downtown subway and Mt. Washington transit tunnel to So. Hills Jct. The two Blues Lines then use the modern, cab signalled Overbrook line to Willow Station and on to Washington Jct., where the Library and So. Hills Village Lines part ways.
From Washington Jct. to Library, the Blue/Library line has a definite interurban look and ride. Even the signals are interurban era relics, with a few updated exceptions, such as Library terminal. It's quite a contrast!
Until 1953, this line was part of Pittsburgh Rlwys Co's. interurban service to Charleroi, PA, about 25 mi. south of Pittsburgh. It, and a 25 mi. line to Washington, PA, were plied by specially outfitted PCCs and older equipment before them.
Lastly, Philadelphia's system also has both LRT and interurban aspects, using two-trucked cars, not articulateds, with trolley poles, not pantagraphs.
The new Denver light rail line to Golden is suburban service in nature, but much of the line is built on the old Denver & Intermountain (an interurban) ROW. Some of the distinction between the two types in this case came about with the passage of time. In interurban times, I remember a Lucius Beebe photo of the line going thru fields of wildflowers. On the modern line, suburbia has fillled in between Denver and Golden.
highgreen Lastly, Philadelphia's system also has both LRT and interurban aspects, using two-trucked cars, not articulateds, with trolley poles, not pantagraphs.
Trolley poles on the city division. The 2 suburban light rail routes use pantographs. The other suburban sort of light rail route, by many accounts the other "last of the interurbans", route 100 Norristown Philadelphia and Wester, uses 3rd rail, and has done so since 1907.
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
Legally, the Philadelphia and Western, now the 100 SEPTA route, the Norristown Line, was built as a railroad, and there were big plans for it being part of a long-distance line that never got farther from Straford or Norristown. Since it is entirely grade seperated, without any street-running or grade crossings, uses high-platform-only cars with high-platform stations, it lacks the basic characteristics of a typical interurban, and more of a heavy rapid transit line, or at least a suburban modern light rail line. But for many years, up to a date in 1949, the Lehigh Valley Transit's Liberty Bell Rout used the line to access the 69th Street, Market Street Rapid Transit Terminal, and it was about as typical of a fine interurban line, one of the best, as possible.
Regarding inter-city operation, the second Twin Cities light rail line certainly links two cities, and the eastern St. Louis line does also, since Bellville is itself a center of employment, and I am confident that there are users of the line, east and west of Belleville that commute to Bellville and not St. Louis, plus the usual non-commuter "intercity" more casual use of the line. Pittsbugh's operatons are of course wide-gauge, precluding any interchange freight. They are remanants of true interurban lines (rode them), and at one time Pittsburgh Railways did have its own Trolley-Freight businesss, through routing with the two West Penn Railway divisions, also wide-gauge.
Regarding the two remaining suburban Red Arrow overhead-wire lines, one cannot call them interurbans in my opinion, not long enough, strictly suburban. But the abandoned line to Westchester was far longer and did get commuter traffic in both directions. In those days the Westchester, Ardmore, Media, and Sharon Hill lines were all operated with trolley poles. The mixture of equipment included wood Jewett arch-window typical interurban cars (the 40-series), heavy center-door mu cars, often runing in two-car trains with three-man crews, the Brill suburban take-off on the Master-Unit lightweight designs, the 1939 adaption of the Brilliner design with the same electrical and mechanical equipment as the previous lightweights, and the 1947-1948 PCC bodies with more rapid-transit like electrical and mechanical equipment, with mu capabilities.
Long street-running sections and being held up by local streetcars was not necessariy typical. C&AE had very little street-running and none shared with local streetcars. The North Shore's Milwaukee entrance was shared with their own local cars, but scheduling apparently resulted with very little delay to the Chicago trains, none if all was running on shedule, and the North Shore did run a pretty tight ship. The South Shore does have street running in Michigan City and had some in East Chicago and South Bend, but not shared with local cars. The Laural Line used trolley wire in Willksbarre because of multiple grade crossings, but had no street running. Pacific Electric's Glendale-Burbank line, with its subway entrance to downtown LA is another example after its freeway center-strip relocation.
Thanks for the correction, Gardendance. I should come over and ride SEPTA to Media sometime. Never done that. Also, I *did* misspell "pantograph." Ugh!
South Shore's street running on Chicago Ave. in East Chicago was shared with its own local service to Indiana Harbor in the pre-Insull era. The local cars were discontinued around 1926.
highgreen, I'm so ashamed. How could I have missed a chance for a double header? I should have corrected you for the misspelling :)
By the way, instead of using catenary, SEPTA's 2 suburban light rail lines use simple trolley wire, with span wires between poles substantial enough to carry catenary.
