Charlotte Heritage Trolley System and Trolley Barn/Museum

[orulz]

There's an interesting Wikipedia article that gives a brief overview of railway electrification worldwide.

According to the article, DC is desirable for two reasons:

1. The electric systems are simple and less expensive.

2. You get 41% more power per volt from direct current system. This implies that higher voltage is undesirable, for whatever reason.

The main disadvantage of DC is the higher resistive loss associated with lower voltages. That means thicker wires.

I guess that the 41% power decrease is the reason that there are no low-voltage, AC systems in existence.

[monsoon]

There's an interesting Wikipedia article that gives a brief overview of railway electrification worldwide.

According to the article, DC is desirable for two reasons:

1. The electric systems are simple and less expensive.

2. You get 41% more power per volt from direct current system. This implies that higher voltage is undesirable, for whatever reason.

The main disadvantage of DC is the higher resistive loss associated with lower voltages. That means thicker wires.

I guess that the 41% power decrease is the reason that there are no low-voltage, AC systems in existence.

I found the article to be poorly written from a theory standpoint. But it was interesting never the less.

First over time there is no difference between DC or AC in regards to cables.

Power = voltage x current. So 100 watts is produced by 100 volts at 1 amp or 10 volts at 10 amps. However a cable that can carry 10 amps of current is much larger than one that can carry 1 amp. Its the same for DC or AC. DC systems have resistive losses because they USED low voltage, not because it is DC. This is why it is preferable to have higher voltages, i.e. smaller cables are needed. Keep in mind this equation is a simplification for AC and the real equations that cover it from a transmission basis are much more complicated. This is why I keep saying "over time".

The 41% power loss statement was only directed to the implementation of 3rd rail systems. It does not mean there is 41% more energy available if you use DC to propel a train. They did not explain the reason but there isn't an electrical reason this might be the case so I can't explain it, but DC systems are not 41% more efficient than ones based on AC.

My guess is the reason there are no low voltage AC systems in existance is because it is a new technology and they automatically went to the higher voltages because at any given instant AC is more efficient than DC.

[RiverwoodCLT]

Thomas Edeson want to use DC power and Westinghouse provided AC power. The draw back to DC power is the loses too much power over distance, so it needed power station every few miles to keep the votage up.

As we all know, Mr. Westinghouse won this race.

[orulz]

Thomas Edeson want to use DC power and Westinghouse provided AC power. The draw back to DC power is the loses too much power over distance, so it needed power station every few miles to keep the votage up.

As we all know, Mr. Westinghouse won this race.

That's not the root cause of DC's problems, although it is the main symptom.

The problem is that a static magnetic field (DC) does not induce current, while a CHANGING magnetic field (AC) does. Therefore, there is no such thing as a DC transformer, while it is a trivial matter to step up or step down AC voltage. This allows AC to be transmitted at MUCH higher voltage with less resistive loss, and stepped down to lower voltage at a substation, and still lower voltage at a pole-mounted transformer before going into the home.

With DC distribution, you can't have a 100 mile 550,000 volt high-tension line (with nearly negligible loss) stepped down eventually to a 110 volt home electric system for the last 100 feet.

However, in the case of a streetcar, you can just put in a power station every couple of miles. A power substation that converts from x volts AC to 750v DC is pretty cheap compared to a station that converts from y volts AC to 25,000v AC.

[monsoon]

Actually these days it is easier to transmit the power in the overhead cables as 25,000V AC and then do the conversion on the train if DC motors are to be used. This eliminates the need to build power stations.

With modern high power electronics that have come onto the market since the 1980s, it is easier to run the train with 3 phase AC motors, but I don't think this would be compatible with the trolley since it only has one conductor. I've learned a few things from this discussion and it's obvious the trolley must be running on 750V DC given the technology on these cars. It remains to be seen if the new LRVs will use this as well and they will run DC lines down the length of the track, or instead do something more modern.

[appatone]

I don't keep up with this thread very well so I'm sorry if this has been posted before or if it's old news but this website has several renderings for this project on it including the trolley barn.

http://www.neighboringconcepts.com

[dubone]

That is a great find, appatone. I hadn't seen the rendering of the restored Trolley Barn, only that they planned to make it look like it was originally.

