[PRCo] Re: Interurban Route Speeds

Tue Sep 25 09:27:16 EDT 2007

No, they always ran in parallel.   They removed the field shunts or field taps.   
Series wound motors can be made to run faster by weakening the field strength.   This can be done in one of two ways.   You can either reduce the number of turns (or windings) in the field coils by a separate connection to the field coils.   That separate connection is a tap.   So instead of the current going in the one end of the coil and out the other, it goes in the end and out the middle.   The other way of reducing the strength is to place a separate resistance in parallel with the field coils and "shunt" some of the electricity around the field coils.   If you want to speed up an older car, it is very simple to add shunts.

Problem with shunts is you waste energy.   My suspicion is that the Electroliners probably had tapped field motors because you would want to run the car for long periods of time at high speeds and would not want to waste energy.   

Did the remove the third motor lead?   Probably not.   If you looked at the car at Union, Illinois it might still be there.   It would be a simple matter just to remove the switching capability to turn on the tap.

fws3

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Bob Dietrich" <bdietrich at comcast.net> 

> Don't forget the Electro-Liners. I read somewhere that in initial tests 
> they topped out at well over 90 mph. The testing management became so 
> scared at that speed that they removed the ability to run the motors in 
> parallel (I think that is the right term). 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org 
> [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org] On Behalf Of 
> fwschneider at comcast.net 
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 9:55 PM 
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org 
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Interurban Route Speeds 
> 
> That is probably a reasonable observation Bob. The PCCs were designed for 
> about 42 mph maximum but it took considerable distance to get to that. As 
> the passenger loads dropped off, operators probably reduced speeds from 35 
> down to 30ish to keep from getting ahead of schedule. 
> The Red Arrow cars on the West Chester line were designed for a top speed 
> just under 60 mph. I recall normal operating speeds peaked around 50 to 55 
> between stops on a Sunday. I took about 55 minutes to run the 20-some 
> miles from 69th Street to West Chester. 
> 
> Some of the fastest lightweight interurban cars were without doubt the 
> Indiana Railroad and Cincinnati and Lake Erie high speeds which later wound 
> up on the Crandic and Lehigh Valley Transit. The P&W Bullet cars were 
> mechanically identical to the C&LE cars, except that originally the voltage 
> on the P&W was higher allowing for faster operating speeds. I remember a 
> P&W motorman telling me, "If no one pulls the signal at Hughes Park we'll be 
> doing 90 past the platform." Maybe so but it was also down grade after a 
> mile long run and I suspect he was exaggerating a bit. Among heavy 
> weights, don't forget that the North Shore operated regularly at 80 mph. 
> The Washington, Baltimore and Anapolis ran their trains at 70 mph. These 
> kind of speeds, however, were unusual within the interurban industry. 
> Typical was probably more like 40 to 50. 
> 
> Probably the fastest urban transit speeds came after 1968. First came the 
> opening of the Delaware River Port Authority's Lindenwold High Speed Line. 
> If I recall correctly, their original Budd cars were engineered for 75 mph 
> but they did have some problems with the GE motors at those speeds. A few 
> years later (1972 I believe), when BART opened, the normal operating speed 
> was 70 but computers would call for 80 if a train was behind schedule. 
> Harre Demoro commented that the Oakland Tribune used to receive letters of 
> complaint from irate motorists during the "Double Nickle" era that, if they 
> were forced to drive California Freeway 24 from Concord to Orinda at 55 mph, 
> then the BART trains should similarly be forced to run at a leisurely 55! 
> 
> Fred Schneider 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------- Original message -------------- 
> From: robert simpson 
> 
> > Regarding interurban speeds, I remember driving from Washington to 
> Pittsburgh 
> > and the tracks were on my right. The interurbans were traveling at a 
> > considerably lower speed than automobiles in the mid 1950's - the posted 
> speed 
> > limit was 50 MPH for automobiles. Would guess the interurban was traveling 
> 
> > about 30 MPH. There may have been areas in which these interurbans 
> traveled at 
