The Government -- Westinghouse vs GE equipment

[Fred W. Schneider III]

Why not a 100% fleet from one supplier?  There were many of them.  Cleveland was all
Westinghouse.  Dallas too.  Birmingham also.  Cincinnati had one GE car and 76
Westinghouse units.  Illinois Terminal was all GE.  Johnstown all Westinghouse.  All
of the wartime LA cars were GE but the prewar P class and the postwar P3s were
Westinghouse.  Louisville was all Westinghouse.  Pacific Electric's 30 cars came from
Westinghouse.  San Diego's two orders were 100 percent Westinghouse.  Shaker Heights
liked GE cars ... only the used Toronto cars were Westinghouse.  In Canada, GE
couldn't even get the toe-nail off the smallest toe in the door ... Canadian
Westinghouse captured the entire market.

Kenneth and Tracie Josephson wrote:

> Okay, let's try this approach....
>
> Suppose a transit system orders its first thirty new PCCs in 1937. Fifteen cars
> arrive with GE equipment, the remaining fifteen with WH equipment. After a year or
> two of operation, the company approaches St. Louis Car with an order for 100
> additional cars.
>
> The transit company has decided it prefers WH over GE and requests all 100 new
> cars be built as WH cars. It also notes that any future orders must be 100% WH
> equipped. Would it be possible or likely that St. Louis Car would refuse to honor
> this request? Did the ERPCC or TRC people pressure transit companies to accept
> split orders to aid in developement or to keep both GE and WH in the fold?
>
> As cost concious as many transit systems had to be during the PCC era, I am
> surprised that systems (especially those in receivership) didn't insist on
> complete compatibility of as much running and electrical gear as possible.
>
> I understand the PCC was continuing to evolve and that TRC would sometimes have
> one or two cars in a given order built with innovations for field testing.
>
> I wonder if any system did try to order a 100% GE or WH fleet. Ken J.