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.
Fred Boyer, that is really great news! Those cars are very interesting, and I have good memories of riding them a few years back...
Highliner Picture:http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=562686
We have already received the IC 1502 placed in Hoosier Valley Railroad Museum, North Judson, IN. 1502 was the first double deck electric received by the IC. 1501 was held at the plant for repair.
I wish 127 had her truck skirts put back on! She doesn't look as good without them.
The Brill trucks actually remind me a bit of Blombergs...but then again any trucks with leaf springs and outside journal boxes do...
Going back to the Key System: comparing the suburban and interurbans:
Interurban http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=59601&nseq=16
Suburban http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3086410
Thanks for the good news about the Orange Empire FJ&G 127. I hope they restore it to operation. The Red Arrow semi-Master Unit 1931 Brills and the semi-Brilliner 1939 Brills had identacle trucks and motors. I checked this out several times when these cars were in operation. And they were excellent, reliable, fast, comfortable cars. But so were the 1948 St. Louis cars.
NorthWest Dave, one of the FJ&G cars is cosmetically restored at the Orange Empire Railway Museum
Dave, one of the FJ&G cars is cosmetically restored at the Orange Empire Railway Museum
That's #127, which appears in The Interurban Era by William Middleton. OERM bought a couple of the Brill Bullet trucks to put underneath the body.
- Erik
Red Arrow's Brill cars were not standard models either...the "Master Units" had different trucks and motors from the other Master Units, and the "Brilliners" also had different trucks than their streetcar kin, and were double ended.
Dave, one of the FJ&G cars is cosmetically restored at the Orange Empire Railway Museum.
Regarding the Philadelphia and Western standard-guage "Bullets," they were actually built in 1929, and despite the futuristic design, were very conventional mechanically and electrically, about the same as a Low-V IRT car, but with light-weight construction and higher-speed gearing. They were mu and designed for high-platform level boarding. Their junior cousins were built in 1931 for the Fonda Johnstown and Glkoversville, that ran into Schenectidy, NY, and ended up on the Bamberger. They were built for streetcar-type boarding and were not mu. Some bodies have been preserved inside a restaurant (Trolley Square, possibly an old carbarn building) in Salt Lake City, so some day in the future we might see one of the FJ&G cars restored. It would be logical to equip one with modern propulsion and mechanical equipment and run it on MAX.
Pictures:
Red Arrow car: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1563032
PCC SF stand-in: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1750973
Note differences in trucks...
1. Note there is an identacle car, in the later orange and blue colors, awaiting restoration
2. Which musuem is this?
3. Is it standard gauge with the Philly cars regauged or is it wide gauge.
4. The longer wheelbase outside framed trucks are clearly visable in the side view.
5. Shore Line Trolley (Branford) also has one. Needs lots of work.
6. You can view the true PCC SF car painted to look like 14 but with its SF number at www.streetcar.org
daveklepper NOT referring to the standard guage Brill Bullet cars ... Referring to the 1948 St. Louis - built wide-gauge suburban cars ... [which] had drop-equalizer outside-frame trucks, larger motors than PCC's, 14 or 18-step cam control, electrically and mechanically more similar to the 1931 and 1939 Brill cars than to a PCC. 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.
NOT referring to the standard guage Brill Bullet cars ... Referring to the 1948 St. Louis - built wide-gauge suburban cars ... [which] had drop-equalizer outside-frame trucks, larger motors than PCC's, 14 or 18-step cam control, electrically and mechanically more similar to the 1931 and 1939 Brill cars than to a PCC. 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.
I actually enjoy learning something new after I miss something.
Here's an interesting link that shows details of restored #14:
watch?v=0QsFVPTeR E
NOT referring to the standard guage Brill Bullet cars. Nor to the 1931 or 1939 Brill wide-gauge non-mu suburban cars. Referring to the 1948 St. Louis - built wide-gauge suburban cars, one of which is represented by paint scheme only by one of the San Francisco double-end St. Louis-built PCC cars, which is a PCC car with the body identacle to the Red Arrow non-PCC St. Louis-built cars.
