[PRCo] Re: The origin of the term Light Rail in the US

[Dwight Long]

Fred

If substantial (not necessarily cookie cutter total) standardization, say along the lines of such with the PCC, brings substantially lower costs the transit authorities will be forced to accept it or forego Federal bucks, which it is unlikely they would do.

Your points are well taken but I think that a low floor rather than one that requires platforms is the way to go.  It certainly is playing out that way in Europe.

As to recognition of modern technology, I would use it to the extent it reduces maintenance without costing so much initially that the net present value of the maintenance savings are negated.  I would not use it just because it is there and can be used.  There is virtue in simplicity.  We are not talking about rocket ships here, just a solid, reasonably comfortable transit vehicle that will last at least thirty years and then is still worth a substantial rebuild for another twenty.

It's possible.  Possible does not mean it will ever happen, and for sure not in our remaining years.

Dwight
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Fred Schneider 
  To: Carlos Mercado 
  Cc: Bill Volkmer ; David Neubauer ; Skip Gatermann ; Pittsburgh-Railways at Dementia.Org ; peter folger ; Alan Schneider ; Dwight Long ; Holtz ; Michael Greene ; Matt Nawn ; Conrad Misek ; Frank Pfuhler ; E Casey ; Vic Gordon ; David Dillard ; John Sikorskie ; Jim Greller ; Randy Gluckman ; Bob Vogel ; Bradley Clark ; Mary O'Brien ; Jimmy Boylan XX ; Bill Armstrong ; Richard Panse ; Alex Vaughn ; Brad Noyes ; Bill Mangahas ; JJ Earl ; Jack Rush XX ; Mark Goldfeder ; Andrew Chalfen ; Michael Rambo Jr ; Ted Eickmann ; Muench ; Bruce Bente ; Raleigh Dadamo ; David Horwitz ; David Pirmann ; Neil Carlson ; Chris Gatermann ; Robert Arce ; KELVIN WILKE ; Raymond Crapo Jr ; Merill Resnick ; Jack May ; Lewis Hitch ; Michael Richmond ; Thurston Clark ; Edward Havens ; Harry Pinsker ; Joseph Eid ; Scott Becker ; Trolley One ; C. K. Leverett ; Charles Greene ; Ronald Kupin ; Nate Gerstein ; Melvin Bernero ; Favorite Daugher ; Trolley Two ; Rich Parente ; Evan Jennings ; Harold Golk ; Matthew Mummert ; John Hayward ; Andrew Sisk ; Charlie Dennis ; Herald Wind ; Edward Davis ; #1 Son ; Russ Jackson ; Bill Myers ; wally young ; Joe Bux ; Dennis Zimmer ; Edson Tennyson ; Tom Hickey ; Jim Graebner 
  Sent: Thursday, 10 March, 2011 18:56
  Subject: [PRCo] Re: The origin of the term Light Rail in the US


  Finally at topic I would like to visit.   I don't really want to go crazy with light rail versus heavy rail.
  But what if there had been enough business to keep Transit Research Corporation in business past 1960 so that we still had PCC vehicles today?

  We need to consider that the governing issues remain

  a)  the Americans with Disabilities Act

  b)  a need to minimize labor costs.  (Labor has become 50% or more of the industry operating costs.)

  c)  indestructibility of the car's interior appointments in today's urban environment

  d) some creature comforts such as air-conditioning that will attract the public

  f) a recognition of modern technology that is out there today

  e) and some degree of standardization within the limits that politicians will accept, which is almost 'nil

  To satisfy item a) I think it's obvious that the new PCC will be a platform level car.   It has to be wheel-chair accessible or it cannot be sold in most nations.   To satisfy item b) it will probably be an articulated vehicle with design options for a single car to satisfy Philadelphia which repeated claims they cannot used anything else (or don't want to).  Perhaps TRC would tell them to go pound sand.  To satisfy item c)  you would have plastic seats.   You cannot very easily have leather in an environment where the front page of a newspaper of a 50,000 population city is the murder of the week page. The creature comforts in item d) will probably be air-conditioning.  Modern technology in item f) would probably mean AC propulsion but there would still be some agencies who know better like PATCO which still wants to go back 50 years in their rebuilding of their cars.  And item e) .... The main reason for TRC was a belief that we could standardize from city to city but now !
   that we are governed by politics, that becomes virtually impossible unless the engineers are running the show.

  Did I just define the light rail vehicles we buy off the shelf from Siemens or Bombardier?   I think so.  

  Remember, TRC produced a very rigid specification but I don't think the car as we knew it in 1952 would look anything like the 2011 version.    




  On Mar 10, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Carlos Mercado wrote:

  > Jim Graebner speaks of rail transportation as a "continuum" that ranges from big heavy rail passenger cars down to a little hand powered track car.
  > You can get into a real fix trying to differentiate where light becomes heavy or streetcar becomes light.
  >  
  > I too have long wondered if the "final" PCC technology of the early 1950's (e.g. Muni's last order) should be revisited and looked over to see what can be readily modernized with more modern technology, such as solid state and the use of newer materials.  Probably this is what happened in Europe when they build newer versions of the American PCC.
  >  
  > Do we have an unfortunate tendency to underestimate the skills of earlier generations, make foolish attempts to re-invent the trolley car, and end up with a  Boeing-Vertol disaster.  I guess we learned that building very fine helicopters does not make you the latter-day Frank Sprague.
  >  
  > Carlos Mercado - Rochester, NY