Read an Excerpt
Built to Move Millions
Streetcar Building in Ohio
By Craig R. Semsel Indiana University Press
Copyright © 2008 Craig R. Semsel
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-253-02802-0
CHAPTER 1
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STREET RAILWAY INDUSTRY
PREDECESSORS TO MODERN STREET RAILWAYS
The modern street railway system was a late-nineteenth-century invention, evolving out of a desire to replace the horsecar. Horsecars first appeared on city streets in the 1830s and were common in most large cities by the 1860s. Essentially, a horsecar was a large carriage with metal wheels designed to run on metal rails laid in the middle of the street. Rails were used because they provided a smoother ride, enabling the horse to pull a much heavier load. The cars were not exceptionally fast, usually running at 4–6 miles per hour.
Although popular, the horsecar had numerous disadvantages. Horses moved slowly and typically could only work four to six hours per day, requiring a street railway to have three to five times as many horses as cars. Each horse consumed 30 pounds of feed per day.
A large workforce was required to care for the horses. In addition to blacksmiths and veterinarians (an outbreak of disease could ruin an operation), one stable hand was necessary for every 12 to 14 horses. Street crews were required to clean up after the horses, as most cities had strict regulations about the removal of manure from their streets.
The average car horse had a useful service life of only five years. They were expensive to replace — for example, in 1880 a new car horse cost $150. This cost might be recovered partially through the sale of retired car horses, but not all of it. Some operators attempted to economize by substituting mules for horses. Although less expensive initially, mules also had a lower resale value than retired car horses.
It should come as no surprise that street railway operators sought mechanical alternatives to the horsecar. By the 1880s there was a plethora of alternatives, ranging from the conventional to the bizarre. During the 1889 American Street Railway Association convention, mechanical alternatives to the horsecar were discussed at length. Streetcars propelled by steam (produced both by conventional coal-fired boilers and by "fireless boilers" that generated heat using caustic soda), gasoline engines, ammonia, and compressed air were a few that were presented. A committee, assigned to the task of evaluating the alternatives, made the following cynical remark: "Of motors there are two kinds: motors and promoters; and of the two it is no small question in most cases to determine which is the more impractical."
The three alternatives that appeared to be the most promising were systems dependent upon steam engines, mechanically driven cables, or electricity for their motive power. At first glance, steam-powered streetcars would seem to be the logical replacement of the horsecar. Steam power had been successfully applied to many industries and modes of transportation, including the street railway's distant cousin, the railroad.
Most steam-powered streetcars were not steam-powered at all; instead, they were unpowered trailers (often former horsecars) towed behind a small steam locomotive. Their noise and appearance tended to frighten horses and annoy pedestrians. One design solution was to build a shell resembling an ordinary horsecar around the locomotive. Called "steam dummies," these vehicles were used in a number of U.S. and European cities. However, steam dummies could not overcome public prejudice toward steam-powered vehicles running through city streets. Fearing boiler explosions, city ordinances either placed severe restrictions on steam-powered streetcar operations or banned them outright. Steam-powered street railway vehicles were virtually extinct by World War One.
A more promising mechanical alternative to the horsecar was the cable car. This used a long loop of steel cable running through a trench, or "conduit," that was located between the rails. The trench's opening was kept as narrow as possible (for obvious reasons) and was referred to as a "slot." The car itself had a metal "grip" similar to pliers or a claw that hung from its underside and extended through the slot into the conduit. To move, the cable car's operator, called a "gripman," pulled a lever that caused the grip to grasp the moving cable. To stop, the gripman released the cable and manipulated a handbrake.
Cable car systems enjoyed a number of advantages over horsecars. They were at least twice as fast, could operate unimpeded in all types of weather, were cleaner and very quiet, could handle sudden crush loads of passengers without requiring additional power output, and were of particular advantage on hills. No fewer than 26 North American cities had cable car systems.
Despite the inherent advantages of cable railways over horsecars, there were numerous problems with cable railways that could not be overcome. The most obvious problem was cable breakage. Breaks were usually caused by premature wear, which indicated poorly aligned guide pulleys and sheaves in the conduit. This danger was minimal along straight routes, but increased considerably on routes containing hills and curves.