The Bullets ran 69th - Norristown (Very seldom to Stratford)
The 1948 St. Louis cars ran 69th - West Chester, Ardmore, Media, Sharon Hill, as did the 1931 and 1939 wide-gauge Brill cars, the latter the very last rail cars built by Brill.
The 1948 St. Louis cars had drop-equalizer outside-frame trucks, larger motors than PCC's, 14 or 18-step cam control, electrically and mechanically more similar to the 1931 and 1939 Brill cars than to a PCC. 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.
daveklepperThe Red Arrow cars were NOT PCC cars even with PCC-type bodies.
They sure weren't!
But why would anyone confuse a Brill Bullet with a PCC car? That's like confusing a Stout Scarab with the KdF-Wagen. (Or, perhaps, as Lionel did, PRR 4768 with 6100... ;-} )
Agreed. The important thing is that the standard PCC design was modified for almost every fleet, and so a standard car design was a basis for the evolution of a car for each system's needs.
You are correct, in that the "Spam Cans" and the initial Cleveland rapid transit cars, the Blue cars, were PCC cars. However, we can differentiate between PCC streetcars and interurban cars, and PCC rapid transit cars. The former do not have trrain doors and are built for loading and unloading from the street, while the rapid transit cars load and unload from high-level platforms and have train doors.
The Red Arrow cars were NOT PCC cars even with PCC-type bodies.
And if you wished to call the PE, IT and Pittsburgh Railways Charleroi and Washington lines 1700's interurban PCC cars, I would not object, but neither would I insist upon it.
About defining a PCC: In "PCC, the Car That Fought Back", it is stated that a PCC car is defined by its patents. Consequently, a PCC car can be as varied in appearance as a CTA "Green Hornet", a Pacific Electric double-ended car, a CTA 6000-series rapid transit car, the first batch of Cleveland rapid transit cars from the 1950's or any number of European streetcars.
Like the "standard PCC"*, the many variations of electric passenger railways mean that the terms light rail, streetcar, and interurban are often blurred, and a system may have components of all three. Sometimes even heavy rail or railroads are classified in different ways than are logical. For example, PATH, which is a railroad, is essentially a heavy rail system, and the DLR is not light rail.
*The PCC had many variations, including some for the PSTC which had a much higher speed and different trucks, making them technically not PCCs. But they look the same, and so this provides an example of the blur between streetcar and interurban.
I classify the Bridge Units as interurbans, because of their top speed. Most streetcars could not break 55MPH.
Excellent explanaition, and I agree completely. I think the equipment came from steel-frame wood cars with cleristory roofs, vestibules at each end also used as the engineers control location on the right of the train doors, mu capability (which few real streetcars had, except Boston, since it would be possible to catagorize the Illinoix Terminal and Pacific Electric PCC's as interurban cars, rather than streetcars.). Boston's center-entrance mu cars and PCC's really were a special case, and resulted from the heavy service given by trolley cars, streetcars, actually used as rapid transit cars, in the "Green Line" subway.
The Key Bridge Units did have mu capabilitiy and used it. So did the Philadelephia and Western Bullets. The Fonda Johnstown and Gloversville Bullets did not, and did not on the Bamberger. But certainly a run from Salt Lake City counts as an interurban run even without mu equipment!
efftenxrfeWhat's an interurban, if that criterion applies?
The simplest way to describe it is that interurban cars were heavier and faster than typical streetcars, optimized for traveling longer distances, and often more like 'real railroad' equipment than something used as a frequently-stopping tram service. They could be, and often were, operated as streetcars in cities, but were capable of more.
While a common feature of interurban railways was operation on dedicated ROWs to allow higher speed and safer grade separation, the mere absence of undeveloped sections 'between cities' .doesn't disqualify the design. The Key System operated both interurban and streetcar (e.g. as Oakland Traction) services.
