Built to Move Millions: Streetcar Building in Ohio

By Craig R. Semsel

“A hobbyist’s enthusiasm, curiosity, and attention to detail exude from this technological history of Ohio’s streetcar industry . . . Highly recommended.” —Choice

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the street railway industry was one of the largest in the nation. Once ubiquitously visible on the city streets, by mid-century the streetcar was nothing more than a distant memory. Ohio was home to several large streetcar systems, especially in Cleveland and Cincinnati, and had more interurban tracks than any other state in the union. Thus, Ohio served as one of the street railway industry’s greatest centers of manufacturing.

Built to Move Millions examines the manufacture of streetcars and interurbans within the state of Ohio between 1900 and 1940. In addition to discussing the five major car builders that were active in Ohio during this period, the book addresses Ohio companies that manufactured the various components that went into these vehicles.

Includes extensive photos

• Language: English
• Publisher: Open Road Integrated Media
• Release date: Apr 17, 2008
• ISBN: 9780253028020

Book preview

Built to

Move

Millions

RAILROADS PAST AND PRESENT

George M. Smerk, editor

Built to

Move

Millions

STREETCAR

BUILDING IN OHIO

CRAIG R. SEMSEL

Indiana University Press ⊙ Bloomington & Indianapolis

This book is a publication of

Indiana University Press

601 North Morton Street

Bloomington, IN 47404-3797 USA

http://iupress.indiana.edu

©2008 by Craig R. Semsel

All rights reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. The Association of American University Presses’ Resolution on Permissions constitutes the only exception to this prohibition.

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.

Manufactured in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Semsel, Craig R.

Built to move millions: streetcar building in Ohio / Craig R. Semsel.

   p. cm.—(Railroads past and present)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-253-34985-9 (cloth: alk. paper) 1. Street-railroads—Ohio—History. I. Title.

TF724.O3S46 2008

625.6′609771—dc22

2007031480

1  2  3  4  5  13  12  11  10  09  08

To Charles A. Knapp, for that first streetcar ride,

and to Violet E. Knapp, for all of the streetcar rides that followed.

CONTENTS

 Acknowledgments

  1   An Introduction to the Street Railway Industry

  2   Car Builders of Ohio

  3   Making the Cars Go: Components Essential for Operation

  4   Couplers: When, Where, and Why They Were Used

  5   Protecting the Public (and Themselves): Street Railways and the Manufacture of Safety Appliances

  6   Fare Collection and Registration

  7   Seldom Mentioned: Trimmings, Hardware, and Ventilation

  8   The De cade of Transition, 1910–1919

  9   Promise and Stagnation: Streetcar Technology during the 1920s

10   Parts of the Whole: Streetcar Component Manufacture during the 1920s 195

11   Streetcar Manufacture during the 1930s

Afterword: 1938 and the End of an Era

Appendix: Tables

Notes

Index

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In a very real sense, this book is the product of many individuals and not solely the author whose name appears on the cover. Without their help, this book would never have happened. As I pore over the correspondence, e-mails, and reams of notes that were generated during this book’s gestation, certain names and organizations stand out. For those I may have missed, I offer my sincerest apologies.

This book started and ended at the Cleveland Public Library. For anyone who has not had the privilege of conducting research there, I would encourage him or her to do so. Throughout the research, revision, and illustration stages of this project, the staff at CPL lived up to the term professionalism. A special thank-you should be extended to the staff of the Microfilm Department, which endured countless trips into the CPL basement to unearth the various reels of industry journals and transactions that are kept there. When hard copies of the trade literature were required, the Science and Technology and Business Departments never failed to answer the call. The Photograph Department must have set a record for the speed with which they located and reproduced the images of local streetcar activity.

At Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Dr. Kenneth Ledford was a patient and helpful mentor. On more than one occasion he settled my nerves and explained the mysteries of how books get published. His good humor, pithy insights, and general encouragement were invaluable.

Numerous museums contributed photographs, provided access to artifacts, and offered plenty of information. By far the greatest help came from the Branford Electric Railway Association in Connecticut, which operates the Shoreline Trolley Museum. Archivist and curator Michael Schreiber found plenty of excellent photographs of Ohio-built streetcars, while BERA president William Wall spent what had to be the hottest, most humid day of the year leading me and my wife through basements, barns, and yard trackage to find examples of Ohio-built streetcar components and other items needed to illustrate the various topics covered in this book. Fred Sherwood also helped us gain better access to some of the museum’s exhibits.