It is a little hard to find on the website, so here is the rendering:

After seeing this rendering, I think I'm significantly more disappointed that the project may not happen. Maybe they can work out a Synthetic TIF with the Crescent project next door to revive the project in the same fashion like many other recent projects for the public good.

[atlrvr]

I can tell you...it will NOT happen there...though a replica barn may be built somewhere else in South End.

[dubone]

I'm fine with a relocation, as long as they salvage some of the materials so it has some credence.

[dubone]

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/new...ic/14353834.htm

Well, it appeared like yet another Rubin Anti-Transit article (RAT for short) today, but he seems to have switched it up. It was definitely a negative headline, as usual, but hopefully many will read the article and agree that the city did quite a bit right to avoid waste with LRT.

I actually (as can be seen through some threads on UP) have always been surprised that they didn't do more to avoid tearing stuff out when LRT was built. But it is good to know that they'll simply reuse the same rails, and just put back the stations.

[hueion39]

Well, it appeared like yet another Rubin Anti-Transit article (RAT for short) today, but he seems to have switched it up. It was definitely a negative headline, as usual, but hopefully many will read the article and agree that the city did quite a bit right to avoid waste with LRT.

I liked the article... it was more anti-spending than anti-transit. I think it successfully highlights the lack of foresight and coordination. I would liken it to re-paving South Blvd, then 6 months later ripping it up to install the future light rail line.

[monsoon]

So my question is how do you design a LRT around an already existing Trolley?

Let's keep in mind the trolley project was started in 1989, long before there were any plans to bring light rail to Charlotte. (sometime in the late 90s).

The article, like the one about the line in the North, is poorly written and is nothing more than pulp. The author first makes a big deal the Trolley is being torn down less than two years after it opened, yet the part he is complaing about has been open for years longer than that. He cleverly quotes a confused person on the matter to avoid any having to bear any responsibility for fanning up the flames like this. A good reporter would have informed the confused person, this has been in the plan for years. It's more tabloidism.

When CATS was created to built the LRT and by the time it was finally approved, the Trolley was already operating. The Trolley project was not a CATS project which the writer of that article seems to miss also. However once the city decided to build the line, it has done a comendable job in controlling costs in regards to building around the already existing Trolley.

What Rubinn, seems to keep missing in his tabloidism is that CATS has stayed on budget once the project has been approved. The rebuilding of the Trolley to work with the LRT is old news. It's amazing to me that he is trying to make an issue out of something that's been known for a long time. It's a shame the Observer has devolved to this level of "reporting".

[dubone]

And what about the hundreds of millions saved on the LRT by reusing an already owned right of way and bridges?

[hueion39]

Let's keep in mind the trolley project was started in 1989, long before there were any plans to bring light rail to Charlotte. (sometime in the late 90s).

So.... there were say 5-6 yrs to work together? It seems reasonable that more could have been done to take the light rain into consideration, even at the expensive of a delayed opening of the trolley line.

[monsoon]

So.... there were say 5-6 yrs to work together? It seems reasonable that more could have been done to take the light rain into consideration, even at the expensive of a delayed opening of the trolley line.

How would you have done it differently and kept the costs to less than $500M in today's money? That is a remarkable price given that most LRT lines cost far more. The TTA system in Raleigh for example, hit $1B dollars from an original estimate of only $100M. And its just commuter rail.

BTW, the MTA did not decide to build the South LRT until 2002. The city only paid $19M for the Trolley and it has already paid for that investment in increased tax revenues due to property increases along the line. Delaying the Trolley would have cost the city money.

[hueion39]

How would you have done it differently and kept the costs to less than $500M in today's money?

As a transit layman, planning and communication is what comes to mind. It just seems like a public relations disaster. The article today clearly pushes and identifies that issue.

[dubone]

That's true, plus the most expensive elements of the trolley line are reuseable, primarily the upgrades to the convention center, and the trolley cars.

The rails are also reuseable. I'm sure it doesn't add that much cost to pull them up and re-lay them, as they have specialized equipment to do that.

The things that surprised me were the poles, as it seems they should have laid them in the correct spot in the first place. And even though I'm sure it doesn't cost that much to return the station canopies, it still seems odd that they had to move it.

