[PRCo] Philly GOH vs Purchase of Ex--European PCCs

[Jim Holland]

> Greg King wrote:

> I know this might be heresy, but I wonder why Philly never approached
> Brussels to purchase some of there excess PCC's, whilst they are standard
> equipment (in fact many ride on ex Kansas and ex Johnstown trucks), they
> have very modern bodies and, with airconditioning, would have made a great
> impact on the three surface lines for a very reasonable cost, akin to Muni
> buying the Peter Witts from Milan.

	Nice idea from a railfan standpoint.

After reading John's thesis on PRCo history and the hell-bent
	attitude to get rid of trolleycars  AND
		knowing that Philly was going thru something similar,
			it might be summed up that::

		Pennsylvania did not want trolleycars.

	Philly tried very hard to get rid of all of them as did Pgh.  --  so
why look abroad for replacements.

	And when forced into keeping something rail, it is not in vogue to use
something old fashioned like PCCs.  It was rumored that Bombardier
considered offering an updated PCC but thought it might not fly.  (The
boeings certainly never did  --  fly!)

	In reality, lrvs are updated PCCs.  The trucks still use motors,
disc--(drum)--brakes, magnetic brakes, air suspension of Boeing and
Canadian cars make the trucks similar to PCC--B3s, all lrvs have bodies,
and they all have some form of modernized propulsion! 
Over--simplification, but a point can be made.

	The PCC books list the PCC as evolutionary  --  a more detailed look at
the lrv will find it even more evolutionary than the PCC.  The PCC stood
out markedly from its predecessors  --  less so the lrv specifically
because of the trucks!

-- 
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/