The mention of ‘Lickey’ in the railway press usually conjures up thoughts of the Lickey Incline and the bankers needed to enable steam-powered trains to make the climb.
In an article written in 1949 (Modern Tramway’s Prize Article of 1949) and published in February 1950, B.J. Pridmore prophetically proposed a Light Rail solution to anticipated traffic issues on the transport corridor centred on the Bristol Road.
Would cities in the UK which already had some reserved tram tracks have benefitted from forward thinking that sustained the use of trams through the latter years of the 20th century on tracks and routes which would be suitable for the current wave of Light Rapid Transit/Modern Tramway provision?
Here is Pridmore’s article in full (illustrations are from a variety of referenced sources):
“Summary
There are few cities with a passenger transport route so convenient for conversion to a rapid-transit light railway as is the Birmingham route to the Lickey Hills. In this article is submitted a scheme for such a conversion, describing the route, the alterations required to the track and vehicles, the attractive services which could be operated, and the possibility, in the future, of the possession by Birmingham of a true rapid-transit installation giving a public passenger transport system freed from the delays due to street congestion.
Introduction
The Lickey route of the Birmingham tramways extends about eight miles Southwest of the city, connecting it to the suburb of Edgbaston (2 miles) and the almost separate entities of Selly Oak (4 miles), Northfields (6 miles) and Longbridge (7 miles and location of the Austin Works), bifurcation at this point giving two termini at the dormitory villages of Rednal and Rubery on the edge of the Lickey Hills.
The traffic on this route is partly of a business character, with a morning peak to the city, two small mid-day peaks, outward and inward, from the city to Selly Oak, and the evening peak of outward-bound traffic. Superimposed upon this are the industrial peaks, of a general nature to and from the city, and of a concentrated nature in the opposite directions to and from the Austin Works at Longbridge. Further traffic is of an interurban nature: between each of the shopping centres of Northfields and Selly Oak as well as from each of these to Birmingham there is appreciable miscellaneous traffic. There is also considerable holiday traffic to the Lickey Hills on non-working days.
Services are operated from the city to Rubery and Rednal, with many short workings to Selly Oak, and extra mid-day journeys from Longbridge to Northfields and Selly Oak, whilst services on the inner (and suburban) section of the route are amplified by the superposition of those to and from Pershore Road (Cotteridge). which share the Bristol Road with the Lickey routes for the first two miles or so to the junction at Pebble Mill Road.
This trunk route with large and varied traffic and high load factor has already about three-quarters of its length constructed as reserved track. Much of this has recently been relaid “solid” on a concrete foundation, instead of on the ballasted sleepers as originally.
It has only two short gradients of any magnitude, and would thus seem ideal for gradual conversion towards an interurban light railway giving ample capacity on the route and removing public transport from the road proper, hence also reducing congestion in the bigger Birmingham of tomorrow for it is along this route that Birmingham seems ripe for the next phase of expansion.
In the remainder of this article it is suggested how, ultimately, this route should be converted to a light railway as a contribution towards ideal transport in the greater Birmingham of the future.
The Track and the Route
The present Navigation Street terminus loop should be improved to give loading islands outside two parallel tracks at the terminal loading point; the track layout should include crossovers to enable Pershore Road cars to be separated from Lickey cars, and Selly Oak and other short working cars to be separated from through cars (as will be needed for peak-hour services, q.v.). The one-way streets forming the loop are amply wide enough to permit the tram tracks to be relocated at the sides and be totally reserved; public transport would thus be segregated from the rest in this most congested section of the route.
Tram No. 842 sits at the Navigation Street terminus of the route from Birmingham to Rednal and Rubery. [3]The Navigation Street terminus of the tram service to and from the Lickey Hills. Tram services No. 70 and No. 71 circulated round the loop shown on this extract from the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1913 (published in 1918). [6]
The Bristol Road as far as Pebble Mill Road will ultimately have to be widened if traffic increases much more; but taking in part of the footways and front gardens would in general give room for the central eighteen feet of reservation which would suffice for the tramway. Alternatively, the reservation could be at the side and a three-lane road be left for the remainder of the traffic. As an interim measure local road-widening and the provision of loading islands with queue barriers, the former combined with pedestrian crossings, at the few important stops, should be undertaken.
The narrow road through Selly Oak and under the railway bridge presents the greatest obstacle; track reservation should be made when this is widened, while the provision of loading islands would seem the only present practicable measure.
