(no subject)

[John Swindler]

>Fred W. Schneider III commented to following comment:
>
>
> >>   "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.
>


>
>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?


Perhaps the answer lies in Toronto.  Air cars delivered early 1940s lasted 
about 25 years until subway construction during mid-1960s allowed their 
retirement.  In retrospect, perhaps its a case of "how convenient" (that we 
can replace several car lines)!

As for TTC all-electrics delivered late 1940s, it wasn't so convenient.  
They came up on 25 years of service in early 1970s - and that's when TTC 
embarked upon a sort of "GOH" program for about +/- 170 some cars.

Likewise Pittsburgh cars went through overhaul program in early 1970s as 
part of PAT's Early Action Program.  At first the 1700s were done, then a 
follow-on program was done for 1600s, which at that time had been in service 
for about 30 years.  I've seen before/after photos of the 1600s during 70s, 
and they were structurally pathetic.

Seems that the first overhaul program bought about 15 years of additional 
service, then both TTC and PAT were faced in late 1980s with what to do now 
with 35-40 year old equipment?

We should also go back and read the annual speeches of Conway and Hirshfeld 
to the industry.  Without doing some digging, believe they used a 20 year 
figure, and emphasized that the PCC was not an end in itself, but just the 
state of the art at that time.

So in answer to your question, Fred, my biased opinion is that the PCC car 
design was a 20-25 year car which should then be scrapped and replaced with 
new and improved equipment during the 1960s and 1970s.  However, we now know 
with 20/20 hindsight that there was a lack of leadership towards continued 
design improvements caused by economics, politics, suburbanization, more 
politics, etc., that blunted continued incremental improvements in electric 
railway car designs.  It wasn't the people in the industry - it was society 
by the 1960s.  For lack of a better term, lets just call it the bankrupcy of 
the private mass transit industry and time lost while the industry evolved 
towards public ownership.  The term struggling for survival might also 
apply.

So what do I think about PCC cars lasting up to 50 years in Pittsburgh? 
Overjoyed that the trolleys of my youth should still be running in 
Pittsburgh in late 1990s.  But perhaps - with emphasis on perhaps - the 
various "GOH" programs were a waste of the taxpayers money and might better 
be characterized as full employment acts for Hillcrest Shops, Tunnel 
Carhouse, and Wyoming Shops.  A lot of labor cost went into structural 
repairs that instead could have gone for new body shells.  I've often 
wondered that what CTA and St. Louis Car Co. did with Chicago's PCC trolleys 
might have been a better example for the industry in more recent years.

Well, Fred, you asked for my opinion.  Now I'm really curious about the 
opinion of others, particularly engineers and those who worked in the 
industry.  The rebuttals and corrections should be interesting and 
educational.

John


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com