(no subject)

[Greg King]

May I just advance one opinion from down under,

I thnk you are concentrating on a car body that was built rather like a bus
and lasted longer simply because, even on the worst track, doesn't take the
same beatings a bus does. The trucks and equipment are a different matter
and you guys touched on it with the CTA conversion of PCC's to Rapid
Transit, the equipment, properly maintained (there's the answer) with
vertually last forever.

Also, what about those 1947/48 built SEPTA cars now running in SF, they
certainly lacked TLC in their home town at least until the GOH program (and
just how thorough was that?) and yet, after their rebuilding for SF, they
are like new cars, having ridden them myself.

The basic equipment product was absolutely sound and almost timeless and
almost "bullet proof" the proff lay in the fact the the Chec firm of CKD
Tatra were, at least until their recent take over by Adtranz, still
supplying their version of the Clark B3 trucks, (look at the replica cars in
New Orleans), it was a simple robust design and fits into the catagory, "if
it ain't broke, don't fix it"!!!

Nuff said
Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: John Swindler <j_swindler at hotmail.com>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
Cc: <ALLMANR at aehn2.einstein.edu>; <d_kegris at hotmail.com>;
<stennyson at webtv.net>; <transitmgr at worldnet.att.net>; <JacksoRE at STVINC.COM>;
<billvigrass at hillintl.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 2:06 AM
Subject: Re: (no subject)


>
> >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
>
>