36-70
In mid-2010, when the east phase of the Mercer Corridor Project began construction, the trolleybus wires on Fairview used by Route 70 were removed, and the trolleybuses which have worked that route since 1997 were temporarily replaced with motorcoaches. Then last November, while Fairview itself was reconstructed, buses were detoured away from the heart of South Lake Union over to the far east side, on Eastlake. Finally, however, the eastern phase of the MCP is essentially done with Mercer and Fairview, and is moving on to the last major component, reconstructing Valley Street, which will not impact Route 70 (although it looks like it will impact Routes 40 and 62).
I asked Metro when we could expect to see Route 70 return to Fairview and re-electrified. Metro spokesman Jeff Switzer responded:
We’re still coordinating when the 70 etc. buses will return to Fairview, but know the city is aiming for March 9 weather dependent. The current schedule could see the 70 re-electrified about a month or so after buses are back on Fairview, putting in the April or May ballpark. I can share more details as the city schedule firms up, and we start restringing wires; [there will be a] period of testing once the wires are up, too, and that takes time.
Route 70 has been motorized since I moved to Seattle, so for me, it’ll be like a whole new trolleybus route; I’m looking forward to it. Trolleybuses have always appealed to my instincts as an engineer, delivering quiet, almost-fossil-fuel-free transit with a moderate, low-risk investment in overhead and substations.
When I last checked with Metro in December, trolleybus acquisition was proceeding as expected, with a supplier expected to be announced in late March.
More trolleybus and Metro news generally after the jump.
Why are all the trolleybus routes being motorized all weekend, every weekend?
We occasionally get this questions similar to this via email. Metro has always done full or partial motorization when needed for public or private construction under or adjacent to overhead wire, or for maintenance of the wire itself, but rarely was the entire network motorized all weekend. Current full motorization is caused by the First Hill streetcar construction on Jackson Street, which interferes with the deadhead route that all trolleys must use coming to or from Atlantic Base; so this situation will persist until construction on Jackson is complete.
Trolleybus Passing Wire Project at Seattle Pacific in Jeopardy
There is one possibly-bad piece of trolleybus news: a Metro project to install a passing wire near Seattle Pacific University may be cut from the budget. This passing wire is needed to execute a very desirable trolleybus restructure in Queen Anne, namely eliminating the quaint vestigial terminal loops of Routes 3 and 4 and sending those buses to Seattle Pacific University. This would triple the amount of service received by SPU, a place that generates quite a lot of all-day ridership, and make Queen Anne much less of a transit dead-end, all for about three-quarters of a million dollars, plus one extra coach in the consolidated 3/4 schedule. It’s something Metro should keep if at all possible.
Trying Again for a Battery-Powered Bus
A couple of years ago, Metro was awarded an FTA grant to purchase and operate a battery-powered (or technically, a “battery-dominant”) bus, as a part of a study to see how they can work in a transit system. Metro spokeswoman Rochelle Ogershok had this update:
We did issue an RFP a while back and received three proposals, but none of them were viable. So we plan to go back and issue another RFP early next year with some modifications that include fast charging capabilities.
Future “Short Buses” to be 35′
A while ago, I wrote about how Metro was deciding the type of vehicle to purchase to replace the current “short bus” fleet of 30′ and 35′ Gillig Phantoms (and the infamous, now-withdrawn Workhorse vans). Here’s Ogershok again:
After analyzing some of our routes (which included field test drives), Metro determined that 35-foot buses would best satisfy the ‘small bus’ fleet needs. We have been using older 30, 35 and 40-foot buses on these routes. The 35-foot bus offers more versatility and flexibility — and will be able to carry anticipated passenger loads on these smaller routes. We are currently working on an agreement for the purchase of 60 of these buses. Since our current vendor (Daimler) is no longer building buses in North America, we are working to assign the 40 & 35-ft bus contract to New Flyer. We hope to begin taking delivery of the new buses in the fall of 2014.
This is great news for Route 50 riders, as these newer buses will be quieter and more roomy than the 30′ Phantoms now assigned to that route.
Future 35′ & 40′ Coaches to be New Flyer Xcelsior
As alluded to in the previous answer, Daimler, who manufacture Metro’s newest model of coach, the Orion, have exited the US bus market:
The Xcelsior bus is the bus model we plan to fulfill our needs for 40-foot and 35-foot buses. New Flyer makes both 35 and 40-foot models of the Xcelsior bus. Since our current vendor of 40 & 35-foot buses (Daimler) is no longer building buses in North America, we are working to assign their contract to New Flyer. Assigning the Daimler contract to New Flyer would allow Metro to acquire the 215 buses (155 40-foot and 60 35-foot buses) we anticipate needing in the future.
Uptown-Belltown Project Still on Track
Finally, in better trolleybus news, the Uptown-Belltown trolleybus project is still on track. The project finally has a blurb on the SDOT transit project webpage.
Feel free to talk about anything Metro- or trolleybus-related in this thread.
What’s the story behind these? From my limited knowledge, they were used for about a month, but they were so bad that metro had to stop using them. Reasonably accurate? Did they get any sort of refund?