The Indiana Historical Society, where most of the Cincinnati Car Company’s photographs are preserved, rivaled the CPL in terms of its professionalism and general helpfulness. Susan Sutton, coordinator of visual references, was a plea sure to work with. She and her assistants came through in the eleventh hour to find the right photograph over the telephone when I had written down the wrong folder number in my notes. To Susan and all of the staff at IHS, thank you.

Surviving Barney & Smith interurbans are relatively rare, but a fine example is undergoing restoration in Coopersville, Michigan. James Budzinsky, president and curator of the Coopersville Area Historical Society and Museum, took me on a tour of this car. Housed in an old interurban electrical substation, the museum still captures the feel of the interurban era.

In West Henrietta, New York, the New York Museum of Transportation also has a number of useful cars and artifacts in its collection, as well as one of the most scenic settings for an electric railway museum. Charles Lowe and James Dierks, secretary of the board of trustees, were incredibly helpful in providing information on streetcar construction as well as providing access to areas of the museum that are not normally open to the public.

In Ohio, Dayton History, the organization that operates Carillon Park, went above and beyond the call to allow my wife and me to photograph some of their collection. Amanda Lakatos, communications manager, did a great job of arranging for our visit to Carillon, while education director Alex Heckman made sure that my wife and I had access to everything we needed. Docent Harold Boat was also a great help in an earlier visit to Carillon, especially in providing stories and information that otherwise would not have made it into the book.

In Columbus, the Ohio Railway Museum holds a number of rare artifacts. I thank museum president William Wahl for allowing me to use some of the museum’s postcard images.

Closer to home, useful artifacts were discovered at the Northern Ohio Railway Museum at Chippewa Lake. Fund-raising director Steven Heister took time out of preparing for an open house event to take my wife and me through cars and storage areas to ensure we got the right photographs.

With the exception of photographs provided by CPL and IHS, many of the photographs appearing in this book required professional assistance in their development, as well as substantial coaching as to how to take them in the first place. Amanda Yeaton at Dodd Camera, Westlake, was in on the photographic portion of this project from the beginning, and she helped my wife and me avoid costly (not to mention embarrassing) mistakes. She performed wonders with a number of photographic mediums.

Edward Siplock was helpful in more ways than he will ever know. A gifted researcher and genealogist, Ed was working on his own project at the CPL while I was working on this one. Conversation over numerous lunches in downtown Cleveland made an arduous task more pleasant than it otherwise would have been. (For the record, Ed’s book came out before this one.)

At Indiana University Press, series editor George Smerk has been a constant source of encouragement and advice. Without him, this book would never have happened. Linda Oblack has also done much to demolish the stereotype of nasty editors and has been a plea sure to work with.

Last but certainly not least, there is my wife, Autumn. She has been a source of endless encouragement and so much more. She has read and reread all of the drafts, coordinated all of the research trips, formatted all of the text, and taken about half of the photographs. To say thank-you to her does not even begin to cover all that she has done.

Built to

Move

Millions

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 horse car 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.¹

It should come as no surprise that street railway operators sought mechanical alternatives to the horse car. 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 horse car 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.²

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 horse car. 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 horse cars) 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 horse car 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.³

A more promising mechanical alternative to the horse car 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 horse cars. 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 horse cars, 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 power house 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 horse cars 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 power house machinery added to the already formidable cost of installation. Cost also depended upon the location of the power house. Power houses needed to be sited along a line’s immediate route or at a junction of lines, forcing cable railway owners to buy property at what ever 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 horse car, 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.⁴

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.⁵

DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODERN STREET RAILWAY SYSTEM

The mechanical alternative to the horse car 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 Eu rope 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 1883.⁶

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 Eu rope, the enthusiasm with which electrical inventions were being received both in Eu rope 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 horse car line and was free of the stigma of the steam boiler proved irresistible for American inventors and entrepreneurs.⁷

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 Eu rope and those of inventors in the United States.⁸

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.⁹

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.¹⁰

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.¹¹ Sprague’s system proved that electric street railways could be the ideal successor to the horse car. 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, power houses 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.¹²

