Official Trackless Trolley Thread/Tracker

[Patrick Boylan]

Another good one would be to look at which bus routes have problems in the winter with the hills. Trackless trolleys have no problems getting up steep inclines.

Please explain. Although I'm sure they have better acceleration than diesel on dry hills I'm willing to bet they have the same adhesion problems as any other rubber tired vehicles on wet or icy hills.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

Indeed, in fact I think some of the busiest and more frequent bus lines should go TT. For example the number 1, epically since about half of the 77 is now TT all you'd have to do is put the lines back up in Arlington and you'd have most of Mass Ave able to not only run as a TT but as one bus line, or at least have a bit more flexibility. Or, if not to Arlington, the 1 could terminate at Porter Sq, instead of Harvard. I'm sure that Arlington does not want the wires back up, and from what I understand Mayor Menion does not want them up in Boston. To that I have to say, the financial/economic benefits would far outweigh the NIMBYS and or the Mayor being un-happy or inconvenienced. Your right, the newer TT's are much quieter than the diesel and natural fuel buses currently running on the streets, which also brings about the issue of noise pollution!

I think the only city that is willing to put wires back up is Cambridge, which I am all for. Somerville I could also seeing putting wires up since they have a lot of environmental and health concerns with the diesel fleet anyways. I am really hoping Cambridge would agree to expand their trolley network to include the #69!!! With the 77 and the 1, they could invest in more duel mode buses so they can have wires on Mass Ave in Cambridge and then Boston and Arlington do not have to worry about them.

I'd do it to Alewife when they open up the busways to Mass Ave. and then extend the 77A there so it's more useful. Could even get some dual-modes in the future to power-switch there and run the full 'Super 77' under wires the length of Cambridge and diesel through Arlington, since Mass Ave. is gonna get done over through Arl. in a couple years with lanes. A little *judicious* expansion off the current footprint, like that and maybe 71 to Newton Corner (really would be pressing if they add the needed CR station there to transfer to) would hit the spot, and Watertown Carhouse is just sitting there all wired up so they've got the flex to not have to run everything out of North Cambridge. I think there is a little viable dual-mode niche potential for a route like the 77 if they plan it right. Old-timey and more peaceful pace, yet with vehicles that are sparkling new.


At any rate, I love living in North Cambridge right by the 72 and 77A. It's the closest thing to a real old-time streetcar system you can get in this region, and the People's Republic takes a ton of pride in the permanence of the system. North Cambridge carhouse is fun quasi-railfan watching because the garage berths have totally open views from the street and when they pop the trunk on 'em you can see all the traction motor guts. They really are bona fide trolleys under the skin. Sound just like 'em too on the wires the way they click through switches, vibrate the wires/hangers softly from blocks away, and so on. We aren't really a hilly-enough city like San Fran, Seattle, or others where these things really hit paydirt and are even better than streetcars on steep grades, but they're very effective at what they do. I recommend if you're railfanning one (and yes, it pretty much is railfanning) to do the 72 because that's the most old-timey of the routes and Huron Ave.'s so little-suburban and picturesque you get a good sense of how quiet the vehicles are and how well they complement a quiet neighborhood. Plus the Aberdeen loop is fun to ride and watch the non-revenue reversal when you get out. And last stop is right next to Fresh Pond and the Watertown Branch overpass.

Then I'd definitely check out North Cambridge Carhouse. Unfortunately with the new condos plopped on the property the weedy side yard with all the old trolley tracks sticking out of it is now gone, but you get excellent views of what's going on either from the Mass Ave. driveway or from the Somerville Community Path where you can see everything parked on the rear loop up-close. I think there's a historical placard by the side of the road telling a little history of the yard including its streetcar days, but I don't know if it's been moved around the corner now with the new condos built. Saturdays are a good time for it because they tend to do a lot more maintenance in the garage on the weekend schedule when fewer cars are needed. There'll usually be a couple in the berths at any given time getting twiddled with by the maint staff to ready them for the workweek. The ones parked in the yard are powered up and occasionally you'll hear a traction motor randomly click on in one of the idling units. If you were living in the condo complex you seriously wouldn't hear a thing from the yard and would probably be 5x more annoyed by the trucks and exhaust spew on Mass Ave. than the very active but nearly silent yard out your back window. Seems like a wonderfully low-stress place to work if you're on the maintenance staff.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

Another good one would be to look at which bus routes have problems in the winter with the hills. Trackless trolleys have no problems getting up steep inclines.

Please explain. Although I'm sure they have better acceleration than diesel on dry hills I'm willing to bet they have the same adhesion problems as any other rubber tired vehicles on wet or icy hills.

