Why not make more PCCs?

First of all, I want to say that I've been following these forums for a long time (longer than my join date shows), and I've enjoyed the conversations and the insights, even though I haven't had much to contribute. I'm an amateur T buff... I don't know a lot of the technical details, but I enjoy riding the lines and reading about them here.

I've been wanting to ask this for a while... it seems like the PCCs were the perfect trolley car. They don't require much maintenance, they have a very simple shell, they have simple and universal parts (although I'm sure the parts are getting harder to come by), they're durable, and the fleet we have has been around for a long, long time. So why don't we keep making PCCs? Why bother designing the Boeings and the Type 7s and Type 8s? The only hitch I see is ADA, but there's got to be another way to meet that , with ramps or high platforms, or a minor car modification. I'm not sure I understand what else the newer designs buy us, other than style and maybe speed.

I’ve always considered the Type 7 to be a lot like the PCC car – it was a basic design using proven components. Unfortunately, the lessons learned by the generation of MBTA managers who had to live through the early years of the Boeing fiasco was lost on those in T management who approved the Breda Type 8 design.

jboutiet-
The arguments you put forth are good, but we should all reflect on how any acquisition process works: The new equipment has to be state of the art (Hi, Boeing Vertol!) and cheaper -- in sometimes varied and sometimes suspect readings of that word -- than what it replaces. That's not a legal requirement, but it is the way the process has historically "worked." Type 4s were replaced by Type 5s which were replaced by PCCs which were replaced by the other numbers under 10. PCCs had a few creature-comfort improvements over the 5s, but chilled air during summer wasn't one them, at least until the AWACS-wannabees of Mattapan. The PCCs were possible because of the economies of scale promised by a much larger customer base of pre-WW II transit profusion. Street transit has made some rebounds, but not enough -- at least not yet -- for an Osgood-Bradley or St. Louis Car-like presence to crank out basically cookie-cutter cars to meet minimum clearances.
Maybe the new GM will change the historical process, but because of increased customer expectations, any new equipment will feature increased complexity over the PCC.

The PCC is a single car, everything Boing and later has nearly double the capacity because of the articulation. The Type 7 is basically a PCC Mark 2, Kinki learned and borrowed a lot from the PCCs design in building that car.

You hit the nail right on the head for the other big reason though, ADA. Building a low floor car is no simple feat, and requires redesigning the carbody from the ground up. it is not feasible in any way to make all platforms high-level. What about the above ground portions or the street running portion of the E? There is no "simple modification" that could address these issues either, think about the disaster that is the rear door on an RTS bus to fit the handicap lift, or the huge lifts that take up platform space and time that you can find scattered around the green line.

Some other reasons off the top of my head:
-AC versus DC traction motors, in anticipation of the conversion of the overhead to AC one day
-Digital vs electro-mechanical controls. Smoother operation, allows for a software patch to fix dumb problems that would otherwise require swapping out entire electronic systems.
-Computer integration. The new cars control the signaling system, sign boards, headway information, and who knows what else all with one little screen. My guess is the Type 9s will also be able to communicate with inspectors.
-Plug and play diagnosis. If something is wrong with a PCC you have to get in there an figure out what it is with tools. New tech allows a diagnosis computer to be plugged in and the car tells you whats wrong with it.
-Design. While I personally think the PCCs are the sexiest things on the Ts rails (although I think if the Type 7s were painted in that scheme they would come close), most of the public would prefer riding in a modern vehicle every day. Eye candy IS important here.
-Fiberglass/composite versus steel body. Simplifies repairs and downtime. Body parts can be swapped or even made cheaply from molds, reducing cost in case of an accident.

In short, the PCC is a battle proven design, but it is still dated. Nearly everything on it has since been replaced with superior tech that does the job better then its predecessor. The old carborated cars from the 30-60s with drum brakes, leaf spring suspension and rack and pinion steering were great too, but I dont think you'd give up your fuel-injected, disk brake, fully independent suspension, hydraulically steered car to drive every day for it, would you? Or your cell phone for a rolladex and pile of quarters. I love the PCCs, but they are a novelty at this point not a relevant transportation solution.

I will argue, however, that the lessons learned from the PCC and Type 7 versus the Boing and Type 8 are quite relevant, and should be taken into consideration when ordering the Type 9s. Battle proven tech, existing designs, and large orders with other transit systems should be high priority here. Just because the new cars require new tech doesn't mean we have to reinvent the wheel, just improve upon it.

FP10 wrote:I will argue, however, that the lessons learned from the PCC and Type 7 versus the Boing and Type 8 are quite relevant, and should be taken into consideration when ordering the Type 9s. Battle proven tech, existing designs, and large orders with other transit systems should be high priority here. Just because the new cars require new tech doesn't mean we have to reinvent the wheel, just improve upon it.

The Type 8s were every bit as battle tested as the Type 7s: they use technology that has been commonplace in Europe for quite some time. They're problems came more from a mixture of poor quality control and the antique nature of the Boston system. Even so, they are now doing just fine. The Boeing LRVs are actually somewhat similar: they used technologies that were already in use in other areas of transportation (including mainline railroading and aviation) and for the most part they actually worked quite well in San Fransisco. In Boston, they were mainly let down by poor maintenance standards and some unique quirks of the MBTA system.