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.¹³

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.¹⁴ 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.¹⁵

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.¹⁶

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.¹⁷

A decade later, the number of street railway companies had increased to nearly 1,300. Over 40,000 miles of track had been built, and nearly 90,000 cars were in operation. It was determined that over 6 billion passenger fares were being collected annually, resulting in almost $500 million in gross revenue and netting nearly $200 million.¹⁸

TRADE ORGANIZATIONS AND TRADE PRESS

Naturally, an industry of such magnitude developed its own professional culture, complete with trade organizations and literature. Until the 1880s, the street railway industry was a highly localized affair. In 1882, as the industry became more national in scope, the American Street Railway Association was founded. ASRA’s purpose was to provide a forum for railway owners and operators to discuss common business, legal, and technical issues and to develop committees to address those issues. As a result, membership was restricted to railway companies. ASRA grew in size and changed its name several times into the 1930s. The first time this occurred was in 1906, when ASRA became the American Street and Interurban Railway Association (ASIRA). This change was prompted by the proliferation of interurbans. ASIRA’s name was simplified to the American Electric Railway Association (AERA) in 1910.

The focus of AERA was again challenged during the 1920s as greater numbers of bus operators joined its ranks (a number of existing members were either converting to buses or incorporating buses into their operation). In 1933 AERA adopted the generic name American Transit Association (ATA).¹⁹

Whether it was ASRA, ASIRA, AERA, or ATA, the association created a number of specialized subassociations as the need arose. In 1897, the Accountants’ Association was founded to deal with methods and procedures of street railway accountancy. As technological issues grew more complex, the Engineering Association was organized in 1903. In 1906, the Claims Association was founded to address legal issues, and day-to-day operating issues became the focus of the Transportation and Traffic Association, which was established in 1908. The latter simplified its name to Operating Association in 1933.²⁰

The association held annual conventions between the mid-1880s and 1930. Until 1908, the convention was held in a different North American city each year. From 1908 onward the convention was usually held in Atlantic City, New Jersey, although a few were held in New York City and Cleveland. Due to the Great Depression, few conventions were held during the 1930s. When no conventions were held, trade publications produced what were called Conventions in Print. An early version of the Internet’s virtual reality, these consisted of attractively illustrated journal sections showing the latest products of car builders and component manufacturers.

Despite their importance to the industry, manufacturers were not allowed full membership within ASRA until the 1920s. Concerned that their issues might not receive the attention they deserved, manufacturers formed the American Electric Railway Manufacturers’ Association in 1904. This organization did not intend to rival ASRA, but rather hoped to complement it by advancing the interests of its members and of the American Street Railway Association by providing for and having custody of such exhibits of material as may be made at the annual [ASRA] conventions, and the establishment of friendly relations with each other and with the delegates of the railway companies.²¹

The industry spawned several trade publications. The oldest of these was the Street Railway Journal, which began late in 1884. Considered the best of the lot, the Street Railway Journal was based in New York City and published by McGraw-Hill. Another was the Chicago-based Street Railway Review, which began in 1891. It provided similar (though not as detailed) coverage as the Journal.

In 1908 the Journal and the Review merged to form the Electric Railway Journal. This new publication was the most thorough the industry had to offer, running feature articles that highlighted specific operating companies, provided overviews of transit operations in entire cities, and discussed key developments and trends within the industry. Regular departments reported on new products, finance, and other news pertinent to street railway men. Issues were often illustrated with numerous photographs and drawings. The Electric Railway Journal became the Electric Traction and Bus Journal in 1932 and Mass Transportation in 1935.

Electric Traction was another general trade publication. Independent of the Electric Railway Journal, Electric Traction ran as Electric Traction Weekly between 1906 and 1912. Based in Chicago from 1912 and published by Kenfield-Davis, this journal was similar to the Journal in scope and format.

The J. G. Brill Company published Brill Magazine between 1907 and 1927. Although devoted to its own manufacturing activity and that of its subsidiaries, the firm’s prominence within the industry merits this magazine’s inclusion.

TYPES OF STREET RAILWAY VEHICLES

The industry produced three basic car types: the streetcar, the interurban, and the rapid transit car. Streetcars operated on city streets. They were typically 40–50 feet long, sat 40–55 passengers, weighed 15–25 tons, and traveled at 25–40 miles per hour.

