 |
Re: Electric over gasoline buses to replace streetcars
Author: mook
Date: 07-05-2016 - 08:57
I suspect that power source is another reason for survival of trolley buses at least on the West Coast. The cities that still have them have some kind of special power system, based largely on hydro, that results in power costs far below the cost of diesel even allowing for the higher cost of the special-order buses and the cost of maintaining the power system. The places where trolley buses were tried but went away when diesel buses became a standard item didn't have that - they bought power at commercial rates even if the power "company" was public.
The other matters mentioned here are also important - steep hills like in SF can be fairly easily climbed by trolley buses, but could be handled only by diesel buses with special low gearing (the Mack days in SF, with severe limits on where the buses could run due to limited top speed) or stupid high power (and noisy/fuel sucking) power trains (the GM days in SF), or by making the passengers walk up the hill while the empty bus struggled slowly to the top (yes, this happened in SF). In Seattle, they had that downtown tunnel which was impractical to use diesels in. Don't know what the story is with Vancouver BC, except for the probable availability of cheap hydro power.
Early on, conversion would not have been as difficult as one might expect. The streetcar companies had the equipment and expertise to maintain the wire and power systems, and were still running streetcars elsewhere on their systems so they had to keep it. Changing a few lines with special operating problems for streetcars (the old 33 line in SF, for example) to trolley buses that could climb the hills better, and were electrically compatible with the streetcars, made sense. Especially given the limited capabilities of early gasoline and diesel buses.
Then along came National City Lines and better diesel buses ... which pretty much ended trolley buses and rail transit where special conditions weren't present. Nobody thought about pollution issues, really, until the 1980s or later. Except, possibly, for noise, as with the GM fishbowls in SF.
The other matters mentioned here are also important - steep hills like in SF can be fairly easily climbed by trolley buses, but could be handled only by diesel buses with special low gearing (the Mack days in SF, with severe limits on where the buses could run due to limited top speed) or stupid high power (and noisy/fuel sucking) power trains (the GM days in SF), or by making the passengers walk up the hill while the empty bus struggled slowly to the top (yes, this happened in SF). In Seattle, they had that downtown tunnel which was impractical to use diesels in. Don't know what the story is with Vancouver BC, except for the probable availability of cheap hydro power.
Early on, conversion would not have been as difficult as one might expect. The streetcar companies had the equipment and expertise to maintain the wire and power systems, and were still running streetcars elsewhere on their systems so they had to keep it. Changing a few lines with special operating problems for streetcars (the old 33 line in SF, for example) to trolley buses that could climb the hills better, and were electrically compatible with the streetcars, made sense. Especially given the limited capabilities of early gasoline and diesel buses.
Then along came National City Lines and better diesel buses ... which pretty much ended trolley buses and rail transit where special conditions weren't present. Nobody thought about pollution issues, really, until the 1980s or later. Except, possibly, for noise, as with the GM fishbowls in SF.
