Car Life

[Edward H. Lybarger]

If you've ever been in the middle seat in the last row on a full 757, you'll
understand why I'd opt for the DC-3!

Ed

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
[mailto:owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org]On Behalf Of Kenneth
Josephson
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 3:27 AM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: Re: Car Life




Derrick J Brashear wrote:


> But, just because it had longevity, don't assume it was necessarily
"better" than
> today.

True. You may have noticed several prominent coach manufacturers were left
out of
my little rant. A Boeing 757 is certainly "better" than a DC-3 though the
latter is
well known for its longevity. (This last statement is guaranteed to get a
reaction
from Bob Rathke or Ed Lybarger.) Anything can be made to last for decades if
one
throws enough money at it. But Marmon, Brill and postwar Pullman trolley
coaches
were noted for their longevity as well as providing generally trouble free
service
for over three decades when given the chance. While our favorite traction
system is
well known for being a predominently Westinghouse equipped system, most long
term
trolley coach operators seemed to prefer GE equipped trolley coaches over
Westinghouse equipped units when all other things were equal. There were
several
notable cases where the Westinghouse equipped half of a GE/Westinghouse
split order
of identical trolley coaches were retired or sold off  before the GE units.

My point is that a guaranteed subsidy to a fat and sassy public agency will
not
inspire the same call for longevity and serviceability that the private
transit
industry and its suppliers needed when the PCC concept was born.

I heard a rumor that people living between Mattapan and Ashmont were more
worried
about the possibility of receiving hand-me-down Boeings from the Green line
than
losing their PCCs to bustitution or a Red Line heavy rail extension. Ken J.