On Tuesday, April 6, 2010, THE WASHINGTON POST ran an article that described significant opposition to the overhead catenary that would be needed to run the new Czech-built streetcars. The National Capital Planning Commission and The National Park Service among other groups, is opposed to "overhead wires in the city" and "want streetcars that draw electricity from buried batteries or power strips." "On their side is an 1889 federal law banning overhead electrification in Georgetown and the original center city design by Pierre L'Enfant in 1791, bounded by the Potomac and Anacostia waterfronts north to Florida Avenue. Streetcars would run through much of the core, including H Street NE, where the city is now laying tracks."
In the original DC Transit trolley system, the PCCs drew power from an underground cable in the downtown area through a device called a "shoe." Once they left the downtown area they used overhead wires. It will be interesting to see how this problem is resolved.
Catenry is ugly and I can't blame them. This continues to shows the lack of planning for the DC street car. Do you have a link to the article?
Overhead catenary is not pretty but it is a much less expensive to build and maintain and very reliable power delivery system. There are many techniques available for installing very unobtrusive overhead that has little visual impact. Unfortunately some TA's have installed truly butt ugly overhead more befitting a steel mill than a public street.
Currently there is no viable, reliable technology to replace the overhead. Siemens, Alsthom and Bombardier are developing power delivery systems that are installed between the rails and are even offering those for sale on their trams. To date only one installation is in place in France and only for a short distance through a historic district. Needless to say there have been significant "teething" problems that are to be expected with such new technology.
Kawasaki is marketing a battery-powered LRV concept. However it needs to have a short segment of overhead at strategic stops for recharging while in service.
While these technologies are promising and needed their ultimate reliability, their ability to operate in all weather/street conditions and their cost-effectiveness remains to be proven. Not to mention the fact that these systems are quite expensive, add serious additional weight to a vehicle, thereby increasing power requirements and wear and tear on track systems, as well as adding more complexity to already electronically complex vehicles. And don't forget the real potential for complex EMI/RFI issues.
Don't forget the fact that the old plow and cable technology of the past was unreliable, expensive to build and maintain and subject to frequent damage from trash and other normal street debris falling into the gap.
Overhead catenary will be the most cost-effective in unsightly power delivery system for some time to come.
Quote from: Antozilla on April 10, 2010, 08:50:21 AM
Catenry is ugly and I can't blame them. This continues to shows the lack of planning for the DC street car. Do you have a link to the article?
I wonder if this is poor planning or actually very genius planning? Remember, the Anacostia LR Project is/was officially called the "Anacostia Light Rail Corridor Demonstration Project" and it was considered (loosely quoted) "an experiment to determine whether or not light rail transit would be a viable mode in the DC area".
It could be theorized that part of this experiment would be to see how DC people would react to catenary after a "successful" line was implemented - remember, there were people who thought Metrorail was a bad idea until it was actually built, and are now clamoring for rail service (not naming names, Georgetown). I can see it now - "Let's build a line out on the fringe of the city where "those who care"...wouldn't *really* care and maybe we could win some of them by showing how beneficial LR is, and how unobtrusive the wires actually are..."
It's either that or the "planners" were completely incompetent in not even resolving the power source of the line before they started construction. I think the former.
These are the systems under development for eliminating overhead catenary.
http://www.transport.alstom.com/home/elibrary/technical/environnement/31288.EN.php?languageId=EN&dir=/home/elibrary/technical/environnement/
http://www.mobility.siemens.com/ts/en/pub/products/green_mobility/our_solutions/on_a_roll/sitras_mes.htm
www.bombardier.com/files/en/supporting_docs/BT-ECO4-PRIMOVE.pdf
http://kawasakirailcar.com/SWIMO-Overview.pdf
http://www.caf.net/ingles/id/sistema_acr.php
http://www.ansaldo-sts.com/EN/AnsaldoSTS/private/private_files/brochures/Tramwave_UK.pdf
Hmm, DC street cars got along with out catenry for years.
Except when they didn't...
There was a letter to the editor in the Sunday, April 11, 2010 WASHINGTON POST on page C5 responding to the original article on the overhead wire dispute and the author recommended that DCDOT purchase DMU vehicles similar to the NJT equipment on the River Line. That would solve the catenary problem but it would certainly not solve the exhaust emissions issue.
I may be the only member of DCATZ to have actually ridden the DC Transit PCCs before they were replaced by buses in 1962. I rode them almost every day back and forth to school and the underground cable was very reliable. My trips were never interrupted by cable problems alhough I did witness spectacular trolley backups when road salt occasionally shorted out the cable in the winter.
