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.
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.
wothwhile additionns, bus, thanks!
The new Denver Fasttracks system could be interurban as well.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.