Earll Ad

[Jim Holland]

Greetings!

	An Earll *retriever*  IS  larger than an Earll *catcher* because of the
heavy duty take up spring needed to, of all things, *retrieve* the pole
when it dewires.  An Earll *retriever* for a PCC and trolley coach are
identical.
	The very same retriever used on *PRCo PCC interurbans* was also used on
the *Dallas DE PCCs* (the Earll retrievers on Dallas DE PCCs was removed
and replaced with catchers in Boston) and was also used on *Cincinnati
PCCs* and was also used on *Seattle TCs* and was also used on *San
Francisco TCs* and was also used on *Dayton TCs* and was also used on
*Philly TCs* and was also used on *Red Arrow PCC-look-alikes* and was
also used on *Boston TCs* etc., etc., etc.!!::>>)))
	An Earll retriever is an Earll retriever is an Earll retriever  --  one
size retriever fits both trolleycar and trolleycoach!!::>>)))

	Since recommended tension of *wheel* against the overhead at a nominal
wire height of 18-feet above the railhead is 30-32-pounds (shoe is 25-30
pounds, and that stands for trolley coach and trolleycar,) the initial
force of the takeup spring inside the spool that the rope winds on is
*probably* in the nature of 40-45-pounds.  It is a mighty powerful
*watch* spring for those who understand the mechanism of the old wind-up
wrist watches!!::>>)))  This spring is needed to pull the pole down
clear of wires for high speed interurbans and even for low speed trolley
coaches because of the potential of fouling the overhead and causing
damage or short circuits.
	This is why the retriever is deeper - all that is needed in a catcher
is a spindle to wind up the rope - there is NO spring inside the rope
spindle on a catcher.
	Both retriever and catcher have another *watch-spring* (actually, this
is the ONLY spring in a catcher) solely for the purpose of keeping the
rope taut.  This is in the outer end of the retriever or catcher - the
end closest to the operator when standing behind it.
 
> > Jim Holland wrote:

> >         NEGATIVE  --  the picture in the ad that Ken provided is a *retriever*
> > --  it is not a catcher.

> >         The same identical *retriever* was on the back of 1700--1724,
> > 1613--1619, 1645--1648 and 14XX used by WABCo.  Notice how deep the
> > retriever is - a catcher is much flatter - MUCH flatter.

> Kenneth Josephson wrote:
 
> I'll be darned and stand corrected. In my defense, the *drawing* looks more like a
> Pittsburgh catcher when compared to my Dayton trolley coach retrievers. I suppose
> "artistic license" has come into play....

> So would an Earll trolley coach retriever be larger than a Earll PCC retriever due
> to the longer poles, etc.? Ken J.

James B. Holland

        Pittsburgh  Railways  Company  (PRCo),   1930  --  1950
    To e-mail privately, please click here: mailto:pghpcc at pacbell.net
N.M.R.A.  Life member #2190; http://www.mcs.net:80/~weyand/nmra/