There were crippling visibility problems and some kind of issue with fumes coming from the ventilation system. As I understand it, litigation is ongoing (I’m not on the inside).
I saw one of these vans running as “TEST” in the middle of last week, eastbound on Jackson at 5th.
Huh? That makes no sense. The wire on Broadway to Boren doesn’t work on weekdays either … and the ETBs run on weekdays.
That section of wire on Broadway/Boren can be detoured around. Every single trolley leaving or returning to Atlantic Base MUST pass through the intersection of 5th and Jackson. There is no available detour.
yes … but it doesn’t explain Metro’s answer about Boren/Broadway wire being unavailable as a reason not to have ETBs running on weekends.
Detours on base routes cost money for operator overtime (and, marginally, for the extra mileage on the vehicles). They are unavoidable on the weekdays because there aren’t enough diesel coaches for full motorization. On the weekends, when plenty of diesel coaches are available, it’s more cost-effective to motorize than to pay operators to do detours.
“doesn’t explain Metro’s answer about Boren/Broadway wire”
Where do they mention that? They specifically say Jackson.
Zed. The deadhead route they are talking about is on Broadway/Boren to Jackson st at 12th ave. This has been out of service since streetcar construction began last June. Other than utility relocation on Jackson St, First Hill Streetcar construction has only just begun in earnst … yet they have been motorizing all ETB routes for at least the past year if not longer.
My point was that if they can run the ETBs on weekdays while avoiding Broadway/Boren then they could do it on Weekends as well.
Perhaps there is some work along Jackson (at 5th) requiring the wires be turned off that cannot be done overnight. If the construction needs a couple of days w/o overhead wires every week then there’s your explanation. I’m sure Metro would prefer to run trolleys if they could.
When the First HIll Streetcar construction started, all weekday trolley bus service that pulled out via Broadway/Boren (heading to the terminals of routes 2,3,4,10,12,43,44, and 49) were rescheduled, on weekdays, to pullout via downtown.
That meant that 2/01 (for instance), rather than deadheading to Madrona Park, would route up 1st Ave thru downtown, turn back at Virginia Street, and enter service as an outbound 2 s/b on 3rd Avenue at some ungodly early hour. Multiply this times every pullout (and pullin) and there is some serious cost.
Weekend runs were left alone (ie, to pullin/pullout via the old Broadway/Boren route). At one point, the pick sheets reflected trolley or diesel equipment depending on the pullin/pullout, and there were a couple of weekend days with mixed trolley and diesel service on the affected routes. But those days have ended and we’ve had full dieselization.
We should count our lucky stars it didn’t snow this winter. With the Broadway/Boren wire turned off / inaccessible, the trolley snow routes would be inoperable.
Perhaps a potential cost saving to help pay for the extra bus or two needed for a revised Queen Anne service could come from having Route 36 continue through as Route 70. I mention two buses because hopefully in the Queen Anne restructure, Route 1 could continue through and cover 6th Ave W during the off-peak and end at the current Route 3 terminal.
The frequencies don’t match. Route 36 has 10-minute headways and Route 70 has 15-minute off-peak headways.
It would be done as part of an Eastlake restructure where the 25 and 66 were deleted and the 70 boosted to 10-minute headways.
From about noon to about 630pm the 36 runs at 7-8 minute headways which would allow every-other 36 to continue as a 70 during those hours.
Why is Daimler withdrawing from North America?
http://www.thestar.com/business/2012/04/25/daimler_shuts_down_mississaugas_orion_bus_plant_after_government_belttightening.html
Basically the North American transit bus market is just too small to be worth investing in. It’s the Checker Motors problem all over again. Orion has been selling < 1000 units a year; it's hard to pay off tooling and development costs at that volume.
New Flyer isn't exactly raking in the dough, either.
Bummer. I really like the Orion buses they are now using on my route instead of the old Phantoms.
Well, the population of North America including Mexico is less than Europe and obviously a much larger land mass. But bejesus, why can’t government adopt laws that let us leverage the huge international investment in all sorts of transit options. Not to harp on the CNG thing too much but internationally it’s grown 30% in the last decade and less the 3% domestically. We’re the most subsidy driven least capitalist market in the world when it comes to transit vehicle production. And it’s not the fault of the enviro-mentalists [ad humorist]:=
Wondering how why bus lane on Broad and trolley improvements at Denny and Broad are both needed. Is it because articulated buses will never be able to turn onto Denny from Broad and will still need to take the jog onto First?
The currently planned projects will build new wire for southbound ETBs on Denny, while making improvements for northbound ETBs on Broad and First. I know there is a long-term wish to move the northbound ETBs to Denny as well, but that will be a complicated project and doesn’t seem to be on the immediate radar.
Makes sense. But do you think Rapid Ride buses will ever be able to turn left there (or articulated trolleys, if the 2 ever needed it)?
That will depend on whether the city can figure out a way to provide a prioritized left-turn movement for transit from northbound 3rd onto westbound Denny without mangling traffic flow on Denny beyond recovery. If the city can figure that out, then installing more wire is the easy part.
