Dispute on overhead wires for DC streetcars

[WMAveteran]

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.   

[Antozilla]

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?

[mrpete]

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.

[Tristan]

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.

[mrpete]

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

[Antozilla]

Hmm, DC street cars got along with out catenry for years.

[WMATAGMOAGH]

Except when they didn't...

[WMAveteran]

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.

[Tritransit Area]

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.

[Tritransit Area]

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.

[WMAveteran]

 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." 

[Tritransit Area]

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.

[Tristan]

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.

[mrpete]

Tri-Met gets FTA grant:

http://www.fta.dot.gov/news/news_events_11564.html

[Tritransit Area]

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?