[PRCo] Trolley widths or dimensions

Sat May 10 16:14:29 EDT 2008

Mr.Swindler!

108" would be 2.7432 meters wouldn't it.  Rounding up to 2.75  (108.268")  would seem very logical.  You mentioned that our modern rail vehicles are knock-offs of European; maybe they just adapted the standard Euro width.  We would probably find every width imaginable before PCCs wouldn't we.  There were 104" PCCs or widths other than 100" and 108" but they were in the minority.

Another very big difference with modern rail cars is that the kingpin centers are much greater than on a city streetcar of yore  (except for SF, Boston, and Philly where they run on old streetcar systems.)  This allows for greater comfort and a smoother ride but increases overhang on sharp radii doesn't it.  Modern systems built from scratch avoid the sharper radii for the most part, city streets being the biggest exception.

It would seem that the rail cars used in SF are overbuilt for the job.  European PCCs with MU would be just as effective and would then make the historical PCCs part of a larger fleet re: parts and maintenance.

Phil

----- Original Message ----
> From: John Swindler <j_swindler at hotmail.com>
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 7:23:44 AM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: 3800 Series LOST
> 
> But San Francisco had 108 inch wide PCC cars.  Why specify a 2.65 meter wide 
> car?  Same with St. Louis, Denver, Salt Lake, Portland, Sacramento, San Diego, 
> etc.?  But then again, I'm preaching to the choir.  It's free money, and why 
> waste any effort maximizing comfort for the riff-raff that use public transit.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> > From: fwschneider at comcast.net> Subject: [PRCo] Re: 3800 Series LOST> Date: 
> Fri, 9 May 2008 23:50:40 -0400> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org> > But the 
> standard PCC was 100 inches (8'-4"). A 2.65 meter (104.33 > inch) car might not 
> fit on existing systems --- certainly not > Pittsburgh or Philadelphia. It 
> probably would fit in San Francisco > because they had wide cars to begin with.> 
> > You comment John about consultants pasting in is astute. Remember > George 
> Krambles starting a scholarship fund?> > George Krambles and Bill Jassen were 
> among the last people I knew who > had degrees in railway electrical 
> engineering. Bill got his on the > GI Bill right after World War II. I think 
> Bill's was just before > the war. It eventually got to the point where the 
> consults were > telling the industry, I know everything. But there was no school 
> > they could go to learn everything.> > On May 9, 2008, at 11:27 PM, John 
> Swindler wrote:> > >> > The specs tend to be written for what the!
>   customer wants. Or > > rather what a consultant will cut and paste from his 
> prior bid > > documents. Also, ask youself why US light rail cars are 2.65 > > 
> meters wide when we had 108 inch wide PCC cars?? Shaker ran 108 > > inch wide 
> PCC cars. Baltimore is an exception with wider light > > rail cars.> >> > As for 
> European designs, most US light rail cars are 'knock offs' > > of the Frankfurt 
> U-2 car dating from the early 1970s.> >> > John> >> Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 
> 13:08:53 -0700> From: hrbran at sbcglobal.net> > >> Subject: [PRCo] Re: 3800 Series 
> LOST> To: pittsburgh- > >> railways at dementia.org> > What would be the items not 
> being met?> > > >> Usually it is the European transit vehicle which is superior 
> to > >> the US produced one. Take the RTS-1, RTS-2 buses..........awful to > >> 
> operate, no room inside, hard for some passengers to board and > >> alight, slow 
> moving, limited visibility, and not so pleasing > >> looks. The European buses 
> have plenty of room, fast acceleration!
>   > >> and braking, ease of entrance and exit for passengers, superior 
> > >> turning radius, good visibility, a nicely designed operators area, > >> not 
> to mention a much better looking product on the outside and > >> inside.> > > 
> John Swindler wrote:> > > A > >> European PCC would not 
> meet the bid specs. of US transit > >> authorities. > > > Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 
> 10:57:04 -0700> From: > >> hrbran at sbcglobal.net> Subject: [PRCo] Re: 3800 Series 
> LOST> To: > >> pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org> > !> > That was a US based 
> comment. The US transit authorities can buy > > from other countries as long as 
> assembly of the car is here in the > > US and a certain percentage of the parts 
> are US made. It is done > > with the NABI bus. Ironically, NABI stands for North 
> American Bus > > Industries. Cleveland's 400+ fleet of NABI low-floors are 
> actually > > a European product. Some of the parts are US manufactured and the > 
> > bus is assembled in the US. However, some of the product is made in > > Europe 
> and shipped to the US assembly pla!
> nts to be matched up with > > the the US manufactured parts and then assembled 
> into finished > > buses. Perhaps the European PCC manufacturers did not place 
> bids on > > any cars for US transit authorities. The European manufacturers > > 
> would have a "hard sell" to get US transit authorities to buy their > > cars, I 
> believe. This is do to the mindset, among> !> US transit > > executives, which 
> says we should have over sized cars, utilizing > > over sized centenary systems 
> and overbuilt roadbed. This is not w!> > hat> I would propose for a light rail 
> system; it is what the > > "powers t> > hat be" dictate. Simplicity of design, 
> in my opinion, creates a > > more pleasing product in the end which is easier to 
> maintain, looks > > far better, and serves it purpose with grace and ease.> 
> Boris Cefer > > wrote: No upgrades? We had been upgrading them for more than 40 
> > > years since the > production in the US ended!> > Boris> > ----- > > Original 
> Message ----- > From: "Herb Brannon"!
>   > > > ---------------------------------> > To: > > Sent: Friday, May 
> 09, > > 2008 2:07 AM> Subject: [PRCo] Re: 3800 Series LOST> > > ......... I > > 
> personally think the only really good streetcar is the PCC. The > > > older cars 
> are slow, clumsy, far too noisy, and hard to operate. > > The PCC was > made for 
> running in mixed traffic and accomplished > > that task very well. > Today the 
> LRV type cars a!> re made for > > private right of way or segregated > street 
> operation and > they > > accomplish that task very well. Even the PCC is > 
> becoming "dated" > > in its appearance. Too bad there were never any further > > 
> > 'upgrades' to them.> > Herb B!> > rannon > > > > > > Herb Brannon> > Greetings 
> From America's North > > Coast> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> _________________________________________________________________> > > Stay in 
> touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger.> http:// > > 
> www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html? > > 
> ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_052008> > > > > Herb Brannon> > > > 
> Greetings From Ameri!
> ca's North Coast> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > 
> _________________________________________________________________> > Make 
> Windows Vista more reliable and secure with Windows Vista > > Service Pack 1.> > 
> http://www.windowsvista.com/SP1?WT.mc_id=hotmailvistasp1banner> >> > 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live SkyDrive lets you share files with faraway friends.
> http://www.windowslive.com/skydrive/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_skydrive_052008

      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