Carhouses, Dave's, Etc.

[Jim Holland]

Greetings!

	Well, I managed to download 22 of 65 emails when the download aborted 
--  which means I get the pleasure of going thru these 22 again if I am
able to download any more!
	At any rate, I responded to a previous email that I felt PCC 100 should
have been saved and indicated that Dave Hamley had said the same.
	From the May-June--1992 issue of *Trolley Fare* on page-8 is the
article entitled "Department of Hindsignt" by David H. Hamley.

	Dave starts:::   "The following represents the personal opinions of the
author.  It is not intended to point a finger . . .  We pretty well know
what *did* happen at Arden over the years . . .  But we have also at
times failed to make acquisitions that, in the opinion of the author,
would have enbled us to present an even more impressive and useful
collection . . ."
	"This 1960 document is titled, 'A Policy and Program for Car
Acquisition,' . . . it is repeated here in its entirety [the opening
paragraph]:"
	"'General Policy: The statements on acquiring specific car types
contained in this report are based on two principles.  One is tht of
obtaining a representative collection of cars that have operated on the
street and interurban railways of the Pittsburgh area particularly, and
more generally of Western Pennsylvania and the Upper Ohio Valley.  The
second important principle is that the collection should as much as
possible depict the complete history of electric railway equipment. 
Within these principles, cars to be acquired should be considered on the
basis of availability, cost, condition, as well as other relevant
factors.'"
	"We acquired several pieces of standard gauge RR equipment. . . Having
been personally involved in all 3 acquisitions, I certainly can't point
a finger . . .  I now see these - with the possible exception of the
combine, which has served as our Museum Store - as basic errors in
judgment.  They diverted some of our time, money and talent into what is
now clearly seen as a dead end.  WE  BEGAN  AS  A  TROLLEY  MUSEUM, 
AND  WE  SHOULD  END  AS  A  TROLLEY  MUSEUM,  AND  A  TROLLEY  MUSEUM 
O-N-L-Y  [most emphasis added.]"
	"My personal feeling is that this 'only one PCC' policy was
shortsighted, even in 1960.  Among those in our membership, and trolley
fans in general, there has always been a degree of anti-PCC sentiment. 
The holders of this opinion are perfectly welcome to feel as they choose
about any particular era of cars, but I feel that the inevitable march
of time must also be recognized. . ."
	"While serving as a carshops tour guide during our annual Trolley Fare
each June, I have observed that the level of interest shown by visitors
in PRCo 3487 (1905), 4140 (1911), and even 4398 (1916) in *no way*
compares with that shown in our 1937 PCC car 1138.  People just plain
light up upon seeing a *familiar* car, . . ."
	"One woman pulled from her purse a dog-eared notebook and found that
she had ridden 1138 19 times between 1951 and 1955 [Roberta?]. . .  I
should also mention that cars from other cities elicited very much less
attention than did any car from Pittsburgh, and work cars that much less
again. . ."
	"So what did happen since 1960's 'conditional recommendation' of just
one air car PCC?  Happily, we have done better than this, but at the
same time I feel we blew the chance to preserve one particularly
historic PCC car." [PCC-100.]

	All the above elicit the following observations - but the list is 
n-o-t  exhaustive:

	1)--What was the purpose and general policy of the museum as expressed
by the founding fathers in the very late 1940s when the Pittsburgh
Electric Railway Club (PERC) was formed?
	2)--Note how *trolleycars* are emphasized by Dave as well as in the
three various names for the museum:  A)-in #-1 above;  B)--Pennsylvania
Railway Museum Association (PRMA  --  yes, I know *Railway* can refer to
mainline railroad but it was obvious that the group is referring to
trolleycars);  C)--Pennsylvania Trolley Museum (PTM  --  and yes,
*trolley* can refer to *trolley-coach* but trolley was a shortened form
of trolleycar long before trolley-coaches came on the market;
additionally, *trolley* in Pgh referred to trolleycars in spite of the
two *demon*--strations with TCs.)
	3)--Not listed in the quotes above is a statement that the one
air-car-PCC be from PRCo, Baltimore, or Philly with PRCo favored.  So
the 1960 recommendation for PCCs violates the 1960 General Policy of
*Western PA and the Upper Ohio Valley.*
	4)--*Western PA and the Upper Ohio Valley* as listed in the 1960
General Policy would certainly be PRCo, JTC, and WP as well as the
Pgh-Butler interurbans, Beaver Falls, Steubenville, and Wheeling.  I
understand *Upper Ohio Valley* as "Upper Ohio  RIVER  Valley."  Thus,
the Shaker Pullman PCC is in violation of policy as well as the Philly
equipment.
	5)--While Dave admits to being a part of the decision making when the
mainline RR equipment was purchased, he must have forgotten about
writing this 1992 article when he recommended that they acquire another
SEPTA (Phlipadelphia) ALL-Electric PCC and have it modified for multiple
wheelchair use.

James B. Holland

        Pittsburgh  Railways  Company  (PRCo),   1930  --  1950
    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/