Westinghouse PCCs on Route 21

[Robert E. Rathke]

Yes, there was a trolley spectacular at the NMRA convention in Pittsburgh
in August, 1958, in which one PCC from each number series (1000-1700) was
used.  I rode this fantrip, and recently sent a copy of the fantrip flyer
to Ed Lybarger.  The trip covered several routes including 40-Mt.
Washington, plus a side trip on the Knoxville (curved) Incline.

Bob 10/4
                                       -------------------------------

The 21st Century starts on January 1, 2001.  Just a reminder.

On Mon, 04 Oct 1999 09:01:05 -0700 Jim Holland <pghpcc at pacbell.net>
writes:
>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/

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.