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)
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)
************************************************************************************************ 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)?
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?
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.
Partial Quote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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
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
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: 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
You're absolutely right, and I can point to the cat. towers on the western (Skokie) end of the Skokie Swift. The wires are gone and the entire Swift's route (ca. five miles) is on shoe but there seems to be little hurry in getting the towers down. - a. s.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: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
Catenary is far more stable for high speed than simple strung wire.
Just thinking about the Kenosha trolley now operating, it was this area that the whole interurban lines grew out of in the early 1900's, Line mergers and buyouts then finally Insull developed the North Shore. Maybe the Kenosha line is one of the longest with an interruption.
Maybe this says a message and grow new lines again, North Shore revisited? One hopes.
al-in-chgo wrote: 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)?
The SF quake/fire was 1906. As for the MUNI, I seem to recall reading a book about the 1915 world's fair (the Panama-Pacific International Exhibition) that mentioned that the MUNI impressively handled the crowd transportation despite having been only recently formed...so I'd guess that MUNI dates from 1912-1914?
Now, off to Google Search to see if I'm correct.
The oldest trolley line continuously operated as an electric railway or trolley line is the stretch of the "C" Beacon Street Green Line route from the tunnel portal at St. Mary's Street to Harvard Street in Brooklyn along Beacon Street. This stretch was converted from horsecar to electricity by Frank Sprague in 1888, with public operation staring on January First 1889. Whitney, owner of the West End Street Railway of Boston, visited the original Sprague operation in Richmond in 1887 and immediately signed the contract with Sprague. The original route was from Alston along Commonwealth or Brighton Avenue (part of the abandoned Watertown-Subway "A" route, then along Harvard Street to Beacon, Beacon to Kenmore Square, Boylston Street to Tremont Street, Tremont Street to Haymarket or North Station. A year later the extension out Beacon Street to Cleveland Circle/Reservoir was electrified. Then in 1898 the original Subway was opened, with trolleys removed from Tremont Street and put underground. The subway was extended to east of Kenmore Square later and then to St. Mary's Street west of Kenmore Square, replacing surface operation of this line. So the Green "C" route is both the first and the second of the continuously line operating as a trolley line.
Another early contendor, possibly no 3, is the Metro North New Canaan Branch from Stamford Station to New Canaan, electrified as a trolley or light rail (all PRW) line in 1901, but then converted to high voltage electrification for through service to New York about 1912-1914.
st. Charles, New Orleans, is the oldest continuously operating street railway, but was electrified after the above.
Most San Fransisco lines were electrified immediately after the 1906 fire, since electrification was quicker than rebuilding as cable. This includes anything operating today exluding recent expansion.
If one includes interurbans,the South Shore Line started out as the Chicago Lake Shore and South Bend around 1906.
espeefoamer wrote: If one includes interurbans,the South Shore Line started out as the Chicago Lake Shore and South Bend around 1906.
The original operation was styled the Chicago & Indiana Air Line and opened in 1906 operating a streetcar service between East Chicago and Indiana Harbor. The name was changed to Chicago Lake Shore & South Bend and began operating between Hammond and South Bend in 1908. The local service was discontinued in 1926 when the Insull interests purchased the line. I would hold that South Shore metamorphosed from an interurban into an electric railroad during the period from 1942 to about 1958. I would point to the lengthened and air-conditioned MU coaches, Little Joes and R2's as evidence of this metamorphosis.
In transit use, there are not "hard lines", past or present. Example: the S-70 LRT Seimens cars are thought to be LRT cars. Yet Houston METRO's can run at 66mph/110kmh. Not only that, the French Railways are buying some as EMU sets for commuter rail in Paris, France. Now I don't think they could run on the NEC with the present regs!
The Norristown High Speed line: Is it LRT, Commuter Rail, or Heavy Rail? A hybird of each, I think.
Also, the Washington DC LRT lines used a third rail....between the two running rails...but under the ground!
dimwitty wrote:Catenary is much more stable for high speed than simple strung wire
Also for the record, the former Philadelphia & Western (Norristown Line) is not a trolley nor has it ever been. The Liberty Line, when it did through-running onto the P&W, would have qualified as a trolley, though, since it switched from third rail to trolley-pole operation for its own ROW and its street-running segments.
Anyone want to pitch in and get the North Shore Line started again? We'd have to find another Chicago terminus for it, since the Jackson Park elevated terminal ain't coming back, it seems
dimwitty wrote:Also for the record, the former Philadelphia & Western (Norristown Line) is not a trolley nor has it ever been. The Liberty Line, when it did through-running onto the P&W, would have qualified as a trolley, though, since it switched from third rail to trolley-pole operation for its own ROW and its street-running segments.
I quibble about the "nor has it ever been". The P&W (Norristown Line) did use trolley poles and trolley wire for a bit less than 1 block of street running at the end of the line in Norristown until 1948 or 1952, I forget which, when, after Lehigh Valley Transit stopped running, they built a new elevated off-street terminal, which has itself been replaced with a newer terminal.
