Slow Rides!

[Fred Schneider]

Not necessarily so, Jim.  Remember, a shop car would not have made any stops
for passengers.  A 25 miles-per-hour car running over a 29 miles-long route
without stops may not have taken any longer than a revenue car, especially
than the revenue car was dogging it to keep on time.

Tony DiSensi at Arden tells the story of the night either he or his father
(can't remember) was given a car to take back to Tylerdale late a night.
The instructions were ... "There are no other cars on the line ... don't
call me until you are off the line at Tylerdale."  The trip was made so fast
that he had his lunch and three cups of coffee in Washington before he dared
to report back to the dispatcher in Pittsburgh!    

NOW LET'S TURN THIS INTO A PLEA FOR INFORMATION FROM YOU'NS.  

This is one of those spiels off the top of the head, so some details may not
be precise and for that I apologize.  I cannot remember all of the control
details of 637 single-end and 214 double-end low-floor motor cars in
Pittsburgh, but I can address generalities.

Between the trade press in 1914-1915-1916 and ERA in the middle 1950s, there
have been some write ups about Jones Remote Control and its application to
Pittsburgh cars.  It was first of all a remote scheme using a platform
controller to command high voltage switches a case under the car to open or
close.  Second, unlike more common series-parallel schemes, it had
resistance only on the first point.  There was a point with all motors in
series, another with two pairs of motors in parallel and with those pairs
connected to each other in parallel.  Like all schemes, the car ultimately
reached all four motors in parallel.  There were also some rather
unconventional steps such as two motors on 300 volts, one on 600, and one
idling.  At any rate, all points after the first resistance point involved
changing motor connections.   Jones saw several advantages in the scheme: 1)
you could bury the compact platform control box under a wrap around seat at
the end of the car, and increase seating capacity by 3 people, and 2) it was
more efficient than a resistor system that converted a lot of energy into
wasted heat.   

Which cars had PRC or PNJones or Jones Remote control, as it was variously
called?  The Jones roster included the four trailers rebuilt to motor cars
(later 4420-4423), all of the double-end low-floor cars (4200-4399), the
first hundred single-end units (4700-4799), the double deck cars 6000 and
6001-6005, Splice cars 2100 and 2101, and interurban cars 3700-3714.

Now what happened to all those Jones controls?  Sadly, when Arden had a
chance to get the individual car cards, they took one or so from each series
and allowed the PRC to destroy the remainder.  Therefore there is nothing
official.  We do know they rapidly became disillusioned and converted most
cars to more conventional schemes.  The original Jones package came from
Westinghouse.  General Electric also equipped some cars.  I don't know
which.  John Baxter said that there were some Jones cars around when he
started with Pittsburgh Railways ... he claimed they were slippery and were
assigned to routes like 36th St. Transfer because it was flat.  I don't know
how valid his comments were because I primed the pump by asking if they were
slippery instead of just asking for his comments.  

I know that many of the cars in the 4250-4299 and 4300-4349 groups were
scrapped in the late 1930s as two-man cars; Charlie Dengler photos show them
in derelict condition with all the appurtenances of the two-man era ... roof
gongs, working center doors, the horizontal hand brake wheel, and so forth
but sans decent paint.  The double-deck 6000s may have gone to their graves
as Jones cars.  There may (or may not have been) Jones cars in the low 4200s
as late as the early 1950s.  However, most surviving 4200s and 4300s had
either "HL" remote or K-35 control.  If memory serves, the 4700s all got
K-35.  I'm not sure without looking up the details, what the 3700s had.  I
would imagine the 2100 and 2101 were scrapped with Jones.    The quotes
around the "HL" are there because PRC called it Westinghouse HL but it was
virtually unlike any other HL schemes.  Westinghouse normally used
compressed air unit switches in a case under the car to handle the
resistance and motoring 600 volt circuits.  General Electric type M control
used magnetic solenoid switches.  The Pittsburgh cars used solenoid switches
built by Westinghouse; functionally they worked the same as a GE type M
installation.   Just so I'm not going to be accused of missing something
major, several 4700s were also used as rolling laboratories for Westinghouse
VA control in the 1930s (I don't know if that was the second or third
control pack on those cars).   

NOW THE QUESTIONS.   Do any of you have any official documents that that
show 1) when PRC began and 2) finished getting rid of Jones control, 3) why
it fell into disfavor other than the simple fact that P. N. Jones died and
couldn't defend it, 4) whether or not PRC was able to salvage any hardware
from it for reuse?

Thanks for reading.   And if someone wishes to go deeper into this subject,
I can provide copies of the ERJ articles and simple wiring schematics.      

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Jim Holland [mailto:pghpcc at pacbell.net]
		Sent:	Monday, February 28, 2000 3:13 AM
		To:	PRCo -- WP -- JTC -- The Big *3*
		Subject:	Slow  Rides!

		Greetings!

			I have photos of various low-floor cars in service
in Little Washington
		and sometimes a car with the same number sitting at Palm
Garden still
		displaying an EAST - WEST sign.  Those cars never received
the rewound
		motors for faster speed so it must have been an awfully slow
trip
		getting one of those up to Pgh for maintenance - unless it
was towed,
		and that was probably even slower!

		James B. Holland
		------- -- ---------
		        Pittsburgh Railways Company (PRCo), June of 1949 --
June of 1953
		    To e-mail *privately,* please click here:
mailto:pghpcc at pacbell.net
		N.M.R.A.  Life member #2190;
http://www.mcs.net:80/~weyand/nmra/