Progressive Tram Design in the 30s (was: Citadis: Seat Layout)

[Wolfgang Auer <Wolfgang_Auer_9912@gmx.net>]

aus.rail,

Bill Bolton <billbolton@computer.org> quoted David Bennetts:

>> - Europe didn't lead the way here but followed on.
>
>No.  Many of the cars being built in Western Europe in the 1920/30s
>prior to the US introduction of the PCC were significantly in advance
>of the technology that was commonly used in contemporaneous US
>streetcars.

Well, it depends on your definition of "many" ;-)

It may certainly be the case that there were some revolutionary
designs in Europe in the 20s and 30s -- Duisburg's articulated
"Harkort" tram with Jacobs bogies, e. g., the "goldfish" trams
in Oslo, some sophisticated Italian designs. But they were very
much the exception rather than the rule. The best part of European
tram cities very much continued to rely on rather obsolete designs:
Two axle trams of Birney car size, with a compartment/platform
arrangement, often to be hauling one trailer, sometimes two of
them. Those trains had quite significant disadvantages:

*) Bad running properties. Some modern low-floor trams behave
   like a train of two-axle trams, and their harm to the tracks
   is all but negligible, although tram technology has made a
   quantum leap since the 1920s. Quite a gap in comparison to
   the PCC cars smooth running and quick acceleration.

*) Bad acceleration. A motor car with just two axles, often with
   a weak motor, had to haul two trailers. Not a good ratio of
   powered vs. unpowered axles at all... How much this pales in
   comparison with a PCC's famous accelerator!

*) Larger crews. When one-man trams were already in wide-spread
   use in North America, and roving conductors slowly vanished,
   our three-car trains still required four people, one driver
   and three conductors. As long as PoP systems were unknown,
   the layout of the trams made it rather impossible to operate
   any car without conductor.

I can't really see what's progressive with these *standard* trams
in Europe of the 1930s, although, as I pointed out, there were
*a few* exceptions indeed. The *widespread* development of
"Großraumwagen" trams (4 axles with bogies and a continous
interior without a compartment/platform arrangement), however,
commenced only in the 1940s. So, I'd surely rate the *average*
Australian and North American tram of the 1930s much more
progressive than Europe's counterpart. Philadelphia's famous
Nearside tram type, e. g., was something rather unimaginable
in many European cities in pre-WWII times, and would probably
still have been rated modern here in the early 1950s...

Best regards from Wien (Vienna, Austria), Wolfgang