> > a higher speed but not visible from the highway. 
> > 
> > Totally off-topic: Saw in the Post Gazette that the East Liberty 
> Presbyterian 
> > pipe organ is complete: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07266/819857-53.stm 
> 
> > 
> > Robert Simpson 
> > from Krazy California 
> > 
> > rich wrote: 
> > For a time I commuted on the PCCs from Bethel Park into town. For my own 
> > safety I always got into the center of the car, even if it meant standing 
> > when seats were available. The motormen would wind those cars up between 
> > Castle Shannon and Overbrook to the point where I thought they would shake 
> 
> > apart. The oscillation was tremendous; I wondered how anyone could sit and 
> 
> > read a paper during such a ride, let alone the motorman. It was all in the 
> 
> > track. 
> > 
> > Bob 
> > 
> > -----Original Message----- 
> > From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org 
> > [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org] On Behalf Of Jerry 
> > Matt Matsick 
> > Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 9:58 AM 
> > To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org 
> > Subject: [PRCo] Re: Interurban Route Speeds 
> > 
> > Fred your (perception is reality) is so true, I know when living and 
> riding 
> > the subways in 
> > NYC the same "flying" sensation was evident, same way with the Philly 
> > subway, now I 
> > remember riding a car out to Paoli and thought we would take off, forgot 
> > what line that 
> > was back in mid 1960s? Also I was reading somewhere (hate to get off of 
> > PRCo and into Philly traction) where the city put in or completely rebuilt 
> 
> > an old line (Germantown?) and 
> > yet they are not running street cars on it? why is that? 
> > Jerry Matsick. 
> > -- 
> > Jerry "Matt" Matsick 
> > Jacksonville, Florida 
> > 
> > 
> > -------------- Original message from fwschneider at comcast.net: 
> -------------- 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > Remember too that "perception is reality." Excessive noise causes one to 
> 
> > > believe they are going faster than they really are. When you are 
> > accustomed to 
> > > riding in an automobile on rubber tires on an asphalt highway and you 
> are 
> > > morphed into an interurban car riding on poorly maintained track, 
> suddenly 
> > it 
> > > seems like you have been placed on a rocket sled. 
> > > There is a document in the PTM library that establishes speed limits for 
> 
> > > different portions of the PTM system. Most were because of track 
> > conditions. 
> > > I do not have access to any of my files now but I do recall that 
> motormen 
> > were 
> > > told not to exceed 50 mph between Eldora Summit and Black Diamond 
> Junction 
> > 
> > > because of "passenger complaints." That document was issued in the days 
> of 
> > 
> > > 3700s and 3800s. The PCCs simply would not run that fast because, if 
> > memory 
> > > serves, they had overspeed relays and would cut out. 
> > > 
> > > I recall my early perceptions about how fast the New York City subways 
> > were. I 
> > > thought I must have been traveling at mile-a-minute speeds because of 
> the 
> > heavy 
> > > trucks and solid steel wheels in confined spaces. I later learned that 
> the 
> > 
> > > fastest part of the entire system was a short express track under the 
> > northwest 
> > > side of Central Park where speeds approached 50 mph. Normal was a 30 to 
> 40 
> > mph 
> > > range. I suspect the old wooden elevated cars seldom got much over 25 
> but 
> > > their advantage was not being bogged down in traffic. 
> > > 
> > > fws3 
> > > 
> > > -------------- Original message -------------- 
> > > From: "Boris Cefer" 
> > > 
> > > > Some of the 1700 and 1600 series PCCs were designed to carry 
> > acceleration up 
> > > > to a higher speed than the earlier models, that might be why you 
> seemed 
> > > > flying. 
> > > > 
> > > > B 
> > > > 
> > > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > > From: "Jerry Matt Matsick" 
> > > > To: 
> > > > Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 1:50 AM 
> > > > Subject: [PRCo] Re: Interurban Route Speeds 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > >I had the opportunity to ride the Charleroi Interurban and thinking 
> > back 
> > > > >as a 10-12 year old boy, I thought the car was "flying", but in 
> reality 
> > it 
> > > > >probably wasn't, all I know on some of the open straight aways, it 
> > seemed 
> > > > >like we were "flying", some thoughts on this? 
> > > > > and travel times from Pittsburgh to Li'l Wash and to Charleroi, the 
> > > > > conversations on this 
> > > > > group have been fantastic, keep it up! 
> > > > > Jerry Matsick 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 