Yes, but the zippy acceleration in general holds the road better than a diesel that's really laboring to get up the hill. And on very steep grades they work better than streetcars which do get prone to wheel slip when pushed to the grading limit on street-running track. That's why SF has such an extensive system, bigger even than the trolleys. They take the hillier terrain (then the real, real monster hills get the remaining cable car lines). They're very extensively used in former Eastern Bloc countries where you've got more of those ancient "city-on-a-hill" urban centers whose downtowns built out from high terrain. SF, Seattle, Vancouver because of the terrain are sort of similarly constructed by geography whereas most other cities start out in low/flat land and spread out to the hills. TT's are a niche mode, but in that specific hilly application they are best at it's the most quality ride you can get. Even over light rail. Would be nice if they weren't perceived as archaic curiosities because there are some niche places they'd work well. And the technology is de facto streetcar right down to the same trolley overhead and same PCC-derived traction motors. Some cities like SF on Market St. even run TT's and streetcars under the same exact wire to the same exact median platforms for stretches before the lines diverge. They're actually more compatible with streetcars where the modes mix in close proximity, and can be easier to maintain vs. a custom diesel BRT system if the system has some streetcar lines...same PCC-derived systems apply. Another thing a lot of Eastern Euro countries do too...mixing modes under common infrastructure when they haven't totally gotten rid of their legacy streetcars.

[Disney Guy]

Another good one would be to look at which bus routes have problems in the winter with the hills. Trackless trolleys have no problems getting up steep inclines.

Please explain. Although I'm sure they have better acceleration than diesel on dry hills I'm willing to bet they have the same adhesion problems as any other rubber tired vehicles on wet or icy hills.

Yes, trackless trolleys would have the same adhesion problems. A running start getting up some speed in advance would help (added later: on a snow covered road) although this may not be possible much of the time in an urban setting.

Unfortunately the (Seashore Trolley Museum) power station's current rating is less than what we really need, hence the poor performance of the TTs (and why the rapid transit and interurban cars almost always overload the power station when they come out).

I would say that the poor performance of trackless trolleys at Seashore is due to the lack of smooth roadways. This is the same problem that beset early buses (omnibuses) of 150 years ago.

[3rdrail]

The trolleys (and I am very comfortable using that term with these coaches - the Pullman's ran on essentially what was two Birney Safety Car motors) are pretty robust and don't need "running starts" to get up hills. The electric motor, coupled with the tracklesses design gives them amazing power to climb. As I mentioned previously, San Francisco's Marmon-Herrington's had the "push-button" that increased the relay setting which was used on key hilly routes. Because of San Francisco's terrain, they were really the only serious contender to replace many of the cable car lines, and were purchased for that very reason. It wasn't until a grass roots pro-cable car group formed, protesting the removal of the cable cars, that the trackless trolleys did not totally succeed. (They did gobble up some.) The cars are a very efficient package, sporting large wheels and tires. Most diesel buses run on 11.00 x 20 sized tires/wheels. The trackless trolley standard is 11.00 x 22. Also, when a diesel has to be run for a while to warm up and difficult to start in cold weather, an electric motor is ready to go instantaneously. Throw the poles up and off we go !

[BostonUrbEx]

I have a question, if we tacked on some flanged steel wheels, how much different would the mechanics be than a regular Mattappan PCC?

Other than obvious: the power not being returned through rail.

Just curious if they're fairly similar.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

I have a question, if we tacked on some flanged steel wheels, how much different would the mechanics be than a regular Mattappan PCC?

Other than obvious: the power not being returned through rail.

Just curious if they're fairly similar.

I don't know the technical details, but the early-generation Pullmans really weren't all that much different at all from the PCC's. The carbody even looked like a barely-modified PCC with rubber tires: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ck4049/497 ... 786037408/.

[3rdrail]

They're very similiar, Urbie. The trackless trolley is simpler than the PCC. Both were made by the same company and undoubtably shared some of the same parts. Where the PCC depends upon a current return through rail, involving signalling, switches, restraining rail, guard rail, etc. etc. etc...the TT needs none of that. It's return to ground goes out through it's second pole into the overhead and back to the sub-power station as opposed to a complicated electric system via the PCC's rails. The PCC's wheels have a tendency to get dirty with sand, dirt, rust, salt, and other debris much more so than does overhead, so conductivity is better. The basics are the same as regards to principals of propulsion are concerned. The trackless is a simpler machine and that's where it's beauty lay. They change a little over the years, but basically, the same theory that Brill fine-tuned is still the way things work today in the non-hybrid trackless trolley.