The roads through Northfields and Longbridge are amply wide enough for a narrow track reservation (lacking the wide grass borders of the present reservations) and conversion of these sections to dual carriageway with central reservation for the tramway should be done as soon as the conversion scheme is commenced.
The tracks at present reserved can remain as now except that it would be wise to convert the remainder of the sleeper track to ‘solid’ track before high-speed running is commenced.
The Cars
Pending the acquisition of new cars (possibly like those at Llandudno, which show what can be done on 3ft. 6in. gauge if the spirit is willing), conversion of about 20 cars of the ‘800’ class for the base service and its reserves, and rehabilitation of another forty air-braked cars, would enable the Department to put the scheme into operation with the minimum of delay.
The cars to be converted should have their roofs and ends removed and the body sides made straight (instead of waisted). The roofs and ends should be renewed and the cars at the same time lengthened about two feet each end. The new ends and roofs should be on the lines of those of the post war Glasgow cars: platform doors should be added and the stairhead doors and bulkheads omitted. Large destination and route number blinds should be fitted below the top-deck windows. Interior decoration should be as modern and attractive as in any other vehicle of early 1950s – brown ceilings are out of place to-day.
To reduce noise the short coil springs on the bogies might be replaced by rubber pads. The long coil springs should be shortened and stiffened (to reduce noise) and have rubber pads above them, again to reduce noise. The motor gear ratio should be decreased by about 10 per cent and helical gears fitted. Automatic but optional field shunting, giving 66 per cent of normal field, should be added. This should give free-running speed of up to 35 m.p.h., yet, by reason of the large amount of free-running possible on such a route, should not unduly stress the motors thermally. The present controllers would suffice for the more arduous duty if a lineswitch contactor were added to perform circuit breaking; the cost and complexity of contactor control would not, in such a conversion, be justified. The present brake installation could be retained if rubber bushed joints were used in the rigging to reduce noise.
The cars to be rehabilitated should be given straight sides, new roofs, rubber rods in the springing, automatic optional weak field, and lineswitch circuit breakers. These alterations would render them comparable in appearance and performance with No. 843, which in good condition, is still an advertisement for 3ft. 6in. gauge possibilities.” [1: p37-38]
These should be spaced as widely as possible, on the theory of ‘greatest good for greatest number’, even if the short-distance passenger suffers during peak hours. It is more important that the many living in Selly Oak and beyond should have a fast journey home than that an Edgbaston passenger should be set down at the end of his turning. There should be three stops only between Navigation Street and Pebble Mill Road, located where they will be of most use to peak-hour passengers. These stops should have loading islands and queue barriers as described earlier. Other stops, convenient for short distance passengers, clearly labelled ‘not used in peak hours’, should be provided to attract the extra revenue, so useful to any undertaking, which accrues from the casual off peak travel which is a consequence of an attractive service being available.
Beyond Pebble Mill Road, peak-hour stops at each outskirts and the centre of Selly Oak, Northfields, and Longbridge, should be the main points for loading and unloading; there should be some additional stops between these centres at places where the need is obviously great. None of these additional stops should be separated by less than a quarter of a mile, however, but additional stops ‘not used in peak hours’ should also be provided where considered appropriate.” [1: p38-39]
The junction of Pebble Mill Road and Bristol Road, Birmingham as shown on the 25″ Ordnance Survey of 1939 which was published in 1945. [7]Looking Southwest along Bristol Road through its junction with Pebble Mill Road. The trams for The Lickey Hills stopped just beyond the junction. Pebble Mill Road central reservation was at times used to store trams and particularly after the closure of the network before there was room for them at the Depot. [Google Streetview, June 2024]
Pridmore continues:
“Services
A base frequency of 12 cars per hour from Navigation Street, half of which would run to Selly Oak only, would probably suffice. Pershore Road should be symmetrically superimposed. The equal service to
During peak hours, however, a different technique would facilitate traffic flow and give quick travel to long-distance passengers; it is suggested that 12 packets of departures per hour be arranged. The first of each packet would be a fast to Rednal or Rubery, running non-stop to Pebble Mill Road. The second would be a duplicate of the first, but routed to the alternative terminus, stopping only at the peak hour stops to Pebble Mill Road to pick up only. Thence both these cars, would continue, using peak hour stops only (as is presumed in all peak hour services), to their respective termini. The third car would be the triplicate, running as the duplicate but probably to Selly Oak, Northfields or Longbridge only, as the traffic for the extremities of route dictates. Fourth would be the Pershore Road car, stopping also to set down at intermediate points to Pebble Mill Road, and fifth would be its duplicate performing similar duties as necessary.