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: dimwitty wrote:Also for the record, the former Philadelphia & Western (Norristown Line) is not a trolley nor has it ever been. The Liberty Line, when it did through-running onto the P&W, would have qualified as a trolley, though, since it switched from third rail to trolley-pole operation for its own ROW and its street-running segments. I quibble about the "nor has it ever been". The P&W (Norristown Line) did use trolley poles and trolley wire for a bit less than 1 block of street running at the end of the line in Norristown until 1948 or 1952, I forget which, when, after Lehigh Valley Transit stopped running, they built a new elevated off-street terminal, which has itself been replaced with a newer terminal.
As far as I know, the Philadelphia and Western, the original of the current SEPTA 100 NORRISTOWN LINE, never used trolley poles in passenger operation, although it is conceivable that some frieght sidings (and the line did once provide frieght service, interchanging with a PRR steam branch near Upper Darby) used trolley wire. The old Norristown terminal, where the LVT through cars (Liberty Bell Limited, Lehigh Valley Traction, were the correct names) changed from trolley wire to third rail for the run over the P&W to 69th Street, was elevated, with a high platform station like all P&W stations (Bullets did not have steps, nor do the new cars) and the P&W cars did NOT continue down the incline (with only trolley wire) to the street. I rode this line first in the Spring of 1947 and have clear memories, depsite being only 15 years old.
I do remember some trolley wire on the P&W. It was near 69th Street. The LVT had its own freight house for trolley to truck and visa versa transfer. This LVT-used track on the P&W property had trolley wire. With Charlie Houser as motorman, I rode a frieght train in the winter of 1950-1951 over these tracks to the frieght house.
If you check, you will not find a picture of any P&W passnger equipment with trolley poles or pantographs. EXCEPT some cars built by Brill for an Erie Railroad electrification which were refused by the Erie and went to the P&W, who removed the center pantographs. These were typical RRroof wood elegant arch-windowed interurban cars. Only saw pictures.
http://www.waynepa.com/history/trains/pandwrr/car38.jpg
In the early years of the P&W, there was trolley wire at the carbarn and shops in lieu of third rail. The bow collectors were short lived, and removed when the staff felt that they could work safely near the third rail. You can see the bow collector at the near end of #38 in the picture link above.
Ronald DeGraw's 1972 book The Red Arrow is out of print, but can occasionally be found at online auctions and at dealers. Here is some good info on the early history of the line: http://www.waynepa.com/history/trains/pandwrr/
The P&W typically ran single unit cars, but operated turnback routes/schedules, operated refurbished electroliners, and hosted LVT interurban service -- however it might be classified (interurban, rapid transit, etc.) it was (and remains) an interesting traction property that dates back to 1902. It is still an active commuter route carrying passengers to the Market Frankford El, and there have been long discussions about possible extention of the route to serve King of Prussia and Valley Forge. This year marks its 105th anniversary.
Thanks Paul for this additional information (temporary use of Bow collectors), which I don't remember as included in the Red Arrow book. Although typicaqlly operated as single cars, both the Bullets and the older "Strafford cars" could mu and occasionally two-car trains were operated. The two types could not mu together.
The elevated station at Norristown was built into the side of a building, and was a single-track station. This required careful scheduling of LVT and P&W runs. If a southbound LVT from Allentown was late, it could miss its slot and be further delayed while a P&W run unloaded, cahged ends (flipping the seats and moving the controller handles), waited for its schedule time of departure, loaded, and left. Around 1950, the LVT cut back its through passenger service to terminate at Norristown, possibly to avoid maintaining the third rail equipment on the cars. It lost pasenger revenue, because people then had to change twice, once from the Market St. El at 69th Street and then again at Norristown. But the schedules were arranged to connect with the P&W service, and the LVT car would go up the iincline, and pull up behind the P&W car to transfer passengers. After unloading, the LVT operator would use the back-up controller to run the car down the includne to a wye that had remianed from some earlier routes, and go back up the incluine in reverse to accept passengers and procede head first to Allentown. If he was late, he would load with the cqr facing southbound, and reverse on the wye with passengers and proceed to Allentown. The freight service continued to run through even after passenger service was terminatedf at Norristown, and was oontinued until the line was abandoned. LVT did not market the freight service during this period, they hauled under contract for one of more trucking companies. Equipmen was old wood inteurban railroad roof passenger motors and trailers rebuilt with center sliding doors and no windos except in the vestibule doors. The vestibules were retained as they were in passenger operation, with steps and traps. Traps were provided on all LVT Philaderlphia Division passenger equipment to permit loading at the P&W high platform stations, as well as use of the regular steps on the LVT.
The Dayton and Troy Cincinnati Lighweight double-end cars used on the Easton - Allentown interurban did not have traps, just steps. But the C&LE cars did have traps. Did they ahve them on the C&LE or were they equipped with traps by the LVT?
