(no subject)

[Fred W. Schneider III]

Rather than potentially upset one of my friends in this group, I am
forwarding a blind comment that I received about my response to Ken
Josephson:

>>   "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." 

>Isn't this somewhat of a stretch?  Maybe one or two lasted that long 
>but, as a class, most were out of service after 40 years of life.

AND IN ANSWER, I would agree that PAT got closer to 40 years out of many
of them and only 28 years out of the General Electric cars.  I think
this is a tremendous accomplishment considering how little body
maintenance they every received.  I recall Bruce Bente telling me in the
very early 1960s ... maybe even late 1950s ... that Pittsburgh Railways
had shown an interest in changing some cars to double-end cars but that
the 1600s and older were considered shot and the 1700s were not a whole
lot better.  I cannot remember if this happened after Bruce began a
career with Pullman-Standard or whether it was something he picked up
while I was in the army (1958-1961).  

PCC cars were never engineered to go that long.  I doubt that anyone in
the ERPCC realistically believed that they would be in the railway
business in 25 years later.  And furthermore, Thomas Conway had opined
that the problem with the industry was force feeding cars into
obsolescence.  And yet we got 26 to 50 years out of the 1700s.

The older wooden cars held up because the bad woodwork was replaced, and
they were painted and varnished every few years and still 27 years in
Pittsburgh was a long life.  New York Railways got no more than 38 years
because the company folded. Third Avenue got rid of most of their old
wooden cars in the 1930s but some probably were around for about 44
years.  The Philly Nearsides lasted 44 years, something that the
railfans considered phenomenal at that time.  Maybe they would have
lasted longer but there was money available to buy buses.  And damnit,
lets not start anything about NCL and the conspiracy.  Suffice it is to
say that money was there.  

Some of the very heavy early steel cars might have outlasted the PCC but
they were clunky, noisy, street hogs that didn't capture the public
fancy.  The Pittsburgh 4100s from 1911 only ran in public service until
1939, some 28 years, and body maintenance was good for the first 20 of
those years.  After 1939 they were virtually ignored until it was time
to plow snow.  They were built like tanks.  Ed Blossom expressed
astonishment to me that PRC had cut the front platform knees on 4115 to
install the snow scraper, and in spite of the added weight and reduced
strength, the front platform never collapsed or even sagged!

The Pittsburgh low-floor cars were, in my opinionated mind, a structural
disaster.  As center entrance trailers, there was adequate strength. 
But once end doors were added, the side sheets behind the door were
unable to bear the weight of the right side of the platform.  They
sagged.  Boy did they ever sag. We've all read that 4344 served the
Schoenville shuttle until the platform sag was so ominous that the doors
wouldn't close; then the car was scrapped and the line replaced by the
Broadhead Manor -Schoenville bus. Was 4344 an exception?  Not on your
life.  I have a picture of a 5100 cut open at Homewood for side sheet
replacement, a job that was canceled because of VE or VJ Day.  I later
concluded that any car that didn't sag had been rebuilt recently.  Why? 
Have any of you see the builders photo of 5200?  The first side plate
behind the front door had a crease in it and the platform was already
collapsing before Osgood Bradley even got it on the flatcar for shipment
from the factory to Pittsburgh!  Those cars would never have lasted like
a PCC.  There will probably be some discussion now that PRC didn't do
much work on the newer low-floor cars.  That is probably so.  The newest
ones were four years old when the stock market collapsed.  PRC went into
bankruptcy in the middle 1930s.  When the war started and the money was
rolling in again, every system had staffing problems owing to military
conscription taking trained people. By 1948, the revenues were
plummeting again!  I will agree that the 5200s, 5400s, 5500s probably
never had more than minimal maintenance but I believe a total redesign
of the platforms would have been needed ... or new cars ... or new
buses.  

But those 1700s were delivered in a period of declining fortunes and
they ran forever with ever decreasing patronage, money, maintenance.  I
think its either an absolute miracle that they lasted as long as they
did, or an very well engineered product.  What do you think?