If a less or more frequent service should prove necessary its pattern should be similar to that indicated above, as the suggested total frequency of 60 cars per hour is well within the capacity of a single line of tramway, whilst the use of packet departures will facilitate the through-running of the long-distance cars.
Inwards peak hour working, when with the load, would be arranged so that cars from Bristol Road would stop only to set down between Pebble Mill Road and Navigation Street, and that such cars should be given priority at the Pebble Mill Road junction.”
The necessity for large destination blinds on the cars, a point mentioned earlier, is now appreciated; the indication of “limited stop” must be given, as well as the destination, and regular users will wish clearly to be aware of both whilst a car approaches their stop.” [1: p39-40]
The success of a scheme such as that described above would commend its application to the similar but not quite so heavily trafficked routes to Pype Hayes and Erdington on the east of Birmingham.
When the full conversion to reserved track had been completed in the less near future, consideration should be given to the provision of a third track to Pebble Mill Road to permit the regular operation of peak hour expresses both ways, and for the ultimate operation of two or three-car trains of single deck high-speed vehicles much as the P.C.C. cars on metre gauge lines in the U.S.A. and elsewhere.
The use of such trains would then render possible the economic construction of cross-town subways in further effort to remove passenger transport from the sorely congested central streets of Birmingham.
The transport problem of Birmingham, as of many large cities, is becoming increasingly severe. The author is of the opinion that such problems can only be solved by the provision of an urban transport installation, and not by the use of supposedly flexible vehicles on the existing network of roads; it is the attempt to solve the problem by this latter means that is responsible for the congestion in the centre of Birmingham at the present time. An embryo specialised installation exists in Birmingham to-day; it is recommended that it be developed as far as possible for its specialist purpose while there is still time and before the traffic of the future swamps the Bristol Road completely, as it will do if numberless small vehicles are expected to cope with it in competition with the many others who regard themselves as having equal claim to the surface of a public road.” [1: p40]
References
B. I. Pridmore; A Lickey Light Railway; in Modern Tramway Vol. 13 No. 146, London, p37-40.
Modern Tramway talks, in 1949, of the Shaker Heights Rapid Transit (SHRT) Lines as “A high speed electric light railway entirely on reserved track, connecting a beautiful high class residential district with the centre of a large city. affording such speedy and efficient service that the car-owning suburban residents prefer to use it and park their cars on land provided by the line; a system which makes a handsome profit and has recently taken delivery of 25 of the most modern type of electric rail units in the world [which] are only some of the outstanding facts about Shaker Heights Rapid Transit.” [1: p101]
Two images from Modern Tramway which show: first , a station in Shaker Heights which shows the central reservation and a car of standard type; second, a PCC car equipped for multiple-unit operation, one of a fleet of 25 delivered in 1948. [1: p112]
The network was created by the Van Sweringen brothers and purchased after their bankruptcy, and a period of 9 years in receivership, by Cleveland City Council in 1944. [2]
The official ownership details down the years are:
“1913–1920: Cleveland & Youngstown Railroad 1920–1930: Cleveland Interurban Railroad 1930–1935: Metropolitan Utilities 1935–1944: Union Properties (47%), Guardian Savings and Trust (33%) and Cleveland Trust (20%) 1944–1975: City of Shaker Heights 1975–present: Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority.” [4]
The SHRT connected the city of Cleveland, Ohio, with the largest residential area known as Shaker Heights, six miles East.
The Van Sweringen brothers planned the line “in the early 1900’s as part of a land development scheme, … to serve the district that would grow up on the Heights and beyond, and the charter was obtained in 1907. The land development was planned around the line, and the engineers allowed for a railway area 90 feet wide through the property with 50 feet of open space each side of the tracks (room for four tracks and a grass verge on each side). Building was delayed by the First World War and the line was not opened until 11th April, 1920.” [1: p101]
On 20th July 1930, Shaker Rapid Transit cars began using the Cleveland Union Terminal (CUT), after the Terminal Tower opened. [12]
Before this, on 17th December 1913, trams began operating on the first 1.6-mile segment in the median of what would become Shaker Boulevard, from Coventry Road east to Fontenay Road. [12] The line was grandly named ‘The Cleveland & Youngstown Railway’.
