G.E. Equipped PCCs

[Kenneth and Tracie Josephson]

Jim Holland wrote:

>         I doubt PRCo was *forced* to take GE - that decision was purely theirs
> - they decided the mix.  But because of the mix of equipment on most
> properties, it does seem to *suggest* that there was some sort of
> requirement to order both WH and GE.  But I doubt that was the case.
> Probably salesmanship of the day - innovation and modifications which
> supposedly made a particular product better which increased the chance
> of sales!

This sounds reasonable. But it does seem hard to imagine a financially struggling
operation with a definite preference repeatedly purchasing groups of streetcars with
25% of each order being somewhat "oddball."

>         But this is comparing apples and oranges - think it is generally
> recognized that Westinghouse was preferred on trolley*cars* and GE was
> preferred on trolley*coaches.*

I am probably wrong, but I believe I read that Philly, Boston, St. Louis and some
other properties did prefer GE, though as I type this, I really can't recall what
the majority of the MTA/MBTA cars had.

But even so,  in retrospect, it does not make sense for a transit operator
(streetcar or trolley coach service) to purchase half an order (as in the Milwaukee
example I originally cited)  with equipment they generally don't want.

>         Some mechanics in San Francisco seemed to prefer GE but I could never
> nail the reason down.  What I deduced from observation was that they
> were less daily work for certain light duty mechanics - if there was a
> problem with the GE cars it had to be sent to the heavy duty shops so
> those performing light duty got by *light!*  The MG was a bear to work
> on with the SF GE 11s where as on a WH Baby Ten the light duty mechanics
> could handle the job and get the car rolling.

I seem to recall someone from Pittsburgh saying the same thing about the Railways
having the same experience with their cars.

>
>         Because of the SF 11s (GE ex-St. Louis cars) I came to have a very
> strong dislike for GE equipment - rough operation, unreliable, much loss
> of dynamics (compared to no loss of dynamics with WH although I have
> heard claims that some of the recent Philly PCCs have lost dynamics.)

>         Additionally, like the interurban motormen, I did not like the ride on
> the 1775-1799 PRCo series, either - when the power was released it felt
> like the brake pedal was floored.  Some have called this a dynamic
> governor but Fred S indicates that this is not correct.  The controller
> on  ALL  PCCs  sets up for dynamic braking when the power pedal is
> released.  Seems this must be an adjustable setting for the braking
> power on 1775--1799 was quite strong - without applying the brake!  But
> that is not exclusive to GE - other properties didn't seem to have that
> problem with GE cars.  I always thought PRCo purposely set the cars up
> that way because of some of the steeper hills encountered -
> 8-Perrysville and 21 - although the 17s were apparently not used in
> service on the latter.

Perhaps an attempt to compensate for possibly unknown North Side "steep hill"
operation with an all electric car?  Is it possible some overly cautious manager
specified such braking characteristics for 1775-1799 since there were possibilities
of these cars having to operate on the 21?

>         Only rode North Side once or twice outside of charters in my
> railfanning days because of the GE 17s.

How did the GE air cars "feel" in comparision to their more numerous Westinghouse
counterparts?

Ken J.