It's an interesting question, though, whether the articulated 'bridge units' counted as streetcars or interurbans. They are very reminiscent of some modern designs of LRV. Personally, I'd class them as 'interurban-grade' equipment, just as I do the Brill Bullets on the P&W, basing the distinction on the speed and sophistication of the running gear more than on the seating or access configuration.
I was thinking more of the kind of cars being scrapped that Key chose for salvaging electricals and mechanicals.
Dave Klepper, I highly respect your vast knowledge of railroad...., transit....,pasgr....., commuter....., that I suggest that I'm half vastly unable to talk about whether the Key System, when the (Bay) bridge cars were assembled, was an urban or an interurban outfit. That it served Elmhurst, Oakland, Emeryville, Berkely, Albany, Richmond and San Francisco would identify it was "inter" among urban sites.
Physically it mostly looked like a street car operation; most of those locations were contiguous, no rural or unpopulated areas 'tween them.
What's an interurban, if that criteria applies?
corperations do not donate eguipment to a museum so the elite can play with there full size train set. they donate to preserve and educate the public about our heratige. The st louis museum has an extensive collection of everything they could get. once it is gone it ain't coming back. If you beleive some company president sacrificed the scrap value of an asset so some one could play "train set"then they do not belong in the museum business. buy your own stuff, lay your own track and run what u own. even if it does not fit the motiff in 50 years it can be traded, sold or barttered for what we need. the excuse that it does not run on "our" track is sad. did you buy that track or are you the custodian?
One issue that has arisen with some such proposals is that modern equipment simply cannot negotiate the track of the places that are the most obvious potential "home" for such cars: trolley and transit museums, which typically have sharp street-trackage-style curves. I've already heard the "no way they can fit" argument from the National Capital Trolley Museum with regards to a Washington Metro car set, even assuming you use trolley poles.
Should not that be scrapped interurban cars?
BART is not standard guage----a tad wider....and it uses 3rd rail, not catenary.
The lives of the Key's articulateds were influenced by them utilizing electric gear from otherwise scrapped street cars....virtually 20 or 30 years older than their construction dates.
But do preserve them.
Transit equipment usually has more interest to the general public then freight railroads, due to the amount of ridership, and as such, awareness. I do see the preservation of this rolling stock because of that.
081552I just read that Toronto may convert the Scarborough Line to heavy rail. When the UTDC cars are retired, will the go to a museum?
Maybe to Vancouver Skytrain? They use the same stock...
And we should applaud those transit systems that maintain and even operate old equipment, such as the New York City Transit Authority with its Transit Museum and Nostalgia Specials. I understand that when finally retired, at least one pair of R32's will be preserved as examples of the very first large production run of stainless steel North American rapid transit cars.
I have always been a fan of "then and now" exhibits. A series of parallel tracks with an example of each one in a progression from the first to the current would be quite informative, particularly to young people.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
In a similar vein, the Illinois Railway Museum has a rather diverse collection of CTA equipment, including a recently retired 2200 series married pair.
Hopefully the answer will be yes, for these and other relatively modern rolling stock and locomotives. The challenge is always to ease at least one example of "whatever" so it survives into the future. Immediately after retirement the general public (and company) regards them as old junk, yet too modern to be museum pieces. The mindset is that museums are for old stuff like steam engines and heavyweight cars. First Generation diesel preservation suffered because of this mindset even within the railfan fraternity.
History continues to be made as you have pointed out. Our challenge is to identify important pieces running today that merit preservation into the future. The other side of the coin is to also identify those pieces that attract fondness from the railfans because of their rarity, but whose preservation for emotional reasons would cause more representative and important pieces to be lost forever. Resources are limited today and there is every likelihood that this will get worse in the future. We can't save everything; clear rational focus is imperative.
John
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.