In 1915, the tram service was extended to Courtland Boulevard. In 1920 it became apparent that the plan to link Cleveland to Youngstown would not succeed and the line was renamed as ‘The Cleveland Interurban Railway’ (CIRR). In April of that year, the Van Sweringen brothers opened a segregated (trams separate from other rail and road traffic) line from East 34th Street to Shaker Heights with their trams using the urban tram (streetcar) network to reach the city centre. [12]
“In 1923, the Standard Oil Company built the Coventry Road Station for $17,500. … In 1924, the Shaker trains were referred to as ‘the private right-of-way rapid transit line’, but calling it ‘the rapid’ probably dates back further than that.” [12]
The historic station at Tower City (1927 onwards) was the early terminus of the Shaker Heights Rapid Transit Lines which were extended along the Cleveland Waterfront.
The modern Tower City Station is the central station of the Cleveland, Ohio RTA Rapid Transit system, served by all lines: Blue, Green, Red and Waterfront. The station is located directly beneath Prospect Avenue in the middle of the Avenue shopping mall. The station is only accessible through the Tower City Center shopping complex. [13]
The first cars were ordinary tramcars from the Cleveland City system, specially refitted for fast service. “In July, 1930, the SHRT (which had formerly entered the city over street tracks) was brought into the main line railway terminus over existing railway tracks. By this time the line extended for 9.5 miles from the Union Terminal Building in Cleveland to Green Road, at the far end of Shaker Heights; in addition, there was a branch line to Moreland.” [1: p101]
The two lines in the suburbs were extended. The Moreland line in 1929, eastward from Lynnfield (its original terminus) to Warrensville Center Rd. The Shaker line, in 1937, was extended from Warrensville Center Rd. to a new loop at Green Rd. [2]
“Under the main floor of the Union Terminal Building, the SHRT tracks are adjacent to the main line railway platforms. The six miles out to Shaker Square are on an ascending grade along the valley of the Cuyahoga river, and are entirely on private right-of-way; from Shaker Square onwards, the line runs through a grass reservation in the centre of Shaker Boulevard as far as Green Road Terminal.” [1: p101]
“The branch to Moreland, a suburb of smaller type property, diverges about 500 feet east of Shaker Square station, running in a south-easterly direction; at this terminus are storage yards with car parking facilities inside a U track formation.” [1: p101]
“The overhead is compound catenary out to East 55th Street, Cleveland, and normal trolley-wire elsewhere; the line is signalled throughout and road crossings are well spaced.” [1: p101]
The journey from Green Road outer terminus to the Union Terminal Building in downtown Cleveland “is covered in 22 minutes including 16 stops en route. The six miles from Shaker Square down into Cleveland (which include four curves with speed restriction) are covered in 8-9 minutes by non-stop cars. The up-grade increases the express timing on the outward journey to Shaker Square to 12 minutes.” [1:p101]
“When the City Council bought the line in 1944, the Director of Transportation, Mr. Paul K. Jones, began to modernise the existing fleet and to look around for new cars. He chose PCC cars with multiple unit equipment, and after trial runs in 1946 with a PCC-MU car ordered for Boston’s tramways, he ordered 25, to be modified to suit the SHRT’s demands and these were delivered towards the end of [1948]. They have Sprague Multiple Unit Control and are equipped for MU operation in trains of up to six cars. Other details are: Seating capacity. 62; overall length, 52ft. 7in.; overall height, 10ft. 4in.; width, 9ft.; truck wheel base, 6ft. 10in.; livery, canary yellow.” [1: p101]
A new $60,000 sub-station was built by 1949 in Shaker Heights which ensured adequate power for the PCC cars. Other improvements undertaken were “the doubling of car parking space at stations and an increase in service frequency.” [1: p101]
Extensions of the SHRT were, in 1949, considered likely; at that time, the line had been graded beyond Green Road as far as Gates Mills and steel poles had been erected part of the way. (This extension never occurred even though the preparatory work had been undertaken.) [7]
The Moreland Branch had been graded south to the Thistledown Race Track beyond Warrensville and there was little doubt, at that time that this extension would be completed. It turns out that this extension also never came to fruition.