Did not know about the E. Chicago local service. If this was pre-1926, it meant 25Hz ac equipment, not the current 1500v dc, which was instituted around 1926. Earlier, South Shore trains were hauled from Kensington to Randolf Street by IC Forney steam locomotives, like the IC suburban trains themselves. Can you describe the local cars or post a picture? The interurban cars of that period were, if my memoroy is correct, the usual wood arch-windowed cars typical of Niles or Jewett, even though possibly built by Pullman. All were replaced by new steel cars with the change in electrification to conform with IC's,1500V-dc.
During the period you mention, surely schedules were arranged so local cars never delayed the interurbans.
I should also comment on LVT's freight business. It could reach the national railroad system through the Philadelphia and Western (Norristown Line), but the sharp streetcar curves in the short distance of street running just north of the ramp from the P&W elevated Norristown station would have prevented handling regular freight cars lacking radial drawbars. The LVT Philadelphia Freighthouse was located on P&W (at the end Red Arrow) property southwest of the 69th St. terminal, and the freight trains continued through service to that point after passenger service was cut back to interchange with the Red Arrow P&W service at the Norristown Station. In the winter of 1950-1951, another MIT undergraduate, Dick Hamen, and I were railfanning and were at the LVT Fairview yards, where we met Charlie Hauser, who was about to run a three-car freight to Philadelphia. I had already ridden two fantrips where Charlie had been operator, and he offered us the chance to ride the back platform of the last car. We jumped at the chance. He was very specific as to where we should duck down out of sigiht, and we complied with his wishes.
At the time, the LVT was not advertizing freight service itself. Its freight service was under contract to a local truck company which determined it could save money by using trolley frieght instead of running its own trucks, despite transfer costs at the freight houses. No local work was performed on the trip we rode, the train ran through, stopping only where requjired for meets on the single-track line.
All three cars probably were ex-passenger wood motors, retaining end platforms, new full-height side sheathing without windows and with a large center sliding door. Maroon red with yellow-cream lettering. Probably, because the center car may possibly have been a de-motored trailer.
gardendancehighgreen, I'm so ashamed. How could I have missed a chance for a double header? I should have corrected you for the misspelling :)
Well, he didn't correct you for "Wester" so I guess you're even.
Don't you mean I misspelled "Webster"?
There is one freight-carrying streetcar system and it's in Dresden, Germany. It serves the Volkswagen plant that was only allowed to be built near a large park if it was served by the streetcar system as the city didn't want more trucks on the roads. The cars themselves look like any European tram, but with no windows and large doors on each side to carry new cars out of the plant to the rail yard. I've been by the plant and sure enough, streetcar tracks go through a gate into a loading area. Interesting for sure.
If you study the issues of "division " of service time on the joint -- Conrail/NJT -- RiverLine you can see why transit operators would probably be opposed to starting freight service. Aside from the issues getting FRA permission in the first place, the freight service requirements have limited the usefulness of the light rail line. Service doesn't begin as early in the morning as some would like and terminates fairly early in the evening on week days. Luckily there is no need for freight service on Sat. night so the light rail service is available to those wishing to spend an evening in downtown Philly.
gardendanceDon't you mean I misspelled "Webster"?
Not unless there is a "Philadelphia and Webster" in this discussion somewhere. If there is, I must have missed it.
THE PROBLEM WITH THE TIME SHARING ON THE RIVER LINE IS THAT CONRAIL MADE DEMANDS IN LINE WITH ITS FRIEGHT REQUIREMENTS AS A CONDITION FOR SELLING THE LINE TO THE STATE. ON A NEW LIGHT RAIL LINE WITH TYPICAL DISTANCES A ONE AM TO FIVE AM FREIGHT WINDOW SHOUJLD BE SUFFICIENT AND NOT CAUSE DISRUPTION TO PASSENGER REVENUES, ESPECIALLY IF EXTENDED TO TWO AM SUNDAY MORNING.
EVEN THEN SUBSTITUTE BUS SERVICE HOURLY DURING THE ONE AM TO FIVE PERIOD WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA IF AVAILABLE ROADS ARE CLOSEBY.
NJ Transit's Riverline does have available roads close by, and even has bus routes plying those roads. I haven't looked at historical schedules from before the Riverline started in 2004, but those bus routes have less than hourly headways after the last Riverline trip. To me that suggests that there might not be enough demand to warrant rail service.
daveklepper Long street-running sections and being held up by local streetcars was not necessariy typical. C&AE had very little street-running and none shared with local streetcars. The North Shore's Milwaukee entrance was shared with their own local cars, but scheduling apparently resulted with very little delay to the Chicago trains, none if all was running on shedule, and the North Shore did run a pretty tight ship. The South Shore does have street running in Michigan City and had some in East Chicago and South Bend, but not shared with local cars. The Laural Line used trolley wire in Willksbarre because of multiple grade crossings, but had no street running. Pacific Electric's Glendale-Burbank line, with its subway entrance to downtown LA is another example after its freeway center-strip relocation.
As an aside, none of the railroads you mention were considered electric interurban railroads by the Interstate Commerce Commission. By the 1930's, the ICC considered all of them to be electrified parts of the general steam railroad system of transportation.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.