The proposed new trolley routing on Denny will create a crossover where the inbound wires on Denny will cross the wires headed to Queen Anne at 1st Ave N. Will the crossover be built strong enough to allow the trolley buses to pass through the intersection at speeds greater than 10 mph?
Don’t see why. There is no other special work in the system where buses are allowed to speed through. It’s not like buses will be moving all that fast anyway at that location..
Thanks Bruce.
Does anyone know where Metro stands in the process to buy new ETB’s? I have a vague memory that it’s still a few years out, but I can’t wait so see what they choose. I saw a trolley bus on the side of the road the other day with the back open and the team of mechanics working on it had a look of concern that would have been appropriate for surgeons working on a 100 year old man’s heart.
Here’s what Rocky had to say about the trolleybus acquisition back in December, when I last asked for an update:
As I noted in a post a couple of weeks ago, word from the inside is that people on high feel that three doors and reduced (RapidRide-style) seating makes sense on 60′ trolleys.
3 sets of doors is what makes the Bredas such a joy to have on the real busy routes like the 49
The Vancouver ETB that Metro tried out last year (or was it 2 years ago) … was that a New Flyer ETB or a Nova Bus ETB? I can’t remember
That one was a New Flyer E40LFR.
Which routes need 40-foot trolleybuses (vs. which routes allow for 60-foot trolleybuses)?
The 2S, 3N, 3S, 4N, 10, 12, 14, and 47 have terminals that physically cannot accommodate a 60′ coach, so those routes require 40′ coaches.
The 3S, 4S, and 12 also climb and descend downtown streets where 60′ equipment to date has not been able to negotiate the steep approach and breakover angles.
The 2N and 13 (as well as a few of the above) descend the counterbalance, where Metro has been unwilling to send its 60′ trolley equipment to date because stopping in the rain is difficult. New equipment may be easier to stop safely in the rain; Metro is now willing to send diesel 60′ coaches down the counterbalance, which it wasn’t until the 2300s arrived.
The 1, 7, 36, 43, 44, 49, and (once reopened) 70 are currently considered safe by Metro for 60′ equipment. Typically it’s only used on the 7, 43, 44, 49, and select trips on the 36.
Another thought: Once U-Link opens, I would like to see the 36 and 49 combined via the Boren/Broadway wire, and no longer going through downtown. Such a route could have 10-minute frequency, all with 60′ coaches, for considerably less money than the existing 36 and 49.
David L,
You would remove direct access to downtown from the entire length of Beacon Hill? That seems pretty draconian, especially since the 60 already serves Beacon Hill to Broadway travelers. I guess you’d end it at 15th and Beacon (Beacon Hill Station) like it used to?
Beacon Avenue, 13th South and 14th South are all getting development all along the strip north of Beacon Hill Station. And then there’s PacMed; much of the ridership to it is from other inner city neighborhoods than Capitol and First Hills. Sure, the development right around the station is better served by Link. But go as far as the arterial turn at 14th and development beyond there is poorly served by a double back and transfer.
The base level of service on the 36 is eight to ten minutes throughout the day. If the 36 were an under-performer, it’d make sense to force the transfer. But it’s not or Metro wouldn’t be increasing the frequency every few shake-ups. And 36 service is (mostly) electric, so what does one really gain from through routing with the 49 except driver hours elimination? Travelers headed for the U district from south of Beacon Hill Station will certainly transfer to Link. Maybe some in the north end of the hill will ride through, but for them the double back would make sense.
Has there been any word about how the 2014 cuts might affect this? In Desmond’s presentation he said that part of the savings was due to cutting capital spending that would have replaced buses needed for the service being cut. My interpretation is that if they’re planning to cut some trolley service (and I assume they are) then they’d also cut back on the new trolley order.
Or is this order making it in before the cuts (already budgeted/funded)?
10 or so years ago the 7 used to be what is now the 7 + 49. Interlining the 49 with the 36 would probably undo all the reasons why the 7 was split–schedule reliability.
Getting beyond the scope of this post (hopefully Bruce will allow it given his note about scope) but, yes, I would remove the Beacon Hill buses from downtown. My goal is to create more and faster frequent service corridors on a stronger gridded network, without impossibly slow downtown detours. Almost all 36 riders would still be able to reach downtown as fast or faster as they can now.
I’d combine the 36 with the 49 as described above. Frequent downtown service would cross a combined 36/49 at Othello Station, Beacon Hill Station, Jackson, Madison, Pine, Capitol Hill Station, and Eastlake. Most 36 riders can easily walk to one of those places. The few that can’t have very good transfers.
I’d totally change the Capitol Hill routing of the 60 to use 12th Ave, which needs service; jog by CHS; and end at the 10 terminal. I’d give it 15-minute frequency, resulting in 10-bus-per-hour service between central Beacon Hill and CHS (including PacMed). (I’d also terminate the 60 in Georgetown and replace the rest with a new crosstown route, but that’s beyond the scope of this post.)
