G.E. Equipped PCCs

[Fred W. Schneider III]

Prior to the PCC, we did have some cars in the country with B controllers, i.e. a drum
controller with dynamic braking incorporated in it.  West Penn Railways was the most
common user, or perhaps, if that statement is incorrect, the last principal user of type
B controllers.  They were much more common in other countries, and hence, if you want to
find out how to run a car with a type B controller, go to the National Capital
Historical Museum of Transportation in Wheaton Maryland and run the Graz, Berlin, or
Duesseldorf car.
When coasting, one does not go to the off position (although many of their operators
probably do) because it allows the magnetic field in the motors to collapse.  Then when
you need braking, it is not instantaneous but requires time to build up.  Best practice
with a B controller is to go from motoring directly to the first point of braking to
maintain the magnetic field, then braking in points 2, 3, 4 and whatever become more or
less instantaneous.

The PCC was similar but automatic.  When the operator lifted his foot off the power
pedal (returned it to the off position), the motoring contactors opened and the first
braking contactor closed.  (Back in the 1960s Jack Wyse published an excellent
multi-part article in Modern Tramway on PCC wiring ... takes may evenings of study to
the uninitiated but it is worth the effort.)  This maintained the magnetic field and at
the same time, working through the limit relay, allowed the KM unit (on GE cars) or the
accelerator drum (on Westinghouse equipment) to gradually return to the off position but
also kept the drum positioned at the ideal point for dynamic braking depending on the
car speed at that time.

The manufacturers were very specific about the required spring tension on the
accelerating limit relay.  I would imagine that, if the cars were properly set up, the
operator would not detect any difference in feel between a Westinghouse and a General
Electric car.  As a passenger, I was never aware that a Keating-based GE car or a Tunnel
or Highland Westinghouse car behaved any differently.  I do remember riding some rather
derelict looking PCCs on Shaker Rapid back in the early 1980s but instantly realizing
that they were set up properly ... a three car MU train with absolutely no slack action
... no jolting ... no roughness.  Then I've ridden Philly cars on which one felt
instantaneous braking as soon as the motorman took his foot off the power pedal.  I've
since learned that SEPTA and possibly the later PTC people did not use the recommended
limit relay spring tension, but used a much heavier setting.  I can tell you Baltimore
7407 at BSM is set up just "according to the book" and it accelerates and brakes just
like it should (much better than before we shopped it some eight years ago).  Pittsburgh
1711 at Arden behaves the same way.  I cannot tell the difference between one or the
other in acceleration or dynamic brake mode and I run both of them regularly.

Furthermore, a lot of the PCC parts were interchangeable because one manufacturer built
all of them ... a way to reduce costs.  The gang switch panel in front of the motorman
was universally built by General Electric, even on all the Westinghouse cars.  Someone
out there might want to check and see if the same applied to accelerating limit relays.

I never heard anyone make a derrogatory statement against the GE cars except for the
problem of rebuilding the KM3 and KM12 units, which required their complete removal from
the car.  However, I once asked the shop foreman at Wyoming Avenue in Philly which we
liked best and he answered, "Absolutely the GE cars."  Then I went through the shop and
counted, and found those in the shop at that moment were twice their share in relation
to the count on the roster.  Maybe he liked job security.

Your turn to pick me apart.



Kenneth and Tracie Josephson wrote:

> 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.