[PRCo] Re: Trackless Trolleys

[Phillip Clark Campbell]

Mr.Schneider;


There is 'at least one more photo' of the Twin test showing the coach making
the turn from Liberty to Grant.  I have it 'somewhere' but finding it is another story.

Politics exist everywhere.  Reading the SF books one discovers the city was
dangerously close to losing all streetcars to become diesel in the very early
1950s.  Woods, former GM with a diesel division named after him, came along
later and was himself anti-electric.  It was a campaign promise to keep 'electric' streetcars
on the 38-Geary;  after the election they were abandoned.  That corridor might be
much different today had streetcars remained and been 'upgraded' to light rail.
'Intelligence'  of using electric because of Hetch-Hetchy wasn't part of the equation.
I need to go back and read again for more details.

San Francisco no more in tune to making 'wise' decisions than any other location are they.


Phil






> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Schneider Fred <fwschneider at comcast.net>
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 4:19:32 PM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Anybody Here Know Anything About This?
> 
> This shows all three pictures that I have ever seen of the  
> demonstration project.   To the best of my knowledge, the company was  
> considering converting the West End to trolley coach.  Again after  
> World War II it was addressed when the company drew up plans to  
> convert Ingram car house to trackless.
> 
> It might have made sense as long as Duquesne Light Company and  
> Pittsburgh Railways were the same organization and as long as riding  
> held up at war time levels.   But after the company broke apart in  
> the bankruptcy (Ed knows the exact date ... I want to say 1950), old  
> friends because quasi business enemies. By 1961 or 1962 there was a  
> law suit between Pittsburgh Railways and Duquesne Light Company  
> because the former was not using as much power as they were supposed  
> to use and the latter was billing them a minimum demand charge.  The  
> Railways simply didn't have the money to pay for power they were not  
> using.   I have no idea how it was resolved.  By 1964 PRC didn't even  
> exist.  Not long afterwards my contact (Charlie Schauck retired and  
> moved to Youngstown).   Obviously the power company felt they had  
> some basis to establish a demand charge because they had facilities  
> that had been built to provide a certain amount of energy and they  
> wanted to continue to be paid for that equipment.
> 
> The problem of running trolley buses was very simple.   The window of  
> opportunity in which trolley coaches were profitable was very  
> narrow.   A General Electric publication about 1948-1950 suggested  
> PCC cars were practical if you could fill up your vehicle every five  
> minutes.   That translates into about 20,000 riders per day on a line.
> 
> The trolley bus according to GE's numbers, could be successful, if  
> you could fill it with passengers every 5 to 8 minutes.   That's  
> probably a 13,000 to 20,000 passenger a day range on a line.   The  
> Louge report in 1948 shows that none of the West End lines were any  
> where near that any longer.
> 
> GE went on to suggest that anything west often than 8 minutes apart  
> was in the preserve of the diesel bus and if it was used erratically,  
> then the gas bus could be preferred.
> 
> The demand charge on PRC in 1962 by Duquesne Light was not the only  
> example.   Ed Miller has explained to me that Wilkes-Barre Transit  
> Corporation ran into the same problem with its electricity supplier  
> by about 1954 or there abouts resulting in the immediate conversion  
> of all the trackless routes.
> 
> I suspect, but have the numbers to prove it, that the reason the  
> coaches have lasted so long in San Francisco might have something to  
> do with the city of San Francisco owning the Hetch Hetchy generating  
> station in the Sierra Nevada mountains.  They have to pay a  
> transmission charge to PG&E to get the electricity to the city but  
> otherwise it might be relatively cheap hydro electric power.   But in  
> their case, the user and the generator of power are the same agency  
> and refusing to use it only causes wasted capacity for the your own  
> agency.
> 
> Seattle?   Vancouver?   That may be both volume issues and an  
> environmentally conscious city government.   Philadelphia running TCs  
> there strikes me as lunacy but when you don't know how many people  
> are on the vehicle, what does it matter.
> 
> And Dayton?   How can it be economically sound in a city of 155,000  
> people that lost 100,000 residents in the last 40 years?   Well, if  
> you believe GDRTA's numbers, the diesel buses are are taking in 12  
> cents per mile in fares and costing 95 cents a mile.   The trolleys  
> are taking in 82 cents a mile and costing 1.01 a mile to run.    But  
> there is no route in the system running more often than every 15 to  
> 20 minutes and most are 20 to 30 and worse.   By thought is that the  
> routes the trolleys are on would still take in 82 cents a mile but  
> would only cost 95 cents if you didn't have the trackless overhead.    
> But then who figures overhead into government calculations?????    
> They probably figure that the copper and substations are free.   And  
> if they wear out, Uncle Sam will replace them (and the loans will  
> never be paid back).   The flaw in my statement about what the  
> trolleys would cost is long term.   When the cost of oil goes back up  
> to $4 and $5 a gallon, it is possible that electricity will not go up  
> as much.
> 
> Enough diatribe for now guys?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 25, 2009, at 3:45 PM, Joshua Dunfield wrote:
> 
> > 2009/2/25 Phillip Clark Campbell :
> >> Believe there was a Twin trolleybus demonstration in downtown  
> >> Pittsburgh in the
> >> summer of 1936(?)  Believe it pre-dated the arrival of PCC 100 so  
> >> it must have
> >> been Spring.  It looped Grant, 7th, Smithfield, Liberty to Grant  
> >> using the
> >> available streetcar wire on all streets with ground strung alongside.
> >> Here is one photo at Dave's:
> >> http://www.davesrailpix.com/pitts/htm/pitt134.htm
> >
> > Yes, that picture is also on the site Ken linked to:
> >
http://www.trolleybuses.net/earlyops/htm/usa_h_earlyops_pit_demo_01.htm
> >
> > There are two more pictures of it there.  The picture linked below is
> > of the 700 block of Grant Street, consistent with your description of
> > the loop.
> >
http://www.trolleybuses.net/earlyops/htm/usa_h_earlyops_pit_demo_03.htm
> >
> > -j.