Tim, a 36 (part) + 49 (part) routing wouldn’t have even a fraction of the problems of the old 7 + 49 routing. It lost most of its time downtown, along Jackson, and along Rainier — three places the new route wouldn’t go. All the parts of the 36/49 combination are quite reliable except for the central portion of Broadway, which isn’t long enough to really screw things up most of the time.
New equipment is likely to change this. All the vehicles Metro is looking at have antilock brakes on all 3 axles. Currently, unless I’m mistaken, the Bredas have ABS on the rear (trailer) axle only.
In this case, I can see the 36 and 60 consolidated to provide a combined 10 minute service (or perhaps 7 to 8 minutes) from Beacon Hill Station to the U. District. In addition to the 36/49 combination, perhaps the 7 and 9 could be consolidated and realigned to operate on Boren to South Lake Union. The only question then becomes with the streetcar, how much more service would be needed on the 14? Would 15-minute service be enough?
No, it would continue to Othello Station as currently. It’s corridor 3 in the TMP, one of the ones that’s not stupid.
People like you who wail and gnash their teeth at the idea of transferring to get downtown are exactly why we have a bus system that is useless for anything but going downtown.
David L
Maybe it was the old MAN artics or Bredas (cream colored Metro days) … but I’ve seen Articulated ETBs head up the hill to 6th ave on Marion (Rt12) although they then went back down Madison
Regardless … the steep approach and breakover angles on some of our hills is something the new design for both the 40 and 60 foot buses need to be able to negotiate without scraping the street like the diesel buses often do when running on the 12
I know the MANs occasionally did that in training, but I’ve never seen it in service, and I wouldn’t expect to because those things were horrible at stopping downhill in the wet. The diesel Gilligs are particularly bad about scraping uphill on Marion.
although it looks like it will impact Routes 40 and 62
For how long? Has the detour been determined yet?
Actually, route 62 will be eliminated
http://www.piercetransit.org/sept-impacts/route62.html
This is about Metro Route 62, not PT Route 62.
http://metro.kingcounty.gov/tops/bus/schedules/s062_0_.html
Metro has said nothing officially, this is just me looking at this map:
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/mercer/2012_0515_MCP_East_Construction_Handout_FINAL.pdf
Back when SDOT closed Mercer/Westlake, the northbound (then) Route 17 jogged one block over on Harrison and operated northbound on 9th. Metro has a temporary bus stop (one of those post-in-a-concrete-block things) sitting on the east side of 9th Ave just north of Harrison, with a “stop closed” bag over it. I expect it’s being kept around for this future detour.
It looks like Metro could keep the 40 and 62 operating normally, at least acording to this map:
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/mercer/2013_0222_MCP_vehicleRoutes_Stage4.pdf
But some significant work needs to be done on Westlake, so it would also make sense for a NB reroute similar to the earlier one.
Trolleybuses feel faster.
They are faster up to about 25 mph, and up steep hills.
Electric motors have the most torque from standing still as opposed to gas diesel which has to get up to a few thousand RPM. So on routes that have frequent stops trolley buses will feel faster because they can start from a stop much faster than a diesel bus.
they also don’t sound like a dying pachyderm when trying to climb any ground that isn’t perfectly flat
After the Sounders game on Saturday evening, I boarded what was displayed as a 73 (to 65th only), as it was the first bus that came along and I only needed to get to Westlake. The bus was extremely packed and people were turned away. At both Pioneer Station and University Street Station, people dinged the bell to get off. The operator started getting more and more frustrating and kept yelling that this is a direct express bus to the U-District that isn’t supposed to stop in the tunnels. I was luckily able to convince her to let me off at Westlake and went happily on my way.
I’m guessing that Metro must add a few more U-District buses to mitigate the post-game demand, but are they actually supposed to be ID Station direct to the U-District? And if they are, can’t they make a special display that makes it clear that it’s not supposed to stop until the U-District, even in the tunnels?
I can’t ever see a point in running anything that doesn’t stop at every station since buses can’t pass each other in the tunnel anyway.
That’s probably why this was the first bus out post-game. In the evening there will likely be few to no buses ahead of it when it enters the queue. That said, of course there should be signage making clear the “No Stops” policy in the window and at both doors.
Yes, that would have been an extra bus to help with the soccer overloads, but when I’ve done it, you are to operate the route just as the regular service. There is a difference between a “special bus” and an “extra overload bus” I believe the operator either didn’t understand the correct instructions, or was told to operate using the express routing between CPS and Campus Pkwy, but should have serviced all tunnel stops.
I can’t ever remember being instructed to skip a tunnel station under any circumstances, whether driving specials, extra trips, regular service, or tunnel shuttles (back when they existed).
Metro has been telling us ever since the DSTT opened that every bus stops at every station.
Have any plans for post U-Link restructures been made yet? I’m interested to see what Metro does with the 71/2/3 and the 43/44. It would be nice to see a circulator route between UW Station and the rest of the U District via Pacific and 15th, something like a shortened version of the 44 running every 10 minutes or something.
That circulator is pretty much already available with the 43/44. Between them they’ve got at 8 buses an hour most of the day, albeit not evenly spaced.