Here's the equipment cabinet on two generations of MBTA trackless trolleys. The first photo shows inside the business end of a 1948 Pullman-Standard Trackless Trolley, showing it's bank of switches and relays. In the second second photo, we see our friend Danny Cohen at North Cambridge Barn explaining the cabinet on a 1976 Flyer TT during a 2006 BSRA "Farewell to the Flyers" fan trip. If it reminds you more of your home's circuit breaker cabinet, as opposed to a smoky throbbing engine, you've got the idea !

[redline79]

[quote=I think the only city that is willing to put wires back up is Cambridge, which I am all for. Somerville I could also seeing putting wires up since they have a lot of environmental and health concerns with the diesel fleet anyways. I am really hoping Cambridge would agree to expand their trolley network to include the #69!!! With the 77 and the 1, they could invest in more duel mode buses so they can have wires on Mass Ave in Cambridge and then Boston and Arlington do not have to worry about them.

I'd do it to Alewife when they open up the busways to Mass Ave. and then extend the 77A there so it's more useful. Could even get some dual-modes in the future to power-switch there and run the full 'Super 77' under wires the length of Cambridge and diesel through Arlington, since Mass Ave. is gonna get done over through Arl. in a couple years with lanes. A little *judicious* expansion off the current footprint, like that and maybe 71 to Newton Corner (really would be pressing if they add the needed CR station there to transfer to) would hit the spot, and Watertown Carhouse is just sitting there all wired up so they've got the flex to not have to run everything out of North Cambridge. I think there is a little viable dual-mode niche potential for a route like the 77 if they plan it right. Old-timey and more peaceful pace, yet with vehicles that are sparkling new.[/quote]

While I still would love to see TT's make entire trips, I think this is a great idea. I do think that Somerville might be willing to put them up, it would help to reduce the pollution problem they are having. Not to mention reduce noise. I love the 77 using overhead power in Cambridge and switching to natural gas in Arlington, makes the entire trip more green!

[Disney Guy]

[ I would love the 77 using overhead power in Cambridge and switching to natural gas in Arlington, makes the entire trip more green!

Oops, didn't someone mention no natural gas (CNG) equipment in a tunnel (Harvard)?

[jwhite07]

The PCC's wheels have a tendency to get dirty with sand, dirt, rust, salt, and other debris much more so than does overhead, so conductivity is better.

Yup! And here's a photo of what happens when a PCC runs over dirt-covered rail:

http://photos.cityrails.net/showpic/?ph ... y=jwhite07

[octr202]

[ I would love the 77 using overhead power in Cambridge and switching to natural gas in Arlington, makes the entire trip more green!

Oops, didn't someone mention no natural gas (CNG) equipment in a tunnel (Harvard)?

Yup. Lighter than air flammable gas doesn't mix well in an unventilated tunnel with exposed high voltage wiring and trolley shoes giving off sparks.

[Patrick Boylan]

They're very similiar, Urbie. The trackless trolley is simpler than the PCC. Both were made by the same company and undoubtably shared some of the same parts.
...
The first photo shows inside the business end of a 1948 Pullman-Standard Trackless Trolley

I don't remember hearing before that Pullman-Standard built trackless trolleys.
I learn something new every day. I guess I'm a bit tainted, or insular. Philly's traditional trackless trolley manufacturers were American Car and Foundry-Brill, and Marmon-Herrington. Or was that Mammoth-Herringbone? And traditional, if you are a whippersnapper ripped jeans falling down youngster, means whatever existed when I was growing up.
Adding to my insularity is that St Louis Car Company built Philly's PCC's. I didn't notice that any other company built them until we got some second, and third, hand Pullman-Standard PCC's from Toronto in the late 1970's.

And please accept this gentle grammatical nudge, the possessive of it is "its". Apostrophes are a precious natural resource we must conserve. "It's" is the contraction of "it is".

[danib62]

And please accept this gentle grammatical nudge, the possessive of it is "its". Apostrophes are a precious natural resource we must conserve. "It's" is the contraction of "it is".

In case you need help remembering: http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail89.html

[3rdrail]

Got it, Mr. B ! hahahaha!!!

Yesiree, Boston was Pullman's favorite customer. Streetcars, Trackless Trolleys, Rapid Transit "heavy-rail"...even General Steel trucks that the R/T cars rode on were a Pullman-Standard owned subsidiary (that's why General Steels trucks are usually found mounted underneath Pullman cars). Here's a shot of one of Bostons post-war Pullman tracklesses. They were tanks and were replaced only when their bodies were falling apart !

Thanks for the news Dani ! Liked it better than the Globe. Thought that it was more complete and unbiased !