G.E. Equipped PCCs

[Jim Holland]

Greetings!

Kenneth and Tracie Josephson wrote:

> Why wasn't Pittsburgh Railways able to order all their PCCs as Westinghouse
> cars? Or for that matter, why couldn't Philadelphia or Boston order all GE
> equipped cars?

> But why would a company with the potential to purchase 600 to 700  new
> streetcars (or even more under different circumstances) be forced to take 25%
> of each order with mechanical equipment they really didn't want?

	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!

> The scrapping of 1775-1799 long before the rest of the 1700s due to their
> equipment wasn't a unique situation. Milwaukee, which preferred GE over
> Westinghouse, retired some of its newest trackless trolleys and retained older
> equipment to the end of operations because the former had Westinghouse and the
> latter GE equipment.

	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.*

	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.

	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.

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

James B. Holland

        Pittsburgh  Railways  Company  (PRCo),   1940  --  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/