Look at a ton of other posts; it has been discussed to death. U-Link’s headways and the amount of time it would take a bus to get from Campus Parkway + walk from the Med Center to the platform mean in most cases it’s faster to run the buses downtown than for them to act as feeders to Husky Stadium Station.
Only if you assume everyone is coming from Campus Parkway. If you’re coming from northeast Seattle, a slow meandering route that goes down campus parkways and takes 15-20 minutes to get through the U-district is not faster than a direct route to Link, with a quick transfer.
While we’re talking trolleybuses, does anyone know when and why the Ballard buses were de-electrified?
Please, please, please don’t tell me it was in 1962 for the f%@#%ing World’s Fair detour.
It was in 1963 when the Ballard buses (15 & 18) went diesel. Also dieselizing at that time were the 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, 21 and maybe a few other routes that I can’t remember. One of the reasons for the switch to diesel buses was that the city limits had extended to 145th St. in the 1950s, but the trolley routes were still termininating at 85th St., so most of the north end between 85th and 145th didn’t have any north-south transit service.
In the 1960s the 7, 15 and 18 were much longer routes than we see today. The 7 ran from Rainier Valley to the U District and beyond, including the 8 route. The 15 and 18 ran from Ballard to West Seattle and covered what today is much of the C Line and the 56.
Lovin’ the history. :)
OK–I found documentation for the 1963 switch. During the summer of 1963 these routes switched to diesel coaches:
5 PHINNEY the trolley line only went to 85th St., the diesel line extended north to 145th.
6 STONEWAY/16 MERIDIAN (these 2 lines looped around Green Lake and then returned downtown and thru-routed as 12 EAST CHERRY or 12 26th AVE S.–today’s 3S and 4S. The 12 line was not dieselized in 1963.
7 RAINIER/7 15TH AVE NE (65TH ST or 85th ST)/8 RAVENNA These lines were all thru-routed. After dieselization 4 new northend routes were created: 7 15th Ave NE/145th St., 7 LAKE CITY/145th St. 7 VIEW RIDGE/85th ST which all thru-routed to Rainier Valley and the 8 RAVENNA which turned back in downtown.
15 ADMIRAL WAY/(CALIFORNIA or ALKI) & 15 15TH AVE NW (explained above)
18 FAUNTLEROY/(LINCOLN PK or GATEWOOD) & 18 BALLARD (explained above)
21 35th AVE SW In 1963 the 21 continued on as the 11 MADISON PARK, but the 11 wasn’t dieselized until 1965.
Weren’t there still trolley routes running into West Seattle until the old bridge was damaged and the new ones put in its place?
August 18, 1963 was the last day of trolley service to West Seattle.
After 1965 the trolley network consisted of these routes:
1 KINNEAR/13 19TH AVE (today’s 12)
2 W. QUEEN ANNE/2 MADRONA (still running today)
3 N. QUEEN ANNE/3 JEFFERSON PK (the northern part of today’s 36)
4 E. QUEEN ANNE/4 MONTLAKE (today’s 43 except it ran on Madison)
9 BROADWAY
10 CAPITOL HILL/10 MT. BAKER (today’s 14)
12 E. CHERRY/12 26TH AVE S
14 SUMMIT (today’s 47)
In 1970 the wires came down on the 3 and 4 routes leaving just the 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 routes with service from some very old and worn out trolley buses.
Fascinating.
So how did the wire network expand after that? There was a big burst of overhead wire construction in the Benson years, that brought us the current 13, 43, 44 right?
I wasn’t living in Seattle in the mid-1970s when most of today’s system was built, so I can only offer sketchy details. By the 1970s the 1941 overhead system was falling apart and the coaches were shaky rattletraps that needed to be replaced. In about 1970 I can remember seeing a trolley hit an overhead crossover too hard and watching the entire overhead wiring network come crashing to the ground at 3rd & Pike. So it was decided to tear out all of the 1941 overhead system and replace it with new, modern system. The first parts to come online were the 2 Madrona/West Queen Annne and 13 – 19th Ave/13 SPU, which was a new route. But after a couple of months of operations there was a thunderstorm and there were several lightning strikes on the line, so the trolleys were pulled and changes made to the system to prevent further lightning strikes. After a fix figured out more routes returned to trolley operations as the system was rebuilt.
The 43/44 started out as one route (43) with diesel coaches from downtown to Ballard. For awhile it was even thru-routed up Madison to 14th Ave as a shorter version of today’s 12 but timekeeping and reliability was terrible; so, first the thru-routing to First Hill was dropped and then the 43 was split into the 43 & 44 routes we have today.
Awesome, thanks. For some reason I thought the Ballard/West Seattle trolleys had lasted longer than that.
I just wish they hadn’t rebuilt the 3N/4N terminals the way they are. Who the heck thought that was a good idea? Oh well.
Queen Anne High School was still open until 1981, so the 4N was likely a busy route until that time. But why was QAHS built in such an inaccessible location?
Maybe, but the 3 terminal? The entire 3 loop is in walking distance of the 13 wire, and there’s nothing down there that needs front-door service.