Worse than an outright break was the danger of frayed or kinked cables. Frays or kinks could easily snag a cable car's grip, making it impossible for the gripman to release the cable. Such cars were helpless, doomed to be dragged along their route until word was sent to the powerhouse or the car collided with something massive enough to stop it and allow the grip to be wrenched free. In light of the above, cable railways routinely stopped their cables (usually late each night) to inspect them for signs of damage.
Dangers aside, cable car routes were costly to construct, adding a level of complexity unheard of with horsecars or steam dummies. Conduits required excavation and an extraordinary amount of cast iron or steel. Their sides were reinforced with yokes spaced at regular intervals, usually 6 feet or less. Yokes often weighed 300-500 pounds apiece. Guide pulleys and sheaves (needed to direct the cable) as well as powerhouse machinery added to the already formidable cost of installation. Cost also depended upon the location of the powerhouse. Powerhouses needed to be sited along a line's immediate route or at a junction of lines, forcing cable railway owners to buy property at whatever price realtors demanded.
Naturally, once installed, cable car routes were inflexible. In order to ensure the long-term success of a prospective line (or at least to ensure that the line paid for itself ), street railway owners had to be certain that the intended route would provide a high level of ridership. As a result, cable car lines tended to be constructed only in densely settled neighborhoods of populous cities.
An additional disadvantage was the cable car's lack of maneuverability. This term is admittedly a loose one, as any rail vehicle is limited by its inability to steer around obstacles. However, cable cars were limited further by their inability to travel in reverse. (This was also difficult to do with a horsecar, but not impossible.)
Finally, there was the rather disappointing running speed of the cable car. Cable speeds were limited by the power of the driving apparatus and by the amount of hardware in the conduits. The average running speed of cable railways in the United States was 10 miles per hour. The maximum speed for any cable car line was 14 miles per hour. This does not mean that 14 miles per hour was excessively slow, but it does mean that there were limits to the radius that cable car lines could cover.
Although the theoretical radius of a cable railway was over twice that of an animal-powered one, the cable railway's running speed, combined with the necessity of locating lines in centers of high population density, meant they often did little to promote urban expansion. For example, in his study of transportation in Pittsburgh, historian Joel Tarr concluded that its three cable car lines had a minimal impact on the city's growth in comparison with the subsequent electric street railway and the automobile.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODERN STREET RAILWAY SYSTEM
The mechanical alternative to the horsecar that proved to be the most successful was the electrically powered street railway system. Its precise origin is a matter of some dispute among historians, although it is generally acknowledged that the first commercial lines were designed and built in Europe by Dr. Ernst Werner von Siemens. Siemens successfully demonstrated a small, experimental electric railway at the 1879 Berlin Industrial Exhibition. He built his first full-sized commercial street railway system at Lichterfelde in Berlin in 1881. This was soon followed by additional lines in Charlottenburg (a Berlin suburb) in 1882 and in Potrush, Ireland, in 1883.
In the United States, electric railway technology (either railroad or street railway) did not pass the experimental stage until the mid-1880s. The first commercial line was opened in Cleveland in 1884. It was not successful and ran only until the fall of 1885. However, the success in Europe, the enthusiasm with which electrical inventions were being received both in Europe and the United States, and the promise of a motive power that was less expensive to build than a cable railway and less expensive to operate than a horsecar line and was free of the stigma of the steam boiler proved irresistible for American inventors and entrepreneurs.
The man who is credited with developing the first practical electric street railway system is Frank Julian Sprague. Born in Milford, Connecticut, in 1857, Sprague graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1878. While serving as a naval officer, he traveled extensively and often reported on European developments in electrical science and technology.
In 1883, Sprague went to work for Thomas Edison at Menlo Park, New Jersey. His stay with Edison was brief, for in 1884 he formed the Sprague Electric Railway & Motor Company. He initially designed and installed electric motors for industrial plants, but he was also interested in railway applications. In the late 1880s Sprague designed and perfected his own electric street railway system, drawing on his experiences in Europe and those of inventors in the United States.
Historian Clay McShane describes the Sprague system as not so much a new system as it was a synthesis of existing systems. To deliver electrical power, Sprague adopted the method of centering a copper wire directly over the rails. Also like some earlier systems, Sprague used an under-running pole (trolley) for current collection. Sprague's motors combined simplicity with sturdy, durable construction. He used conventional rheostat and resistor technology for motor control. Although not as efficient as some types of motor control, Sprague probably felt that the convenience of simplicity justified the loss in efficiency.
