On December 28, 1976, due to an early winter snowstorm and a severe PCC car shortage, the MBTA sent four Boeing LRV cars into premature service. This would begin several decades of struggling with the cars mechanical components and overall reliability. The LRVs have been gone for nearly ten years now, and while they are probably not fondly remembered by too many people they marked the historic transition of the Green Line from a collection of aging streetcar lines to a modern light rail line. A fascinating chapter in Boston transit history.
Railroad Forums
One of the real shames of the Boeing LRV saga was that Boston was never supposed to be the guinea pig. San Francisco was supposed to receive their fleet first, but delays in building the Muni Metro and the ongoing deterioration of the MBTA's PCC fleet led to the two cities flipping the delivery order. How much differently would the T's LRV experience have played out if Muni dealt with all of the early issues and were forced to work out the issues with Boeing while the MBTA got to sit back and receive a fleet that was more ready for a successful introduction to service as planned?
I don't know, I think the shame was all on the "T" for the gross incompetence of accepting such obviously defective LRVs. And if they had kept the PCC's in good shape, and also not been in such a hurry to scrap them, things would have been so much better.
I remember stories about the T hiding trolleys in the tunnels from the federal inspectors. Was that to hide what bad condition they were in (and therefore not worthy of new LRVs), or was it so they could qualify for LRV funding they weren't entitled to?
I remember stories about the T hiding trolleys in the tunnels from the federal inspectors. Was that to hide what bad condition they were in (and therefore not worthy of new LRVs), or was it so they could qualify for LRV funding they weren't entitled to?
BandA wrote:I don't know, I think the shame was all on the "T" for the gross incompetence of accepting such obviously defective LRVs. And if they had kept the PCC's in good shape, and also not been in such a hurry to scrap them, things would have been so much better.I think it was more to hide them from the tax/fare-paying public.
I remember stories about the T hiding trolleys in the tunnels from the federal inspectors. Was that to hide what bad condition they were in (and therefore not worthy of new LRVs), or was it so they could qualify for LRV funding they weren't entitled to?
"We are running with normal train service on the Red Line. We apologize for the inconvenience."
That is something that I always wondered about; why exactly did the T hide those few LRV’s in the old Tremont Street tunnel? Were the cars hidden in the tunnel damaged from accidents, or had they been butchered for their parts? What difference would it have made if they had stored them behind the Riverside carhouse, or out at Watertown? There seemed to have been many LRV’s that were sidelined early on due to accidents and mechanical problems, why these specific cars?
Also, how far down into the tunnel we they parked, and did they have to be pushed in there by PCC’s or pole-equipped LRV’s since that wire had never been upgraded I’m guessing?
Also, how far down into the tunnel we they parked, and did they have to be pushed in there by PCC’s or pole-equipped LRV’s since that wire had never been upgraded I’m guessing?
Is the one parked in that Trolley Graveyard in PA (I think) one of those?
From what I heard from a former employee, the ones in the Tremont St tunnel could not move under their own power and were scavenged for parts. Someone in the media caught wind of it, so the MBTA started moving them to Riverside, but the media was already waiting and saw them moving the scavenged LRVs. This employee was not actually involved in the Operations department, so I was never sure if this was the way it actually played out.
|| REGIONALRAIL ||
The Boeing LRV was part of the Nixon's administration of "Buy American" program. By the early to mid 70's all of the major streetcar manufacturers had fallen by the wayside. Boeing was or their Vertol (helicopter group) was diversifying with the post-Vietnam drawdown. You needed new cars you bought American and federal aid and so on. It was a noble thought, be since Boeing was a plane manufacture you got a streetcar that was probably better in the air than on tracks. The first real electronic gizmo car, mono-motor (one motor per truck), better keep those wheels the same size, airplane style of doors.
Even if San Fransisco was first Boston would still have issues, the Tremont St subway was built for 26' streetcars originally and haven't changed a whole bunch since. So there is no streetcar off the rack for Boston! MUNI would have their unique and Boston would have their own problems.
As far as I know only the Boeing's were hidden from view in the Tremont St tunnel, so they were already purchased. None went anywhere except 3424 to the Seashore Trolley Museum.
Not sure if that clarifies or clouds.
JoeD
Even if San Fransisco was first Boston would still have issues, the Tremont St subway was built for 26' streetcars originally and haven't changed a whole bunch since. So there is no streetcar off the rack for Boston! MUNI would have their unique and Boston would have their own problems.
As far as I know only the Boeing's were hidden from view in the Tremont St tunnel, so they were already purchased. None went anywhere except 3424 to the Seashore Trolley Museum.
Not sure if that clarifies or clouds.
JoeD
JoeD
This message was sent from a DEC VT100!
This message was sent from a DEC VT100!
At or around the time the MBTA stashed cannibalized LRV's down the disused Tremont tunnels, I recall hearing that the Boston Fire Department was seriously unhappy with this practice, and required that the units be removed. Truth or fiction? You decide.
While the Boeing Vertol LRVs were unquestionably mechanical lemons, it is also worth remembering their place in history as the first streetcars built in this country since the last PCCs some 25 years before. They marked the beginning of the subsequent revival of light rail that has seen the restoration of urban rail transit in a couple dozen US cities where trolleys had been replaced by buses, a revival that was unimaginable in the mid-1970s.
I always remember one Globe columnist's analysis of their basic flaw: "Vertol makes helicopters. Helicopters go around and around. Trolleys go back and forth."
I always remember one Globe columnist's analysis of their basic flaw: "Vertol makes helicopters. Helicopters go around and around. Trolleys go back and forth."
But I think that first snow storm they were rushed into service, they preformed well.
Years ago I worked at the Boston Public Library. We had a collection of news paper clippings about the T. I read about that snowy night, and it was reported that they ran very well that night. I think there was even an advertisement in that folder that stated just that.
Years ago I worked at the Boston Public Library. We had a collection of news paper clippings about the T. I read about that snowy night, and it was reported that they ran very well that night. I think there was even an advertisement in that folder that stated just that.
My memory of that ad has fooled me, It was 16 years ago.
BandA wrote:Is there a thread for the LRV's?Yeah, but they're all buried umpteen pages down in the forum because there's been nil in the way of current events bumping them for a half-decade. Board search is kind of dodgy at turning those oldies up, so we might benefit from having a "Remembering the Boeings" catch-all thread for historical and work car discussion going forward. Sort of like the long-running "Remembering the [Red Line] 01400's" catch-all thread.
It isn't news to some of you, but 3424's paint has been touched up and it's been shoved down to the end of track next to Log Cabin Rd. to draw visitors. Of course, it's rare that Seashore uses anything less than 90 years old in daily operations...