G.E. Equipped PCCs

[Harold Geissenheimer]

Greetings to all

Interesting comments about GE/WE split.
Tom's comments are correct in my opinion.

Let me add another reason for a GR/WE split.

Many street car companies were connected to power
companies who did not also want to rely on one
supplier.

I know of no federal or TRC mandate to split.
In fact the split probably violates current bidding
regulations.

Many bus systems had exclusive deals with manufacturers.
Buffalo, Allentown and Rochester were with Mack in the
1930's and 1940's.  Pittsburgh was with ACF Brill
mostly.  Cleveland and Washington liked White.

The long and short of it is that you could buy what
you wanted.  The real winner eventually was GMC and
National City lines.

Best wishes.

Harold Geissenheimer



Tom Parkinson wrote:

> In the early sixties when I worked for the Transportation Division of Westinghouse Electric Corporation in East Pittsburgh it was accepted that larger transit agencies or companies had policies to split propulsion orders. This was to avoid dependence on one of only two propulsion equipment suppliers in the USA. Dependence or preference for one could increase prices and reduce the quality of after-sales service as well as impede competitive product improvement.
>
> NYCTA  mandated a 50/50 split between GE and Westinghouse for subway cars. PRCo did the 75/25 split in deference to the hometown supplier. CTA tended to go the other way in favour of GE -- no idea why.
>
> This process is still used in Japan where rail car orders are routinely split between two or more car builders and propulsion suppliers -- often on very small orders -- purportedly by government decree.
>
> During the war, PCC procurement was strictly controlled by a US Government Agency -- how was the work divided between GE and Westinghouse then?
>
> Tom Parkinson P.Eng
> Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd.
> Vehicle Project Administrator
> (604) 733-5430, Fax 733-5437