SOOOoooo, can a single suspended catenary-type energized wire serve the needs of both trolley pole and pantograph on the same line??
Inquiring minds, etc... - a. s.
al-in-chgo wrote: SOOOoooo, can a single suspended catenary-type energized wire serve the needs of both trolley pole and pantograph on the same line?? Inquiring minds, etc... - a. s.
South Shore uses direct suspension wire over its street trackage in Michigan City, so pantograph pickup can be used. The problem comes with the type of hangers used to actually hold up the wire. Pantograph shoes are flat while the contact shoes on trolley poles are often U-shaped. What's OK for a trolley pole might cause problems for a pantograph.
Some of the streetcar tracks in Sacramento and in several European cities had and, in Europe, still have, simple suspension trolley wire with hangers designed to accomodate both pantographs and trolley-pole wheels and shoes. Also, Oakland. Key System and Sacramento Northorn used pantographs and operated under wire also used by trolley pole streetcars.
Brussels has converted its streetcar system to pantographs, and Melborne is in the process. Duringt the conversion process the special hangers were used so both types could operate. And in Brussels one line is being preserved with the compromise type so musuem cars can operate from the tram museum depot over the agecent, and very scenic, line.
When the CL&E cars came to the LVT they had a single folding door and steps at the right front. The LVT shops installed traps, steps, and railroad type doors at the right and left front end. Later center rear doors were installed for emergency exiting on the long viaduct into Norristown.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: al-in-chgo wrote: SOOOoooo, can a single suspended catenary-type energized wire serve the needs of both trolley pole and pantograph on the same line?? Inquiring minds, etc... - a. s. South Shore uses direct suspension wire over its street trackage in Michigan City, so pantograph pickup can be used. The problem comes with the type of hangers used to actually hold up the wire. Pantograph shoes are flat while the contact shoes on trolley poles are often U-shaped. What's OK for a trolley pole might cause problems for a pantograph.
The problem with the two that pantographs catch on the frogs in the overhead that allow troley poles to change directions. As stated, special hardware exists so that the two can run together.
When I started the post, my main interest was to list places (routes) where you could ride an electrically powered "trolley" (Interurban, Rapid Transit, et.al.) over a track bed that had been laid down a very long time ago and (therefore) had some historical significance.
There has been some very interesting discussion along the way (thank you!) about the definitions of trolley versus light rail, poles v. third rail shoes v. pantographs, etc.
Here's what I've gathered so far about historical routes that have been in (more or less) continuous use since originally constructed as an electrically powered, passenger transportation route:
I've listed nine routes and would be happy to keep expanding the list.
Again, thanks for your contributions and discussion.
paulsafety wrote: When I started the post, my main interest was to list places (routes) where you could ride an electrically powered "trolley" (Interurban, Rapid Transit, et.al.) over a track bed that had been laid down a very long time ago and (therefore) had some historical significance. There has been some very interesting discussion along the way (thank you!) about the definitions of trolley versus light rail, poles v. third rail shoes v. pantographs, etc.Here's what I've gathered so far about historical routes that have been in (more or less) continuous use since originally constructed as an electrically powered, passenger transportation route:RouteStart DateNew Orleans (St. Charles Line)1835New Orleans (Canal St. Line)1861Boston, MA (Green Line)1889Library, PA (Pittsburgh Railways Company/PAT)1902Norristown, PA (SEPTA 100)1902Sharon Hill, PA (SEPTA 102)1904Chicago, IL (South Shore Line)1906Media, PA (SEPTA 101)1912Cleveland, OH (Shaker Heights)1922I've listed nine routes and would be happy to keep expanding the list.Again, thanks for your contributions and discussion.
Not steam, horsecar. Your list is incorrect in that you show Boston when electric operation started and show New Orleans (both routed) when steam (St. Charles) or horsecar (Canal) operation started. New Orleans started electric operation well after Boston did. Please be consistant. The existing San Francisco original trackage was converted from cable to electric right after the famous fire of 1906. Boston should be at the head of list if you are talking about electric operation.
Again, electric operation on Metro-North-Connecticut DOT's Stamford-New Canaan branch started in 1901 with trolley cars. It was converted to 11,000V AC and returned to tie in with the main line when the New Haven electrification was extended to Stamford, about 1909. Otherwise. if you are simply talking about rail on the roadbed, it would probably be third, with the correct date. But if you are talking about roadbed, then also the BMT West End ROW north fo Coney Island is about 1869, and it should be included as electrified with trolley wire about 1901, converted to 3rd rail in 1918.
And don't forget that parts of the roadbed on Park Avenue still used by Metro North to access Grand Central Terminal were originally used in 1834, but electrified in 1906.
How about Routes 10, 11, 13 and 34 in Philadelphia? They have been in continual use since well before the 1923 map I have. Unfortunately I do not know when each of the routes were started or by which company.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.