[PRCo] Re: Trolley widths or dimensions

Sat May 10 21:09:13 EDT 2008

OK, I'm not going to try to defend what I don't know about Muni's  
loop.   I will state that tunneling costs are directly proportional  
to cross sectional area.   Building a loop underground gets very  
costly.  Maybe that is why it wasn't done?

Those bloody tunneling costs are why WMATA cut corners and demanded a  
very low-profile car that, if derailed, will shred everything under  
the car.  But it saved 5 or 10 percent on digging the holes.

On May 10, 2008, at 5:00 PM, Phillip Clark Campbell wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Fred Schneider <fwschneider at comcast.net>
>> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>> Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 1:29:22 PM
>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Trolley widths or dimensions
>>
>> What has a European PCC got to do with the price of kidney beans in
>> Valadvostok?
>>
>
> Absolutely everything sir; please look it up in Wiki  (Big Smiley  
> here!)
>
>
>> Politicians will do anything to get something unique in their  
>> community.
>>
>> We cannot buy something off the shelf.   I cannot say that would be
>> un-American but it certainly would be un-political.   Just look at
>> BART at their wide gauge trains because everyone knows that standard
>> gauge trains aren't stable at the speeds BART wanted to run them.
>> Everyone but the French, the Germans, the British, the Italians, the
>> Japanese and anyone else who is running super high speed trains.
>>
>
> The PCC represents the past which was denigrated by everyone after  
> the war so that fits the above cynical comments.  These are  
> comments we have all made so I am not criticizing am I.
>
>
>> By the way, there was a comment about San Francisco and double end
>> cars and the lack of a loop at the Embarcadero station.   Seems to me
>> that that whole deal was paid for by BART and the City of San
>> Francisco had no input other than "take it or leave it."   I could be
>> wrong but I thought that BART was paying to build its subway and the
>> Muni Metro and the San Francisco PUC didn't put any money in it.
>> Correct me if I'm wrong.
>>
>> fws
>
>
> This seems correct about the original construction in San Francisco  
> doesn't it;  BART funded reconstruction through West Portal as well  
> didn't they and BART is literally miles away at this point.   
> However,  in the 1980s-1990s when the underground was extended  
> along the Embarcadero by Muni alone  (separate from BART at this  
> point I believe)  it was reported that a loop would be constructed  
> but apparently wasn't; seems there are storage tracks and areas  
> outside the station for changing ends.
>
>
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 10, 2008, at 4:14 PM, Phillip Clark Campbell wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>> 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.>
>
>>> 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.
>
>  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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
>
>
>        
> ______________________________________________________________________ 
> ______________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http:// 
> mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
>