One part of the big trolley network changes had to do with a change in the trolleywire used. I remember reading about this a few years ago, but can’t find the details now. Basically, as best I remember, the original trolley network used wire that was pulled taut and kept at a high tension (similar to the catenary on Link). It ended up being hugely troublesome to maintain, so at some point, there was a massive citywide changeover to the new, lower tension wire, and the trolleys all had to get new poles and shoes to work with the new wire.
One of the massive network upheavals mentioned in this thread might correlate to the trolleywire changeover.
Please note that the Ballard buses made the “Worlds Fair Detour” on newly constructed wire via the much maligned (on this blog) RapidRide Uptown detour. The wire was removed a year later when the route was converted to diesel service, though the Ballard buses never returned to an Elliott/Denny routing.
The entire trolley network was shut down in 1978 for reconstruction. Much of the overhead dated from 1978 and needed to be replaced. More important, however, was the replacement of the power distribution system. The old system used a more traditional “feeder” power distribution system. If you go to Vancouver BC and look at the trolley polls, you’ll see the large electrical feeders running on the wire support polls, transmitting power from the substation into the overhead. Metro’s 1979 vintage system is a feederless system… which I believe means there are more physical substations putting power into the overhead than a feeder system.
In 1978 the entire trolley coach system was shut down. The story in the local bus fan community is that they all gathered around midnight to ride the last round trip on the very last trolley coach pull in on the old wire. The equipment was a 1940 Twin Coach, operated by a brand new full time operator who was surprised to see such a crowd so late at night. This operator is still at Metro – now a very high seniority operator.
Metro ran diesel coaches on the trolley routes while they restrung the wire and took delivery of the 900-series AMG trolleys. They entered service in 1979 first on the 2, and then on the rest of the network as the wire went live.
Lack Thereof is right; the trolleys used to “sing”. At night you could hear the wires at your stop go “ting-tingle-ting” as the coach approached, so you knew it was coming even when there was hill or turn intervening. It was a very nice sound.
“The entire trolley network was shut down in 1978 for reconstruction.”
I first encountered trolleybyses around 1980, in my first bus trip to Seattle at age 12 or 13. I took the 226 to downtown and the 7 to the Record Library at Broadway & Denny. Over the next couple years I got familiar with the U-District’s record shops/bookstores and the 43 and 252. But what really struck my mind was when I started spending weekends with a friend who had moved to the 2′s terminus at the top of Queen Anne. Keep in mind that all Bellevue buses were hourly then: the only half-hourly was the 226/235 overlap between downtown Bellevue and downtown Seattle.
I saw the 2 and thought: “There are half-hourly buses from your house??!!? They’re almost silent and glide smoothly?? They have lovely wires like streetcars??! They make this quiet whining sound when they move, and chugging sound when they charge?? You can walk from your house to a grocery store, and friends’ hoses, and Seattle Center?? And it’s so quiet and peaceful here on top of Queen Anne.” That was the begining of my love for urbanism.
If the trolley network was renovated in 1978, it was brand-new when I rode it. I never realized that; I thought it had been like it was ever since the streetcars.
In high school my parents sold the low-density house and lived in several apartments all along Bellevue Way. That gave me a walkable experience intermediate between cul-de-sacs and Queen Anne, and is why I have faith in suburban downtowns. Bellevue’s highrise boom hadn’t started yet, nor had 15-minute buses, but it was still a tolerable urban life, much better than my low-density childhood.
Given the speeds buses can reach on Elliott and 15th W, it’s a good thing the Ballard lines are diesel now.
Why? Under the 1940 network, trolley buses operated on the Aurora Bridge, at 45+ mph. The 1940 Brill coaches were geared for high speed operation – they were rarely seen on the “hilly” routes.
The 11, 15, 18, 5, and 6 used to be trolleys? I never knew that. It’s sad that they dieselized the 11 only to have to re-electrify it now. And I remember a flyer in the 1980s, “Trolleybuses may be coming to Ballard”, talking about electrifying the 15 and 18. It didn’t mention that they had earlier been trolleys. That electrification never happened; I never knew why not.
The 15/56 (15th NW, Alki) and 18/54 (15th NW, Fauntleroy) were split in the late 80s or early 90s. Also the 1/36, 7/49, 13/12, and 43/44. The 6 (super-local), 359 (weekday limited-stop), and 360 (peak express) were combined into the 358; the 16 was moved from 40th to 45th; and new Fremont – UW routes appeared on 40th.
The 1 trolleybus went from Kinnear to north Beacon Hill (Dawson Street), and 15 minutes later a 1 diesel went from downtown to north Beacon and south Beacon. (I don’t remember if it went all the way around to Rainier Beach.) When the DSTT opened, the 106 took over south Beacon and the 1 trolley was split into the 36. Then for Link the 36 was extended again to Othello Station.
I know that Metro originally bought the MAN trolleys with the reelectrification of the 15 and 18 in mind. I’m still glad it didn’t come to pass — they are not good trolley routes, because they’re too fast and don’t do any substantial hills.