In the scheme of things, most of these things are purely symoblic and don't really tally up to that much (of the 19m/40m/427m). But if you're in the mode to criticize, there are always things to find that will seem wasteful at a glance.

[monsoon]

As a transit layman, planning and communication is what comes to mind. It just seems like a public relations disaster. The article today clearly pushes and identifies that issue.

Only if you believe in the bad writing from one author in the Observer. Arm chair quarterbacking is quite common when it comes to transit projects and the Observer is no exception to this rule. Laymen voted for this system which is something they could not even accomplish with the arena. They must be doing something right in transit planning and communications or that would not have happened.

[orulz]

How would you have done it differently and kept the costs to less than $500M in today's money? That is a remarkable price given that most LRT lines cost far more. The TTA system in Raleigh for example, hit $1B dollars from an original estimate of only $100M. And its just commuter rail.

I'm going to get a bit off topic here...

Your point about costs spiraling from initial estimates is absolutely true, but I think it's important to note the scope of TTA's project, and how it morphed into a much more comprehensive mode of transporation than was initially proposed.

To the best of my knowledge, the official estimates never hit a billion dollars... perhaps un-released estimates for the whole line from Duke Medical to North Raleigh did, but those estimates never went public and the length was cut back to keep costs in line.

Although the initial proposal resembled commuter rail to begin with, the plan now is anything but "just commuter rail." There are very few (if any?)commuter rail lines in the country with departures in both directions at least every 30 minutes, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. The title "commuter rail" still sticks for one reason only: FTA and FRA rules.

[sax184]

There has never been a cost estimate of $1 billion on TTA rail that was not created by John Lockers or WPTF freaks. That said, obviously, the cost estimates at the beginning were wildly optimistic and reflect poor judgment on the general manager who touted them, Jim Ritchie.

[monsoon]

There has never been a cost estimate of $1 billion on TTA rail ....

Here is where the $1 billion comes from.

• Current request from the TTA in front of the feds is $809.9M.

• In 2004 TTA scaled back plans from 16 stations and 35 miles to 12 stations and 28 miles. They booked a savings of $149M for that in 2004 construction dollars. My estimate is that is probably worth $175M in current construction dollars in current money.

• In 2005 TTA made an additional $25M in cuts to the system.

• There has already been about $100M spent on design work that has been appropriated by the state and feds in various bills over the last decade

Thus for the original 16 station sytem running for 35 miles we have:

• Current $809M

• 2004 Scale Back - $175M

• 2005 Scale Back - $25M

• Spent money - $100M

• Total - $1.109 Billion

Feel free to dispute these numbers but they are all on this site if you want to use the search to find them. The reason this came up is we were talking about costs out of control, and I presented this as an example of a process that has risen to more than 10X its original proposal unlike the one for the CATS LRT which has done a marvelous job in containing cost increases.

[orulz]

I could be wrong about this - but I thought the $809 million estimates for the budget included the money already spent, meaning there's $709 million left to spend on the project. Anyone care to clarify?

It's not quite fair to compare increases since the mid 1990s for TTA, before there had even been a firm proposal or a commitment to a technology, with increases since the 2004 New Starts agreement in Charlotte. If you want to get as close to "apples to apples" as you can, look at the 1998-era estimate for the South Corridor, which was $227 million. That was the result of a detailed study which proposed a specific alignment and committed to a technology. This projection that was used to pitch the sales tax to the public.projection included an additional station (or two) at Pineville and / or Carolina Place mall. CATS's projected costs have nearly doubled since then, and that's without any changes in technology, desired frequency, or mode of transport.

TTA increased a whole lot more - and that's because TTA's initial estimates made a lot of unrealistic assumptions - but CATS has not been immune to the phenomenon of escalating budgets either.

[monsoon]

TTA increased a whole lot more - and that's because TTA's initial estimates made a lot of unrealistic assumptions - but CATS has not been immune to the phenomenon of escalating budgets either.

I completely agree but the subject was in managing expectations for transit, and a 2X increase is a lot easier to stomach than one that is 10X. Even worse is a 10X system that still isn't approved and subject to even more increases until it is approved. Raw material costs are driving up the costs of all construction, and I suspect that if the TTA system is ever approved, and construction bids go out, they are going to find the $809M proposal is now going to cost them far more than that.