Quote from: WMAveteran on April 13, 2010, 01:27:09 AM
There was a letter to the editor in the Sunday, April 11, 2010 WASHINGTON POST on page C5 responding to the original article on the overhead wire dispute and the author recommended that DCDOT purchase DMU vehicles similar to the NJT equipment on the River Line. That would solve the catenary problem but it would certainly not solve the exhaust emissions issue.
I may be the only member of DCATZ to have actually ridden the DC Transit PCCs before they were replaced by buses in 1962. I rode them almost every day back and forth to school and the underground cable was very reliable. My trips were never interrupted by cable problems alhough I did witness spectacular trolley backups when road salt occasionally shorted out the cable in the winter.
Honestly, I don't think a DMU would be a good vehicle for a stop and go streetcar line. They don't really have the acceleration of their electric counterparts for such close stops., not to mention the nice amount of smoke they can put out. I base this on my observations of the River LINE in service. DMUs work better for longer lines IMO.
Quote from: Antozilla on April 10, 2010, 08:50:21 AM
Catenry is ugly and I can't blame them. This continues to shows the lack of planning for the DC street car. Do you have a link to the article?
Are they really using catenary or just trolley wire? Regardless, to change things up to accommodate a "third rail" or underground conduit system (susceptible to road salt and other debris), it would cost millions more to change the cars as well as rip up the streets to install such a system.
It would be interesting to see the Kawasaki Battery Vehicle running around, though.
Interestingly enough, this conversation has now ascended (or descended - depending on your viewpoint) to the editorial page of THE WASHINGTON POST. On April 13, 2010 THE POST ran an editorial that ended with the following paragraph:
"The city has only itself to blame for not initiating a better discussion and planning process earlier. Still, it is right to have a sense of urgency in providing transportation alternatives as congestion grows. The two sides need to come to an understanding. A good place to start is with the reasonable suggestion by Gabe Klein, the city's transportation chief, to use a hybrid system that allows overhead wires in some areas but still respects the city's capital views."
Interesting. This whole thing is why people cry "government waste" when it comes to public transportation. Rail is not something you "figure out as you go along", especially when there are regulations such as "no overhead for your trolleys".
So what's going to eventually happen? They are going to rip up H Street again to install conduits/third rail/etc if they can't put up the wires?
A streetcar project like this is supposed to be adjusted to fit the needs of the city, not the other way around. I can't believe there was more discussion about something as important as this! I imagine they don't know that even back in the day, trolleys had to use conduits to run downtown.
I still stand behind my hypothesis -- it's not uncommon, or even unpopular or unwise, to put an issue "on the shelf" (away) to see if technology catches up and makes the job easier. If I was in the difficult position of DDOT, I might have done the same thing, especially since I have a chance to pull off my plan in a part of the city that isn't impacted by the regulation _before_ I needed to do it in town -- that is, if I had the chance to build a streetcar line in Anacostia where no one cares and then in downtown, I might "try some things" with the Anacostia [Corridor DEMONSTRATION] Line to see if I can win the masses when I'm ready for the H St line.
One thing's for sure, a streetcar system needs tracks -- so was it unwise to put those tracks in now when they had the money and the need to bust up H St? They'd have to do the work twice anyway, either do H St now (it NEEDED to be done) and bust it up when they solve the power question, or...at least get the _rails_ in place now then figure out the power question later. It's not a GOOD situation, maybe there are other ways it could've been handled, but considering what happened when it did and what the needs were at these times, I think what's happening is what needed to happen.
Tri-Met gets FTA grant:
http://www.fta.dot.gov/news/news_events_11564.html
Here's a potentially silly question: Instead of putting millions of dollars into researching existing technology, would it be possible to take one company's propulsion system and place it into a vehicle manufactured by someone else without a "partnership" similar to bus engines and such?
It would be great for them to come out with such a system, though, although I must wonder...why TriMet and not DC DOT? Is TriMet having similar issues?
Probably because TriMet A) Has experience operating light rail already, and B) Because the manufacturer (United Streetcar) is in their backyard.
I believe that Tri-Met and the State of Oregon are trying to jump start a domestic streetcar industry by promoting/assisting United Streetcar, LLC, a subsidiary of Oregon Iron Works, Inc. United is licensed by SKODA to manufacture its designs for the US market, complying with Buy America.
To date it has won contracts for additional vehicles for Portland and new vehicles for Tucson. They are variations of the same design as DCDOT's cars by Inekon following a troubled joint venture with SKODA.
