Slow Rides!

[Jim Holland]

Greetings!

Fred Schneider wrote:
> 
> 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.

	I had considered this, Fred, but I remember a fan-trip in the mid 50s
on M11.  We were following a Library service car and had trouble keeping
up!
	Also, even though the car is out of service, this car would probably
have to slow at stops where passengers are present.  The potential
passengers will see the car and think it is in service and could step
across the tracks to be at the stop.  A case in point:  In the late 60s,
I was out in the AM rush in Pittsburgh taking photos along Drake.  A 16
was coming thru and I was poised for my photo.  The motorman was
intently watching me.  I had considered stepping to the other side of
the track for the photo but decided to stay put.  Good thing I did
because the motorman skipped this stop - passengers seemed to expect
this but I didn't and I was not able to judge his speed coming toward
me!  Guess they did this to keep traffic moving fast with the long
sections of single track on Drake.  Wasn't long before another car came
to pick up the passengers.
	Even if a car has CAR HOUSE or out of service signs, this won't
necessarily convince the passengers that such is true.  And on a line
where only one route passes by, people don't look at the signs, anyhow. 
So the out of service car has to be careful where people are around.
	Then there are the long stretches of street running on Charleroi and
some in Canonsburg.  And what baffles me is that the slower cars are
more prone to traffic accidents than the *speeded-up* cars from what I
have read.  Guess the faster cars got more responsive brakes, too.

	This is fascinating information that you have pointed out about
control.  I used to refer to the cars as *Jones-Cars* but Ed pointed out
that only us fans seem to use that designation and that they are more
properly called *low-floor* cars so I have used the latter term.

	But according to your discussion, it appears as though some cars could
truly be called *Jones-Cars* because of the control packages they used. 
This is getting very interesting.
	I have heard about the control packages and would like to learn more. 
Would like to get copies of the journal articles.  Please advise of
costs, etc.

> 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/
> 

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/