Trolleys? Hell, the 15 and 18 used to be streetcars.
I disagree again with David L – the 15/18 would have been great trolley routes. There is no problem operating trolley coaches at 40-45mph and the high frequency and frequent stopping on the combined section of the route gave a great return on investment for electrification. The 4000s were indeed purchased for that route, but a budget shortfall meant the project never got off the ground. The 4000s ended up on the 7, 43, and 44, and many 900 series trolleys were parked. Some reentered service for the 70, others never turned a wheel after about 1990. If the 4000s had been operated on the 15/18 as intended, the 900s would never have been parked, and we may never have seen a trolley 70.
Metro has also looked at re-wiring the 5 and 11. I know that community opposition blocked the 11 plan and the 5 was shelved because of operational problems (the 2 different legs on the north end and no desire to continue the wire to West Seattle). Both of those problems are now moot, so maybe Metro would like to re-examine the possibility.
“There is no problem operating trolley coaches at 40-45 mph”
The Gilligs top out at 33-34 on flat ground. The MANs and Bredas would/will barely do 40 if you have a quarter mile or so to get there. There is a stretch of 15th W where the speed limit is 40 and speeds regularly reach 50.
Also, I don’t see the advantage of an electrified 15/18 (or RR D); there is only a short segment with frequent stops and there are no hills of any significance.
We should be concentrating on the routes that would really gain from electrification: 8N, 11, 27 (assuming a restructure that gets it out of Leschi), and 48S.
The 4100 series Gilligs will do 40mph … I’ve glanced at the speedometer on high speed sections like Beacon Avenue, Market Street at night, etc. Same with the Bredas. They’re not as slow as you are making them out to be but they don’t go much faster than that. With different gear ratios, trolleys could go faster. See – Vancouver BC.
If you saw a Gillig doing 40, it was downhill. This comes from about two years of full-time experience driving out of Atlantic. On flat ground (such as the portion of Rainier near I-90, the most reliable indicator of true top speed) they are lucky to reach 35.
Higher gear ratios would cause issues climbing some of our big hills, which are steeper than anything found in Vancouver. I don’t think Metro would want to have two subfleets of trolleys, one for big hills and the other for 45 mph routes, particularly since there is no particular advantage to electrifying most faster routes.
I don’t see electrification as quite the panacea it was in the era before DPFs and diesel-electric hybrid technology. It has its disadvantages, and the major remaining advantage is standing-start and hill performance. So the right routes to electrify are routes with big hills and lots of frequent stops.
“Trolleys? Hell, the 15 and 18 used to be streetcars.”
I knew that. I had just thought the streetcars had been immediately replaced with motorbuses in the 40s, and that the trolley network had never been built further than its current extent.
I wonder why the 11 was de-electrified, while the 10 and 12 were kept on the wire? It seems like the 11 is the “classic” Seattle streetcar line, and would have been a natural trolleybus candidate considering its history and the hills along the route…especially that grunt up from Madison Valley to 23rd.
When the streetcars and cable cars were ripped out, the vast majority of them were replaced with trolleybuses. I believe the main exceptions were the Yesler cable car, and (I think) the car on 8th Ave NW, which turned into motorcoaches.
Routes that have been motorcoaches from day one were mostly in places like Magnolia, 32nd Ave NW, or Rainier Vista (now covered by the 106/107) which didn’t have streetcar service.
Rainier View, not Rainier Vista. The 42 was signed “Rainier View”, meaning the area southwest of Rainier Beach. Rainier Vista is the public housing project in Columbia City, and also the grassy promenade at the south tip of the UW campus.
When talking about weekend motorization, this link is often omitted:
http://metro.kingcounty.gov/up/rr/m-trolley.html
With New Flyer being the one of the last prominent trolley bus players in the North Americas, is it safe to say that E40LFRs and E60LFRs are favorites in the running to replace the Gillig ETBs and Breda coaches?
If so, I wonder if they will adopt the Rapid Ride style seating in the 60 footers, since 3 doors seems to be the standard for King County’s 60 ft. electrics.
Also, I can’t help but mention the rapidly deteriorating physical condition of the Bredas.
I discussed this in a post a couple of weeks ago:
http://seattletransitblog.com/2013/02/23/why-seattle-needs-urban-seating-on-40-coaches/
Briefly, while no formal decision has been made, people familiar with the situation tell me that the 60′ trolleys are likely to have door/interior setups very much like RapidRide.
Just to keep things in perspective, the oldest Bredas are now 25 years old. They were used fairly intensively for the first 15 and then “off the hook” for the next 10. That is two full lifespans for typical diesel buses! They are true survivors. (Although that doesn’t help the poor passengers who have to ride them.)
If someone makes an “I survived the Bredas” shirt with appropriately disintegrating caricature of the bus I will buy it.
The trolleys that were retired in the early 1970s had over 30 years of service on them.
How old are the motors in the Gilligs? Over 30, right?
The propulsion equipment (except electronic controls) in the Gillig trolleys is now 34 years old. Electric motors are very long-lasting. What’s falling apart on the Bredas is the rest of the bus.
