[PRCo] Re: Patronage of the Rail Lines (Was: Pittsburgh 7-Charles Street abandonment)

[Jim Holland]

> Derrick J Brashear wrote:

> If the truth of the death of the 4000 program was the price, though, what
> does that tell us? Much as I like PCCs, the result was still a vehicle
> which was a bit longer than and a bit narrower than a bus, still
> single-ended,

	Buses are single ended last I checked!!  Wasted space with controls at
both ends, much extra maintenance.  Double ended PCCs 1006--1015 were
quickly modified as single enders with just enough control at the 
*back--end*  to wye and do some back up maneuvers.

> still not quite new despite all the new components,

	Modifications were made to some components which would be logical yet
untested.  The original electrical//mechanical design was fine but
antiquated for the time of the  new--builds!   Starting from scratch
with a new design, testing, and then production might be better, but the
market is rather thin!

-- 
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/