“In Cleveland itself, the City Council … asked for 31 million dollars for the purpose of financing extensions of its city lines east and west of the city. The East Side line was laid out and partly graded by the original builders of the SHRT; it left the Heights line at East 60th Street and needed, at the time of writing of the article in Modern Tramway, only a few months’ work to complete.” [1: p101]
“Snow [had] no effect on the operation of the SHRT and the line [carried] on when local bus and trolley bus lines [had] ceased … in the severe winter of 1947-8; and all the year round, as mentioned before, the owners of the $75,000 homes of Shaker Heights [left] their cars behind and [travelled] into town by the faster and more reliable means so amply provided.” [1: p102]
“In 1955 the Cleveland Transit System (which was formed in 1942 when the City of Cleveland took over the Cleveland Railway Company) opened the first section of the city’s new rapid transit line, now known as the Red Line. It used much of the right-of-way and some of the catenary poles from the Van Sweringen’s planned east-west interurban line adjacent to the NYC&StL tracks. The first section of the CTS rapid transit east from Cleveland Union Terminal included 2.6 miles (4.2 km) and two stations shared with the Shaker Heights Rapid Transit line, necessitating split platforms with low-level sections (for Shaker Heights rapid transit cars) and high-level sections (for CTS rapid transit cars).” [4]
In the 21st century, the Red Line (formerly and internally known as Route 66, also known as the Airport–Windermere Line) is now “a rapid transit line of the RTA Rapid Transit system in Cleveland, Ohio, running from Cleveland Hopkins International Airport northeast to Tower City in downtown Cleveland, then east and northeast to Windermere. 2.6 miles (4.2 km) of track, including two stations (Tri-C–Campus District and East 55th), are shared with the light rail Blue and Green Lines; the stations have high platforms for the Red Line and low platforms for the Blue and Green Lines. The whole Red Line is built next to former freight railroads. It follows former intercity passenger rail as well, using the pre-1930 right-of-way of the New York Central from Brookpark to West 117th, the Nickel Plate from West 98th to West 65th, and the post-1930 NYC right-of-way from West 25th to Windermere.” [5]
The Red Line is shown on the four extracts from OpenStreetMap below. [5]
These four map extracts show the full length of the Red Line from the airport in the West to East Cleveland. [5]
In the 21st century the two original Shaker Heights routes form the Blue Line and the Green Line as part of Cleveland, Ohio’s Rapid Transit System.
“The Blue Line (formerly known as the Moreland Line and the Van Aken Line, and internally as Route 67) is a light rail line of the RTA Rapid Transit system in Cleveland and Shaker Heights, Ohio, running from Tower City Center downtown, then east and southeast to Warrensville Center Blvd near Chagrin Blvd. 2.6 miles (4.2 km) of track, including two stations (Tri-C–Campus District and East 55th), are shared with the rapid transit Red Line, the stations have low platforms for the Blue Line and high platforms for the Red Line. The Blue Line shares the right-of-way with the Green Line in Cleveland, and splits off after passing through Shaker Square.” [3]
The Blue Line from Cleveland to Shaker Heights shown on OpenStreetMap. [3]
“The Green Line (formerly known as the Shaker Line) is a light rail line of the RTA Rapid Transit system in Cleveland and Shaker Heights, Ohio, running from Tower City Center downtown, then east to Green Road near Beachwood. 2.6 miles (4.2 km) of track, including two stations (Tri-C–Campus District and East 55th), are shared with the rapid transit Red Line; the stations have low platforms for the Green Line and high platforms for the Red Line. The Green Line shares the right-of-way with the Blue Line in Cleveland, and splits off after passing through Shaker Square.” [4]
Tram cars used on the Shaker Heights lines since 1920 include: the 1100-series and 1200-series centre-entrance fleet; the colourful PCC cars; and the current fleet of Breda LRVs which have operated the line since 1982. [15]
Cleveland’s 1100-series and 1200-series center-door cars were built in the mid-1910s. “Not only were these cars distinctive and immediately identifiable as Cleveland cars, but many of them outlasted the Cleveland street railway itself. This was because the suburban streetcar route to Shaker Heights, barely on the drawing board when the center-door cars were built, bought a handful of 1200-series cars to hold down service when it was new. For years these cars were the backbone of service to Shaker Heights until the last of them were finally retired in favor of PCC cars in 1960.” [16]