The motors in the Gilligs are 34 years old.
The motors aren’t the problem, they’re still going strong. It’s the control circuitry for them – the “choppers”. Vintage 1979 analog computers that modulate the voltage to maintain a constant current (at least, constant related to the throttle position). Most of the circuit boards in these buses have been repaired so many times they’re just a spaghetti mess of jumper wires added by maintenance to keep the buses on the road.
Of course, nowadays you could probably replace most of the logic in the chopper boards with an Arduino.
Riding the rear of the Bredas are definitely an experience. Without the weight of the diesel engine block, the slightest pothole will send you bouncing a few inches off your seat (watch your tailbone).
All those years of service have left them with weathered paint, loose fixtures, rust spots, missing lights, and the loudest rattles at every bump – but even through the controversy in their earlier years and their poor state in the final years of service, I will miss riding those coaches when they’re gone.
On a nostalgic note, as a child I would always ride AMGeneral trolley routes with my folks and be curious as to why there were so few AMGeneral type coaches that were running untethered to the electrical wires (little did I know they were in the process of retirement, or know about the mechanical distinction between trolleys and diesels). We’re seeing something similar today with the numbers of 40 ft. diesel Gilligs becoming an increasing rarity among the trolley Gilligs still buzzing around.
“If someone makes an “I survived the Bredas” shirt with appropriately disintegrating caricature of the bus I will buy it.”
As will I, having commuted extensively on them back when they were in the tunnel and having driven them for a couple of shakeups.
Three doors are necessary now with the end of the Ride Free Area. Because when you’re sitting in the front half of the bus, it’s a long walk back across the articulation to get to the back door. Many people aren’t willing to walk that far back, and you can’t if the aisle is blocked by standees. So making back-door exiting the most effective requires three doors on articulated buses.
So the 3N and 4N restructure is still being considered? That’s good to know.
Well, it’s not, at least not for the next couple of years — that’s why its in danger of being cut.
The reason to care is that the wire project will take about a year to complete, even if fully funded. So when that restructure does come back up for consideration, not having the layover ready will delay it.
Sadly, I can just see the Seattle Times headline: “METRO WASTES MONEY ON UNNEEDED TROLLEY WIRES.” Not good at context when it comes to transit, those guys (with the exception of Mike Lindblom).
But that’s the thing, though, projects like this are small and obscure enough that people don’t write articles about it.
By “considered” I mean “Metro wants to do it when it can”, not “Metro can afford to do it now”. It’s one thing if it’s just a matter of resources and priority. It’s another thing if we have to re-convince Metro of the merits of the idea, and that it really is worth standing up to status-quo opposition.
Likewise, Metro has stated for over a decade that it wants to raise all core routes to RapidRide’s frequent span, and it had gradually done so with the 36, 7, 49, 44, 26/28, and (former) 15/18. That still leaves most routes falling short, but at least Metro recognizes what needs to be done. I just wish people would give Metro enough funding to finish it, so that we could have a frequent transit network like San Francisco/Chicago/Vancouver.
Hey, for some of us, that “quaint” loop on the 4 makes it just about the only way off the hill after a snow storm.
In that case, a snow shuttle could be used.
No no no, the potential need for a once-a-year snow route justifies keeping the wasteful detour the entire year around! Don’t you know about the hills and the soil and the liquefaction and the
Maybe we should place a snow shuttle on standby there year round, in case a sudden snowstorm happens in summer.
Here’s a two (almost three) year old video from KCDOT talking about the end-of-life status of the current trolley fleet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIHhDRIuoLI
Now add on three additional years of wear onto these patchwork coaches and its remarkable how the maintenance staff is able to get these coaches out on the road.
I moved to Seattle in 1978 for college. I had never seen a trolleybus. I watched them tear down the old network and rebuild the new, expanded one. It was fascinating watching the wires being strung all over the city. After the oil embargo and gas lines of the late 1970s it seemed so exciting and “green” to see electric buses coming into use. The 1978-80 rebuild was just the start of a major planned expansion of the trolleybus network. Metro promised to more than double the network during the 1980s. The next stage was electrification of the 1, 11, 15, 18, 21, and 73. The 71 and 72 were also promised. This would have brought trolleybus service back to West Seattle, greatly increased it north of the Ship Canal, etc. unfortunately this never happened but I saved the brochures that promised it. Here is a scan of one: http://bit.ly/12wByuf
Thanks for posting the flyer. So this 73 would have been the short 73 to 65th, not the entire route to 145th. And it was realized later as the 70, although for some reason the part from 50th to 65th was not included.
What strikes me in south Seattle is how much it reinforces slow one-seat milk runs to downtown: extending the 1 (later 36) to Rainier Beach, and keeping the 18S and 21 as-is. But that was the prevailing view at the time. It’s also odd the 27 was chosen, since its tail is very low rideship. Maybe it was an attempt to add more east-west service in the Jackson-Yesler-Jefferson area.
That would have been quite the engineering project to get wire down Lake Dell Ave and Alder St on the 27! And (I agree with Mike) for not much gain.