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

[John Swindler]

I'd favor a low floor car with safety islands at stops.  It gets the cargo on and off the car quickly without steps, and wheelchairs can be rolled onto the car without lift hardware.  I rode some low floor cars in Ghent, which also still has/had PCC cars.  The PCC cars were nostalgic, but the low floor articulated cars seemed more practical.  

As for fast loading - I learned that in Chicago.  Put the bus steps at the curb so that passengers don't step down to street level and then have an additional step to board.

The M-4 cars in Philadelphia have cloth insert seats to appease the fashion police.  Many get replaced with every 'B' and 'C' inspection.  A waste of money.  






> Subject: [PRCo] Re: The origin of the term Light Rail in the US
> From: fwschneider at comcast.net
> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:56:24 -0500
> CC: bvolkmer at bellsouth.net; it1569djn at earthlink.net; biker4 at sbcglobal.net; Pittsburgh-Railways at Dementia.Org; transitman at maine.rr.com; alschneider2 at juno.com; dwightlong at verizon.net; atholtz at optonline.net; michael_t_greene at yahoo.com; mwntrolley at aol.com; crmisek at aol.com; PFUHLER at MSN.COM; ecasey9631 at aol.com; lipizzansvt2 at aol.com; jwne at temple.edu; sparkyberadi at aol.com; jcgreller at hcia.org; randygluck1 at aol.com; chuchubob at yahoo.com; bhc1 at aol.com; maryobrien at charter.net; jamesboylan at compuserve.com; wja1933 at juno.com; brtpcc at mac.com; alexlvaughn at yahoo.com; nozze4 at att.net; newkirk at optonline.net; dukeoq at aol.com; rush123 at cox.net; frgs4evr at aol.com; chalfen at pobox.upenn.edu; mrambojr at yahoo.com; twe2431 at sbcglobal.net; cemuench2 at comcast.net; bbente at bellsouth.net; dadamor at aol.com; air2619 at aol.com; pirmann at quuxuum.org; ndc10169 at webtv.net; cgatermann at yahoo.com; r516169 at yahoo.com; kwilke4 at sbcglobal.net; raycrapo at prodigy.net; mhr62 at aol.com; jack.may at americomm.net; lewis.hitch at verizon.net; neosho_wildcat_graduate_2007 at yahoo.com; trolleydude1 at yahoo.com; edhavens at cox.net; hp1944 at aol.com; jeidj at comcast.net; sbecker at pa-trolley.org; isartorny at verizon.net; cleverett at comcast.net; charles.greene99 at gmail.com; ronkup at hotmail.com; atsnate at comcast.net; mbernero at prodigy.net; cue37 at charter.net; waltk6 at optonline.net; urr316 at optonline.net; evan at tmny.org; haroldgolk at comcast.net; mlmummert at comcast.net; johnkhayward at talktalk.net; asisk at sbcglobal.net; cdennis220 at aol.com; hlwind384 at comcast.net; biged_IRT5543 at bresnan.net; tgatermann at gmail.com; russjackson at clear.net; TrolleyBill99 at cs.com; wallyy at shaw.ca; buxjoe at aol.com; dzimmer7 at gmail.com; etennyson at cox.net; trhickey at alum.villanova.edu; carbarn at aol.com
> To: cmercado at rochester.rr.com
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>