Maintenance Pittsburgh Style

[Fred W. Schneider III]

Ken, and all y'uns, I think the most significant aspect of maintenance
is simply that the PCC cars were forced to run longer than every
anticipated because there was no money there for replacement.  The last
4200s ran 40 years, the last 4300s 38 years, the 3800s ran 22 years, the
4100s 28 years in passenger service, the last 5000s only 27 years.  The
1905 wood 3400s ran only until about 1932.  But PAT got 50 years out of
the last 1700s and they simply were not engineered to run that long. 
And structurally, they held up a lot better than the low floor cars in
spite of all the rust.  

Kenneth Josephson wrote:
> 
> I'm sure the title of this posting will generate some wise cracks. We've
> all seen (at least in pictures) the beat up, rusted carbodies and read
> posts about rattling brakes on 1700s. Some of us have seen motormen run
> duct tape around the dash vent doors during winter.
> 
> I'm attempting to start a thread on mechanical maintenance. The
> topography, weather and loads the cars carried must have tested the
> various designs to their limits (cat, get off my keyboard!!!)
> 
> There must be some great stories out there about the people who kept the
> cars rolling, the improvision which may have occurred when cash was
> especially tight, when early PAT management was hostile toward rail
> transit and when part supplies began to evaporate in earnest. Some cars
> had to have "nasty personalities" or chronic problems that caused
> operators to groan when they discovered they had to take one of those
> particular cars out. Which individual cars were the most or least popular
> with the motormen?
> 
> The cramped Tunnel Carhouse shops must have presented unique problems once
> Early Action began and the decision was made to retain what was left of
> the system. I would imagine the shop people had to be creative as well as
> competent.
> 
> I would love to see what can be shared about the Jones cars, their
> attributes and quirks, how the shop crews reacted when the first PCCs
> arrived and if the constantly evolving PCC technology (with each
> successive order) managed to drive some of the repair technicians crazy.
> 
> The bodywork of the "light rail" fronts installed on the two wrecked 1600s
> and what was need to make it work would also be an interesting topic. As
> would details of M-283 and M-551's later overhauls. I'd like to know why
> M-283 never had a proper cab installed on the crane end. Was this for
> visibilty's sake, to save money or...?
> 
> Did Johnstown ever seek technical expertise from their "neighbors" in
> Pittsburgh once they acquired their small fleet of PCCs? Ken J.