With that said, the PCC actually used a LOT of new technology themselves. All sorts of things that were "battle-tested" in the Type 7s were INVENTED for the PCCs. And the earliest PCCs had problems at least as bad as the Boeings and Type 8s and those problems actually led to major changes in some of the subsystems of the PCC cars. Look at the differences between the all-electrics and the air-electrics for an idea of just how problematic the earliest PCCs were and what had to be done to fix up future versions. It will look strikingly familiar.

I do think that replica PCC cars would be a good idea, though. Rebuilt PCCs have proven to be popular with tourists and locals in SF and Philly and their smaller size DOES make them better for street-running than modern LRV equipment. If I were in charge, rebuilt or replica PCCs would be running on the E line, which connects just about the most tourist-visited locales of any MBTA branch...

The Boeings had at least 2 items that were not used elsewhere, the joint and the door mechanisms. Boeing didn't want to pay fees to Duwag for their joint design and decided to make their own simpler design. The Boeing design is simpler and worked after some mods, but was a constant source of maintenance, requiring replacement of Teflon pads after every 200 hours of operation. The door mechanisms had 300+ parts compared to 40-50 parts for the PCC.

The problem the air electric PCCs had was that the air compressor was always running(common used in industrial applications) and that 's one reason why all electrics were popular, along with no air lines to freeze. That's why the PIcture Windows and the T's rebuilds have separate air compressors. Of course, with most modern vehicles having air springs, we 're back to air compressors and air subsystems. Most of the technology used in the PCC was not new, but combining a lot of the tech together was. One of the features that some of today's car makers are touting is modular design, which the PCC used, allowing for easy changes to body and equipment for the manufacturers.

FP10 wrote:-AC versus DC traction motors, in anticipation of the conversion of the overhead to AC one day

The adoption of AC traction motors has nothing to do with future plans to convert the overhead to AC; AC motors require less maintenance due to their design. Converting the overhead to AC would require all cars be retrofitted with rectifiers to convert the current to DC that could be fed into the cars' existing chopper controls (Type 7s) or inverter banks (Type 8s).

MBTA3247 wrote:

FP10 wrote:-AC versus DC traction motors, in anticipation of the conversion of the overhead to AC one day

The adoption of AC traction motors has nothing to do with future plans to convert the overhead to AC; AC motors require less maintenance due to their design. Converting the overhead to AC would require all cars be retrofitted with rectifiers to convert the current to DC that could be fed into the cars' existing chopper controls (Type 7s) or inverter banks (Type 8s).

For some reason I was thinking you could just remove the inverters on the type 8s and pump AC right in, and it seems that whenever the switch does happen the Type 7s and maybe even 8s would be retired. I don't know much about the whole AC/DC thing obviously. I can wire up an outlet or light fixture but thats about where my knowledge of electricity ends.

I'll also add the AC whine is awesome, so that should be the main reason for switching to them versus DC, screw ease of maintenance!

MBTA3247 wrote:the cars' existing chopper controls (Type 7s)

The type 7s are not chopper controlled

FP10 wrote:I'll also add the AC whine is awesome, so that should be the main reason for switching to them versus DC, screw ease of maintenance!

The whine you speak of is the DC power being inverted to AC for the traction motors. If the overhead were AC and the inverters were removed, you would not hear this sound.

The T7s do have DC chopper control.

Of course, new build "replica" PCCs could be built as PCC-IIs like SEPTA, with the classic body but modern components. The DeLorean for example is now being built new again, using the same body type but with improved new technology.

R36 Combine Coach wrote:Of course, new build "replica" PCCs could be built as PCC-IIs like SEPTA, with the classic body but modern components. The DeLorean for example is now being built new again, using the same body type but with improved new technology.

So is the VW Bug, but the Bug looks nothing like it's predecessor and might as well be an entirely different car. If they started manufacturing PCC cars for practical use (not for novelty), do you think they'd be anything like the old ones?

RedLantern wrote:

R36 Combine Coach wrote:Of course, new build "replica" PCCs could be built as PCC-IIs like SEPTA, with the classic body but modern components. The DeLorean for example is now being built new again, using the same body type but with improved new technology.

So is the VW Bug, but the Bug looks nothing like it's predecessor and might as well be an entirely different car. If they started manufacturing PCC cars for practical use (not for novelty), do you think they'd be anything like the old ones?

There's nothing to say that something can't have both novelty and practicality at the same time. Many cities use either replica (New Orleans) or heavily rebuilt original (SF, Philly) streetcars as a tourist friendly-yet-practical transit. PCC replica bodies with modern controls, AC and wheelchair lifts would be an excellent way to tap into that market and IMHO, the E line in Boston would be a prime candidate for neo-PCC service of that sort, as it serves all the many big tourist draws in the city (Museum of Science, Downtown area, MFA, Prudential Center)

PCC streetcar bodies have enough uniqueness in terms of shaping that building new ones would require just as much effort getting started (tooling up) as building a brand new body style.

The primary result of the street railways' Presidents Conference Committee was the technology -- electrical and mechanical components. So if a PCC styled body were equipped with 21'st century mechanics, it would not really be a PCC car.

A streetcar body style that seems to be taking hold is the style of Portland (OR) downtown streetcar line cars. The car has two two axle "cab" units with a large low floor section suspended in between with articulation. The first cars were made by Skoda but the same style is now made by a new U.S. company, United Streetcar, subsidiary of Oregon Iron Works (motors and related parts still supplied by Skoda).