G.E. Equipped PCCs

[Derrick J Brashear]

(You're using a mail client which doesn't autowrap, aren't you?)

On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Kenneth and Tracie Josephson wrote:

> I remember some bus systems had been purchasing GMC coaches exclusively
> since the early 1960s. When a publicly funded transit agency took over
> during the 1970's, the bidding process resulted in some of the minor
> manufacturers such as Flxible (which had been steadily losing its share
> of the market), Flyer Industires, Gruman, AMGeneral and even some
> European designed buses getting a piece of the action.

And look at the result: New York City had lots of trouble with their
Grumman buses. Look at the problems Pittsburgh and other cities (but not
Philadelphia, apparently) had with their 1983 Neoplan Pennliners. 

Maybe there's something to be said for buying from a big company, that
"gets it right". Of course, maybe e.g. Flxible was a big company, and was
just getting squeezed by GM. To be honest I can't compare products of that 
vintage. I will say that I always hated PAT's 1978 AM Generals: they were
always noisy as hell, and the windows rattled badly because they didn't
fit snugly in their tracks.

> In many cases, some of the older GMC "Fishbowls" were rehabilitated and
> outlived some of the newer coaches, including GMC's own disaster, the
> RTS.

In my mind, RTS is the Boeing LRV of the bus world: an horrid abortion of
an implementation of a good concept: a standardized, modular vehicle. 
The Port Authority RTS buses served their requisite time before the
Feds would fund replacement, and moved on. 

It always seemed to me the Boeing LRV was the next logical step in
evolution after the PCC: instead of just having vehicles built to a 
standard set of specs, have vehicles built from a standard set of parts.
Maybe the problem was they went too far with the LRV, trying to make it
all things to all people, and that's why it ended up a complex nightmare.
What we ended up with in Pittsburgh is different, is based on proven
technology, but time has shown that they also had problems. I think that
says something.

(Of course, the same thing happened with the original Budd Metroliner cars
PRR ordered, and those were only supposed to be one thing, fast, to one
organization, so maybe that's not it at all either)

Still, while Pittsburgh, with big hills, would have different needs than
say Boston, it would be nice to be able to put together a car from a
standard stock of parts which was suited to Pittsburgh's hills, clearances
on the subway downtown, necessary tight curves, platform lengths, and
still be able to build a single unit LRV for Philadelphia, if they so
desired, with the same parts.

-D