Car Life

[Kenneth Josephson]

John Swindler wrote:

> Are they really at the end of their service life, or is federal money
> available for replacement.

Good question. From what I've been told The Seattle coaches have lower body
structural problems. The Dayton units had roof leaks due to the bodywork
failing.

>  I'd like to hear Jim Holland's comments about
> MUNI's trackless.  Might be as close as we could get to an honest
> assessment.

Why didn't I think of that? :-)

> Yeh.  29 and 79 never did seem to make much sense, even when I first saw
> patronage numbers in early 1970s.  Wonder if there was a historical reason.
> Maybe neighbors not wanting 40 ft. diesel buses.  Did 29 and 79 get buses
> from 61-Ridge?  Guess this is straying.

I need to look that up. But the demographics have changed since 1978. The
people who objected to diesel noise and fumes back then have been replaced by
others who have much more to worry about than noisy and smelly transit
vehicles. Plus there are some people living along the dormant surface streetcar
lines stating they'd rather have air conditioned buses rather than a return to
streetcars without air.

> >Incidently, trolley coach historian Paul Ward is of the opinion that if
> >Pittsburgh did decide to utilize trolley coaches on parts of the system,
> >even the best built and most maintenance free trolley coaches would not
> >have lasted anywhere as long as they did elsewhere due to the rough street
> >pavement.
>
> Why would that not be any different then with diesel bus??????

Good point. I guess you'd **hear** loose bodywork on a trolley coach more
easily than on a noiser diesel.

To get back on topic, what was/is the reason PAT had so much trouble with the
mono-motor trucks under the light rail cars? Was the design not up to
Pittsburgh's topography or was/is it improper maintenance? Someone ask Scott
Davis.

Ken J.