In this issue, we have two remarkable stories, one about the return of Presidents’ Conference Committee (PCC) streetcars to the streets of Philadelphia, and one about the last intercity train operating with Budd Rail Diesel Cars (RDCs). I’ve talked before about the longevity of North American railway equipment, as well as the tendency of the industry to prefer the tried-and-true, but what I think makes both of these examples so interesting is their industrial design.
Starting around the 1920s, a problem emerged — there were more and more new technological devices, but they looked awkward, complicated, or ugly. To try and make them function better, look better, and consequently sell better, manufacturers hired consulting designers. This was the birth of what we now call “industrial design,” and both the PCC and RDC are fine examples of this trend.
The PCC is the older of the two. Its genesis was declining ridership on streetcar lines, due in part to increasing automobile ownership and competition from buses. Starting in 1929, leadership from several transit firms collaborated on a new standard vehicle that would be more comfortable, cheaper to operate, and exciting to look at. A committee of engineers defined aesthetic and functional specifications, and the first cars rolled out in 1935.
What are they like to ride? You can find out for yourself in Boston; Philadelphia; Kenosha, Wis.; El Paso, Texas; and San Francisco, to name a few. Sure, floors are high, steps are steep, and seats are narrow, but surfaces are smooth, the interior is open and well-lit, and there are multiple boarding doors including mid-car. The PCCs may look a tad “retro,” yet they don’t look antique, and in many ways, they are closer in form and function to today’s light rail vehicles than to the trolleys of the 19th century. Standards set in the 1930s echo down through today’s transit equipment.
As with the PCC, the RDC was born from a challenge — can new equipment help stem losses? In principle, the RDC is a self-propelled passenger car, eliminating the need for fueling and maintaining a locomotive. Similar vehicles — colloquially called “doodlebugs” — have existed since the early part of the 20th century, and in almost all cases, these were designed to reduce operating costs on marginal services.
In 1949, Budd, a major car builder, designed a modern take on the doodlebug, creating the RDC. The equipment was made of stainless steel and carried the same styling as the company’s main line passenger equipment, building on a functional and aesthetic pattern set in the early 1930s by consulting architect Paul Cret. Where most doodlebugs looked quaint at best (or tired and downbeat at worst), the RDC looked like it belonged in the era of transistors, turboprops, and televisions. Just as importantly, it worked. One of the first adopters, Western Pacific, found that the equipment cost half as much to run as a conventional locomotive-hauled train, looked better, and was exceedingly reliable. Ultimately, Budd sold just shy of 400 units. Without them, it is likely that many branch line and secondary services would have ceased operations far sooner.
What is particularly interesting about both the PCC and the RDC, however, is how their innovative designs were the product of crisis. For both, falling ridership and increasing competition drove companies to get creative and to reinvest, producing equipment that improved the experience for the rider as well as bringing more efficiency to operations. They demonstrate — with style — that the best response to hardship is not to give up, but to think creatively.
—Alexander Benjamin Craghead is a transportation historian, photographer, artist, and author.
link