See this Wikipedia article for details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Streetcar
BTW the overhead lines used in Portland, Seattle and Tacoma are practically invisible.
My goodness, those Portland Streetcars barely have any seats!
In regards to the overhead power, yes, the typical old fashioned trolleywire layout isn't as visually obtrusive as the catenary that you would find on mainline LRT and commuter rail. That's why I asked earlier if it was catenary or trolley wire that was chosen for the DC Streetcar system.
If you do things the right way, the wire could be integrated into something "artistic", like streetlamp poles down the median of the street. This would be easy to do along certain sections of H Street.
The discussion in THE WASHINGTON POST continues: on Sunday, 4/18/2010, columnist Philip Kennicott wrote "But the deeper issue is Washington's relation to the nation. Do we want to preserve the early 20th-century sense of ourselves as a grand imperial city that overawes tourists? Or do we want to be a model city for for the 21st century, a place where visitors from across the country and around the world can be inspired by innovative experiments in sustainable urban life?" Mr. Kennicott appears to favorite a "hybrid" system and concludes" "The flexibility of a hybrid system means that not only can the occasional monumental views be preserved wire-free, but that in certain areas the really distinctive views - the urban allees of overarching trees - might be kept wire-free too. If DDOT is flexible on both counts, the addition of streetcars would be as beautiful as any view of a marble monolith anywhere in the District."
On Wednesday, 4/21/2010, another article reported that DC transportation officials applied for $25 million in federal funding "to extend a streetcar line under construction on H Street and Benning Road NE across the Anacostia River." Apparently DDOT wants to extend the H Street line to Union Station. The article ended with the following annoucement: "The District is pursuing a hybrid model that would run on overhead wires outside downtown and switch to battery power in the National Mall area and other parts of the original federal city designed by Pierre L'Enfant."
Remember, that trolleys are not clean and green. That electricity comes from somewhere and in DC that somewhere is coal. Get a solar powered bus and or CNG and tel em about clean and green, a trolley, not so much.
It's cleanER but, yes, not clean. You'll notice that San Francisco Muni's (it's Muni, not MUNI, I actually looked that up!) Skodas say "Zero Emissions Vehicle" on the back -- that's because they use hydroelectric power.
(http://s2.postimage.org/5CC7A.jpg) (http://www.postimage.org/image.php?v=Ts5CC7A)
We probably wouldn't want to screw around with damming the Potomac (though we do need a new crossing!!!), so that's probably out. But we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good -- 1 big power plant is cleaner and easier to control than thousands of diesel engines. The real question is, how much more can our grid support?
Bombardier and Augsburg, Germany to test caternary-free system
http://www.metro-magazine.com/News/Story/2010/05/Bombardier-Augsburg-Germany-to-conduct-catenary-free-pilot.aspx
This technology is not ready for full scale implementation including some short segments of tram lines in French cities.
On Wednesday, July 14, 2010 THE WASHINGTON POST reported that the "D.C. Council made way for the first leg of a 37-mile trolley system Tuesday, unanimously approving legislation that allows overhead wires along Benning Road and H Street NE." "George Clark, president of the Committee of 100 on the Federal City, called the legislation an improvement because it also prohibits overhead wires along Pennsylvania Avenue between the White House and Congress."
- Alstholm's APS system is the only technology that's actually in service at this time primarily in several French cities where it is deployed on short segments of their tram networks in historic parts of those cities. As mentioned in an earlier post to this thread other approaches are being developed but none are ready for prime time: they're still in the prototype testing stage of development. When they are ready for market they are likely to be significantly more expensive than traditional overhead wire power systems and therefore have a big impact on construction costs, initially, until they become more widely deployed.
- Also since these are proprietary technologies they are exclusive to the vehicles of those manufacturers. Thus if one turns out to be "better" than the others you'll have to buy their trains and their infrastructure know-how to get it.
Keep in mind that where the Alstholm technology is now deployed is in areas with relatively mild or warm climates without the weather extremes we experience here. (While we would consider Brasilia and Dubai "extreme" climates, they are stable without the wide temperature and precipitation swings we experience here.) This is a major reliability factor that the other manufacturers are focusing on in their test bed locations since the major components will be continually exposed to the weather, traffic and, yes, potential vandalism.
While the local powers that be may loathe an "electric hairnet" around the Mall, are they willing to shovel out big $$$$ to be the beta tester for cutting edge technology. Especially given the current operational and maintenance challenges of the "proven" technology of Metrorail/MARC/Amtrak?