Car Life

[Fred W. Schneider III]

I LIKE THIS NOTE BECAUSE IT SHOWS THAT MAINTENANCE PRACTICES AND
EQUIPMENT PURCHASES MAY NOT ALWAYS BE RELATED TO EQUIPMENT DESIGN
LONGEVITY.  JOHN SWINDLER SAID THE SAME THING WHEN HE BROUGHT UP THE TTC
SUBWAY CONVERSION IN 1966 AND HE COULD HAVE ADDED THE YOUNG STREET
SUBWAY IN 1954. IF WE LOOKED AT BROOKLYN, I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT MY
ORIGINAL GUESS THAT THE CONVERSION IN 1956 WAS BASED ON A 20 YEAR
DEPRECIATION CYCLE WAS CORRECT (I GUESS AT ONE TIME EVEN GOVERNMENT
CONSIDERED DEPRECIATION). AND SOMEONE MENTIONED WEEKEND DIESEL BUS
SERVICE ON SOME PHILLY ROUTES BECAUSE OF PASSENGER SAFETY.  PITTSBURGH
ALSO RAN DIESEL BUSES IN THE EAST END ON WEEKENDS IN 1966-67, FOR
WHATEVER REASON.  A LOT OF SYSTEMS DID THAT TO GET RID OF WEEKEND
SUBSTATION OPERATORS.  WE WILL ALSO HAVE SITUATIONS OF INADEQUATE SHOP
FACILITIES (REMEMBER PTC CLOSED KENSINGTON IN 1955 BECAUSE THE CARS WERE
IN DECENT ENOUGH SHAPE TO LAST UNTIL ABANDONMENT AND AFTER THE FOUND
THEY WERE UNABLE TO CONVERT AS FAST AS POSSIBLE, THEY FOUND WYOMING WAS
TOO CRAMPED, AND 30 YEARS LATER IT WAS SOLVED WITH A NEW ELMWOOD
FACILITY).  

WHAT IS IT WE STARTED OUT TO PROVE?  MAYBE THIS IS IT?  

Kenneth Josephson wrote:
> 
> "Fred W. Schneider III" wrote:
> 
> > Again, the issue isn't how long they will last but for how long the
> > agency wishes to maintain them.
> > Johnstown Traction was a private company that counted pennies.
> >
> > I think we often, as enthusiasts, spend too much time looking at one
> > aspect of our quarry (in this case longevity) without looking at all of
> > those factors which the transit manager had to consider.  And if he
> > failed to consider them, there was always the unemployment line.
> 
> I have read that some private systems decided to go with trolley coaches as an
> interim solution to rail car replacement due to:
> 
> A.) Heavy investment in DC power distribution systems that still had plenty of life
> left.
> 
> B.) Shop forces that were well versed in traction maintenance.
> 
> C.) Making the system more attractive to a potential municipal purchaser.
> 
> D.) To appease unions that believed a switch to motor coaches would reduce
> employement within the rank and file.
> 
> E.) Despite seeing the decline in patronage, a unique arrangement resulted in power
> so cheap as to completely offset the high cost of fixed plant investments ( i.e., San
> Francisco and Vancouver for example.)
> 
> To get back on topic, I sometimes wonder if trolley coaches woould have been well
> suited to the Pittsburgh Hilltop lines such as the 40, 44, 47, 48 and 49. But again,
> there's that issue of the potholes and paving blocks shaking the coachwork to
> pieces.  Ken J.