Cleveland’s PCC Trams began arriving in the late 1940s, as we have already noted. PCC (Presidents’ Conference Committee) trams were streetcars of a design that was first “built in the United States in the 1930s. The design proved successful domestically, and after World War II it was licensed for use elsewhere in the world where PCC based cars were made. The PCC car has proved to be a long-lasting icon of streetcar design, and many remain in service around the world.” [17]
The Shaker Heights Rapid Transit network purchased 25 new PCC cars and 43 second-hand cars. A total of 68: the original 25 Pullman cars were extra-wide and had left-side doors. The second-hand cars were: 20 cars purchased from Twin Cities Rapid Transit in 1953; 10 cars purchased from St. Louis in 1959; 2 former Illinois Terminal cars leased from museums in 1975; 2 cars purchased from NJ Transit in 1977; 9 ex-Cleveland cars purchased from Toronto in 1978. PCCs were used until 1981. [17]
The Cleveland Transit System had 50 PCCs purchased new and 25 second-hand. The second-hand cars purchased from Louisville in 1946. All Cleveland’s cars were sold to Toronto in 1952. Of these, nine cars were (noted above) sent to Shaker Heights in 1978. [17]
Pullman Standard PCCs “were initially built in the United States by the St Louis Car Company (SLCCo) and Pullman Standard. … The last PCC streetcars built for any North American system were a batch of 25 for the San Francisco Municipal Railway, manufactured by St. Louis and delivered in 1951–2. … A total of 4,586 PCC cars were purchased by United States transit companies: 1,057 by Pullman Standard and 3,534 by St. Louis. Most transit companies purchased one type, but Chicago, Baltimore, Cleveland, and Shaker Heights ordered from both. The Baltimore Transit Co. (BTC) considered the Pullman cars of superior construction and easier to work on. The St. Louis cars had a more aesthetically pleasing design with a more rounded front and rear, compound-curved skirt cut-outs, and other design frills.” [17]
“Both the Cities of Cleveland & Shaker Heights purchased PCC trolleys after WWII. Cleveland operated theirs from 1946 to 1953 before they sold them to the City of Toronto. Shaker Heights operated their PCCs for a much longer period – i.e. from 1947 up until the early 1980s.” [18]
Cleveland’s Breda LRVs are a fleet of 34 vehicles operating on the Blue, Green and Waterfront lines. One is shown below on the Blue Line and one on the Green Line. [19]
The LRVs were purchased from the Italian firm, Breda Costruzioni Ferroviarie, to replace the aging PCC cars. They were dedicated on 30th October 1981. [3]
The cars consist of two half bodies joined by an articulation section with three bogies. The two end bogies are powered, and the central bogie under the articulation section is unpowered. “The car is slightly more than 24 m (79 ft 10 in) long, is rated AW2 (84 seated passengers and 40 standing), and can travel at a maximum speed of 90 km/hr (55 mph). This speed can be reached in less than 35 sec from a standing start.” [20]
Overall length: 79ft 11in.
Width: 9ft 3in
Tare weight: 84,000lb
Acceleration: 3mph/sec.
Service braking: 4mph/sec.
Emergency braking: 6mph/sec.
Each LRV “is bidirectional with an operator’s cab at either end and three doors per side. The passenger door near the operator’s cab is arranged to allow the operator to control fare collection. The 84 seats are arranged in compliance with the specification requirements. Half the seats face one direction and half the other. Each end of the car is equipped with … an automatic coupler with mechanical, electrical, and pneumatic functions so that the cars can operate in trains of up to four vehicles.” [20]
In 2024, the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority board approved “the selection of Siemens Mobility for a contract to replace the Breda light rail vehicle fleet. … The planned framework contract with Siemens Mobility would cover up to 60 Type S200 LRVs, with a firm order for an initial 24. … The high-floor LRVs will be similar to cars currently used by Calgary Transit, with doors at two heights for high and low level platforms, an infotainment system, ice cutter pantographs, 52 seats, four wheelchair areas and two bicycle racks. … The fleet replacement programme currently has a budget of $393m, including rolling stock, infrastructure modifications, testing, training, field support, spare parts and tools. This is being funded by the Federal Transportation Administration, Ohio Department of Transportation, Northeast Ohio Areawide Co-ordinating Agency and Greater Cleveland RTA.” [21]
References
Shaker Heights Rapid Transit Lines; in Modern Tramway Vol. 12, No 137, May, 1949, p101,102,112.
Roger Farnworth 
