Quasi-steampunk: earlier cable traction

Cable traction (i.e., the cable car, as embodied by those vehicles in Frisco) did not emerge until the 1870s. The elements, however, were certainly there well beforehand: stationary steam engines, wire rope, cast iron technology, rail technology, and carbuilding were all well established a good thirty years earlier if not more. Thus my question is this: how do we establish a POD whereby these elements are brought together with Andrew Smith Hallidie's key innovation, the grip, at an earlier time, not necessarily in Frisco? I suggest the place might be either New York or Philadelphia in the 1850s: both cities had tight population densities and runs of straight streets with reasonably level terrain, all of which are more favorable than not for cable traction. It's the spark for development that's escaping me. Thoughts?
 
Don't you need a hill? I mean I can see it would work on the flat, but wouldn't the PROMPT for it come from the need for it, ie to get up a hill?

IIRC the Channel Tunnel project of the 1870s was going to use something like this.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Don't you need a hill? I mean I can see it would work on the flat, but wouldn't the PROMPT for it come from the need for it, ie to get up a hill?

IIRC the Channel Tunnel project of the 1870s was going to use something like this.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Well, yes and no. The impetus in OTL was indeed the need to provide mass transportation on the inclined streets of 1870s San Francisco. However, cable traction was regarded as a special case relegated to hilly cities like that until the Chicago installation came on line in 1882. Chicago has no hills (to speak of in the same breath as Frisco) but it does have straight streets and a fairly high population density. Chicago's installation came from the need to move people, and lots of them, with little regard for topography.
 
Well, yes and no. The impetus in OTL was indeed the need to provide mass transportation on the inclined streets of 1870s San Francisco. However, cable traction was regarded as a special case relegated to hilly cities like that until the Chicago installation came on line in 1882. Chicago has no hills (to speak of in the same breath as Frisco) but it does have straight streets and a fairly high population density. Chicago's installation came from the need to move people, and lots of them, with little regard for topography.

Could 19th-century Pittsburgh be the POD - it introduces cable cars in 1850s, leading to earlier adoption elsewhere. Fairly dense and hilly, but the streets are far from straight.
 
Could 19th-century Pittsburgh be the POD - it introduces cable cars in 1850s, leading to earlier adoption elsewhere. Fairly dense and hilly, but the streets are far from straight.

Blow it up or burn it down?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Blow it up or burn it down?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Well, the downtown area has straight streets, it's just that the grid is a jumbled mess. It could probably be done however, as street cars were installed around the turn of the century. The South Side area and the Fifth and Forbes corridor (uptown and Oakland) are also straight, but the latter was a rural area for most of the 19th century. The topography has led to a lot of streets that are just incredibly twisty for a modern urban area.
 
Well, the downtown area has straight streets, it's just that the grid is a jumbled mess. It could probably be done however, as street cars were installed around the turn of the century. The South Side area and the Fifth and Forbes corridor (uptown and Oakland) are also straight, but the latter was a rural area for most of the 19th century. The topography has led to a lot of streets that are just incredibly twisty for a modern urban area.


Pittsburgh, like quite a few US cities, had cable traction. The installation was neither as successful as Chicago, Kansas City, SF, or Seattle, or as hopeless as Philadelphia (that installation used the worst possible grip technology). It was hampered by the non-straight streets outside the downtown.
 
Top