Sprague employed a unique type of motor linkage. The "wheelbarrow" method of motor suspension (as Sprague called it) consisted of mounting half of the motor on the axle and half on the truck frame. The motor's pinion gear (the small gear attached to the motor's armature shaft) rested on larger gears mounted on the car's axle. The rest of the motor was attached to the truck frame by springs. This type of mounting enabled the motor to withstand any shocks associated with normal operation while keeping the gears constantly enmeshed.
Sprague's first technically successful demonstration of the system was carried out in 1888 at Richmond, Virginia. His first commercial success followed in early 1889 between Boston and Brookline, Massachusetts. Sprague's system proved that electric street railways could be the ideal successor to the horsecar. Like the cable car, electric streetcars were clean. Although expensive to install, they were less expensive than a cable car system. Since power was distributed through overhead wires, powerhouses did not need to be located along a railway's immediate route. Instead, they could be located where land was cheaper or where there was ready access to a supply of coal. Unlike cable car lines, power output could be altered to meet existing traffic demands. Electric streetcars also had the capability of operating in reverse, if necessary, and their ability to vary their speed enabled them to make up for lost time.
Advances in motor controls enabled a degree of standardization for control systems and contributed to the rapid expansion of street railways. Popularly known as K-controllers, these motor control systems were first offered by General Electric and Westinghouse in 1893. The K-controller was essentially a rheostat that simplified the various electrical connections that cut out resistance from the motor circuits to accelerate the car. The K-controller was nearly universal on streetcars into the 1910s, and it remained the most common control system into the 1920s and 1930s.
GROWTH OF ELECTRIC STREET RAILWAYS
Part of the appeal of the electrically powered streetcar was its potential operating radius. Historian Clay McShane once estimated that at an average speed of 3 miles per hour (allowing for stops), the effective area served by animal-powered railways could be 28 square miles. Cable-powered railways, at an average speed of 10 miles per hour, had the potential of serving 78 square miles. As noted previously, this was rarely (if ever) accomplished.
The electric street railway, on the other hand, offered greater promise. Less expensive to build than a cable railway, less expensive to operate than an animal railway, and faster than both, the electric street railway could more easily cover the theoretical operating area of either. At an average speed of 15 miles per hour, the potential area covered could reach as high as 176 square miles.
Street railways tended to radiate outward from a city's center, usually terminating in areas that had yet to be developed. Their construction was generally supported by three groups of people: downtown real estate owners, businessmen, and executives who wished to draw more people into the city's center; real estate developers who wanted ready access to new development projects at a city's periphery, and those whose commute was already overcrowded or poorly served.
Street railways allowed cities to grow. In the years before the automobile, they were the principal means of getting around (if one discounts walking). New residential neighborhoods were constructed at the peripheries of cities, allowing the middle class to move away from the city's center. Although wealthier than the working class, members of the middle class were still dependent upon working regular hours, usually at jobs in or close to downtown. The street railway made such outward movement possible.
Another form of electric railway was the interurban, which, as its name implies, ran either between cities or from a city deep into the hinterland. Distinguishing between an interurban and a street railway with extensive suburban operations is often a challenge to historians. George Hilton and John F. Due suggested the following set of characteristics as a rough guide: electric power, service based primarily upon passenger traffic (although some interurbans had significant freight operations as well), equipment that was both heavier and faster than that of street railways, and a mixture of running conditions (street railway trackage within cities and private rights-of-way outside city limits).
Interurbans filled a significant gap in urban and regional transport in the days before the automobile. They connected smaller cities and towns with larger ones, often serving areas that had been neglected by the steam railroads. They also ran frequent service, often on an hourly basis.
The growth of the electric street railway industry was nothing short of explosive. The Street Railway Journal reported that by 1900 there were already 905 street railways of all types either in operation or in the planning stages in the United States. These railways had built over 20,400 miles of track, were operating nearly 63,000 cars, and represented a total investment of over $1 billion.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Built to Move Millions by Craig R. Semsel. Copyright © 2008 Craig R. Semsel. Excerpted by permission of Indiana University Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
