Car Life

[Kenneth Josephson]

"Fred W. Schneider III" wrote:

> ...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 ever 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.

Let's look at Boston's present Mattapan-Ashmont cars. They were absolute
beaters when I last saw them in Green Line service during the mid 1970s. That
MBTA rebuilt them yet again and that there was "enough of the cars
themselves" to rebuild is certainly a tribute to the design and to
Pullman-Standard's craftmanship. And to how lousy the Boeing-Vertol cars
really are! :-)

> 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.

I would imagine that in a dry climate with level and well maintained
trackage, they may have lasted a bit longer with some tender loving care. I
am surprised the truck frames didn't crack to pieces by the time the cars
were twenty years old given some of the trackage in Pittsburgh.



> 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.

Chicago's famous "Red Pullmans" of 1907 nearly did, lasting in revenue
service until 1954, just four years before the last PCCs were pulled from the
streets.

> 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.

I received a good look at the double ender at PTM during 1999. It certainly
sagged significantly. Like a beautiful woman well past her prime. :-) The low
floors were very attractive looking cars in my opinion. People I know who
remember riding the ones converted to interurban service hated them and some
claimed they would wait for one of the "real" interurbans to come along if
possible. But they are nice to look at. This is off topic, but the Twin
Cities also used city bodied cars for service on rural lines. Some people
claimed the ones with interurban type trucks and higher speed motors could
hit 60 mph under right conditions. Given TCRT legendary maintenance and
engineering expertise, I wouldn't doubt it. But I can't imagine any of
Pittsburgh's "high speed" Low Floors reaching anything over 40 mph. I wonder
how they rode on the private rights of way at top speed?

> 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?

After riding them, seeing their most intimate parts up close, talking to PAT
employees and reading the books you and Mr. Carlson wrote on the subject, I
chose the latter.

And things haven't changed in the motor coach era. Will anything built in the
last twenty years ever last as long as a GMC Old Look or even a Fishbowl?  On
Dr. DeArmond's trolley coach discussion lists, a number of us frequently
lament how nothing built in North America today for service under twin wires
(and on pavement) will ever touch the Marmon-Herringtons, Pullman-Standards
or CCF/ACF-Brills for longevity. It is amazing what a struggling private
sector industry can demand quality wise as compared to today's taxpayer
supported systems with their "use it or lose it" funding mentality. Ken J.