G.E. Equipped PCCs

[Fred W. Schneider III]

Let's try to put ourselves in the position of management.  If we were running the shops in
Pittsburgh in the early 1970s, would we have maintained the last 25 stinking hot GE 1700s
and scrapped 25 Westinghouse cars, or kept 25 more Westinghouse 1600s?  Do we want to keep
people trained or train new people on GE cars at that point?

At the same time, would you, as a maintenance superintendent kept Deere Brothers' White
buses, the Beavers, and all the many Fitzjohns?  Or would you have attempted to standardize
the fleet, the parts stocks, and the education level in the shops?

Kenneth and Tracie Josephson wrote:

> Derrick J Brashear wrote:
>
> > I am curious, though, if ride quality had anything to do with PRCo's
> > dislike of the GE control package, or if it was just cost or ease of
> > maintenance (thoroughly understandable positions, just not worth as many
> > "brownie points")
>
> Harre Demoro raised the question of "Hometown Pride" in a 1973 article on Pittsburgh.
> He really didn't know much about the system, nor the characteristics of the cars
> retired prior to his first visit during March, 1969. All he was aware of were other
> cities where cosmetically identical cars of the same vinatge continued to run together
> with a mixture of GE and Westinghouse gear. Then he arrives in Pittsburgh, only to find
> older air-electric cars still in use while the system's 25 newest cars are retired and
> being cut up. And these 25 cars  (all GE equipped) appear identical to another 70 or so
> cars retained for service (all Westinghouse equipped.) The remaining fifty or so air
> cars in service in 1969 are also all Westinghouse equipped, with the newest 1600s (GE)
> gone. Westinghouse is based in Pittsburgh. I can see why he raised the question, even
> if the answer was no. Ken J.