Westinghouse PCCs on Route 21

[Jim Holland]

Greetings!

Kenneth and Tracie Josephson wrote:
>
> Robert E. Rathke wrote:
> >
> > I recently reviewed my route 21 photos, and don't recall having a single
> > photo of a 1700 series car on Fineview.  Years ago I remember reading
> > that trolleys used on Fineview had special gearing.  True?
>
> I read that, too. It was in Harold A. Smith's book. But since the cars
> of the 1776-1799 group . . . GE 1700 could have been used on Route 21. But
> 1502?!? Unless there was
> something special about that particular car (modifications), I can't
> imagine why it was "up there" on Route 21. But I have a half dozen shots
> from the early '60's showing it on Route 21. Go figure. :-) Ken J.

	First off, only GE cars were assigned to Keating from which the 21 
line operated so this is the reason for GE only cars on Fineview.
	Also, I have heard, but not confirmed, that 1680-1689 had extra 
strong brakes *by design.*  Don't know anything about special gearing - N-O 
PCC car had gearing other than the standard 7.17:1 that I know of - gearing 
was not an option.
        Don't forget, low-floor cars worked the 21 line before the advent of
PCCs and it was ten years after the first PRCo PCC before the 1600s came
along.  And if low floors could work the line, I am sure any old PCC could
do so as well - and probably did so until the 16s became a standard.  PRCo
may have taken a fancy to the 16s and decided that a certain group of them
was good for the 21 line.
        I have photos/slides of 1700 itself on the 21 line (Fantrip) as well
as 1708 and I rode 1709 there as well.  I also have photos of the four aces
(1111) on 21 Fineview  i-n  s-n-o-w  and this was a fantrip!
        As far as 1502 being on Fineview and with so many pictures of the
car on the line (all the same day?) could it be a fantrip?
        Rumors had circulated among railfans in Pgh in the 50s that the
interurban PCC cars had special gearing, but that is not the case.  They are
a standard PCC electrically and mechanically, not unlike those running in
Toronto, Cleveland, Philly, Washington (DC), and San Francisco, etc.
        PRCo had some quirks about which cars could run where for which
reasons.  The 1200s were not allowed on route 40 apparently because of brake
release problems should a car need pushed or towed.  (Spring applied brake
shoes, air released.  To cut this out for a tow required reaching way under
the car from what I am told.)  But during a 1950s NMRA convention in the
city, one car from each PCC series was requested for a charter.  Normal 
channels vetoed the 1200 on route 40.  Lou Redman knew President Palmer 
personally.  When approached about running a car from each series on the 
NMRA charter up on route 40, Palmer whole-heartedly agreed to the chagrin of 
the operations people.  And a 1200 made it successfully on route 40.
	The 1200s were disliked by operators because they had a definite 
tendency to roll back on hills *during brake application*  --  with the 
brake in full service, the car would stop moving forward and then roll back 
as much as a couple feet before the brakes stopped and held the car, but 
usually the motorman had pushed the brake into emergency to pull in the 
track brake before the car rolled too far!  This was especially true of the 
cars that had the wheel tread brake shoes removed in favor of drum 
activation.
	Pittsburgh also experimented with activation of the track brake via 
a gang switch on the operators control panel to hold a car on the hills.  
This was only applied to *some* of the 1400s (maybe some 1200s) but never to 
any of the 16s as far as I know, not even 1680-1689.
        A 1600 is the same as a 1700 except for final brake application for
all practical purposes - the 16s are the only air cars on PRCo to use
extended dynamic braking - probably some of the few aircars with extended
dynamics anywhere!  Personally, I always thought a 1700 had much more
positive braking than a 16, especially the 16 interurbans!
        Here in San Francisco, only the "Baby Tens" - 1016-1040 - were used
in service on the J CHURCH line  --  1100s were strictly off limits as were
the longer torpedoes - 1006-1015.  Clearance problems of some kind so I am
told.  But by the 70s, anything runnable was found operating the J in
regular service.

James B. Holland
------- -- ---------
        Pittsburgh Railways Company (PRCo), June of 1949 -- June of 1953
    To e-mail *off-list,* please click here: mailto:pghpcc at pacbell.net
N.M.R.A.  Life member #2190; http://www.mcs.net:80/~weyand/nmra/