Between 1900 and 1914, streetcars came in a variety of design types. The most common was the closed car, in which the passenger compartment was fully enclosed. Open cars, sometimes referred to as breezers, had passenger compartments that were open to the elements. Open cars were very popular with passengers during the summer months and year-round in southern regions of the country. Railway companies, however, were ambivalent toward them. Although open cars could handle large crowds, they were seasonal vehicles in much of the country and limited to use in fair weather.

A compromise between open and closed vehicles was the convertible car, so named because it had removable side panels. A variation of the convertible car was the semiconvertible, in which only the window sashes were removable. The manner in which the sashes were removed on semiconvertibles varied. On some they were removed completely, while on others the sashes were dropped into pockets built into the side paneling. J. G. Brill had its own design in which the sashes were stored in two pieces in the car’s roof.

The California car combined open and closed bodies on the same vehicle. These cars had an enclosed passenger compartment in the center of the car body, with open sections at each end. The cars received their name because they were developed in California and used most frequently on street railways in that state.

Another major car type was the center-entrance car, in which passengers entered and exited through doors mounted at the center of the car’s side. Center-entrance cars were used by railways to keep the end platforms free of passengers, a plus on systems where crush loads were frequent and could hinder the motorman’s ability to operate his car.

Interurbans were larger than streetcars, 45–60 feet in length and weighing 30–50 tons. Their passenger capacity was similar to streetcars, but car interiors contained larger, more comfortable seats, smoking compartments, baggage racks (sometimes baggage compartments), and restrooms. Interurbans were also faster than streetcars, capable of speeds up to 85 miles per hour.

There were fewer variations of interurban car types. Most interurban cars were closed and had separate passenger and smoking compartments. Combines included a separate baggage compartment that sometimes doubled as the smoking compartment. Express cars were used for baggage and light packages. Since express cars usually operated during the day, they were given a finished appearance and could run either by themselves or in train with passenger equipment. General freight equipment usually consisted of self-propelled boxcars (or small boxcars towed by electric locomotives) and were operated at night, when they would not interfere with daytime traffic on city streets.

Parlor cars were described in the Electric Railway Journal as a type of Luxurious interurban car or special chartered car for city service fitted with individual seats or chairs.²² Luxuries often included elaborate paneling, tile floors or wall-to-wall carpeting, fully equipped kitchens, and often dining and sleeping compartments. Observation platforms or oversized end windows were also common.

Another type of vehicle, called a suburban car, was sometimes referred to in the trade literature. Suburban cars were basically a cross between a streetcar and an interurban. They were slightly larger and faster than streetcars and tended to run along suburban routes within the immediate vicinity of a city.

Rapid transit cars generally ran within city limits, occasionally reaching into neighboring suburbs. They usually ran in trains and traveled along grade-separated rights-of-way, such as an elevated structure or subway tunnel. These cars were generally designed to swallow crowds, with seating arranged to facilitate quick loading and unloading, and to accommodate large numbers of standing passengers. They typically operated at speeds between 25 and 50 miles per hour.

STREETCAR MANUFACTURE

An industry that experienced such incredible growth was bound to attract the attention of numerous manufacturing concerns. The industry averaged orders for nearly 3,000 cars per year between 1900 and 1910. The two largest car builders, the J. G. Brill Company and the St. Louis Car Company, served railways throughout North American and beyond. However, there were also numerous smaller car builders scattered about the country. One of the largest concentrations of these companies could be found within the state of Ohio.

Ohio was home to no fewer than five builders of streetcars, interurbans, and rapid transit vehicles. Their market was largely midwestern, but they served other states and even other countries as well.

The Midwest was a fertile market.²³ Returning to our statistics, we find that 341 of the nearly 1,300 railways in 1910 were located in the Midwest, with 91 in Ohio alone. Over 14,500 miles of track were located in the Midwest (over 4,000 in Ohio), and over 25,200 cars were in operation (over 5,700 of those in Ohio).

Ohio boasted the world’s largest concentration of interurbans, with nearly 2,800 miles in ser vice at the industry’s peak. No Ohio town with a population of 10,000 or more was not served by at least one interurban.