[PRCo] Re: And Speaking of Rejected Cars.....

[John Swindler]

Maybe we can talk Harold into reminiscing a bit about how decisions changed 
over time as different personalities - and events - came and went.

We are condemned to mere speculation.

But Harold was involved with part of the decision making process.

And as Jim is hinting, the focus has been on streetcar body style, and not 
electrical repair parts.

John


>From: Jim Holland <pghpcc at pacbell.net>
>Reply-To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>Subject: [PRCo] Re: And Speaking of Rejected Cars.....
>Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 11:59:12 -0700
>
>
> > Harold Geissenheimer wrote:
>
> > The 1600's had windows that opened!   That was my reason.
>
>1961--April  --  GE cars, 1275--1279, to be scrapped soon.
>	ERA--Headlights, April-1961
>
>	Just like the block of GE 17s, 1775--1799, so too were the block of GE
>12s, 1275--1299, set aside by PRCo for scrap.  AND  the GE 17s were
>scrapped well before any decision to overhaul the 17s or any other
>equipment.  The thought was that trolleycars were on the way out - just
>get rid of them!  AND  Possibly, getting rid of newer equipment might
>dissuade others who want to keep trolleycars because some of what did
>remain after scrapping the GE 17s was Really Old trolleycars - don't
>want to keep those now, do we?!?!
>
>	Controller parts, MG, other major electrical parts would be very
>similar across all numbers of cars.
>
>	Both the 16s and 17s were similar electrically in that they both had
>extended dynamic brakes so maintaining Westinghouse instead of GE seemed
>easier.
>
> > The blowers on 1700's were not passenger friendly.
>
> >> Kenneth Josephson wrote:
>
> >> I've read and heard the explanations for why 1775-1799 were scrapped 
>during the late
> >> sixties and some 1600s were retained.  Since the twenty or so surviving 
>1600s were
> >> "oddballs" by being in the minority during the 1972 -1987 (or so) 
>period , was it
> >> really a case of "six of one, a half dozen of the other" if the GE 17s 
>were retained
> >> instead? Would maintaining twenty five GE equipped all electric cars 
>that otherwise
> >> matched the other seventy or so Westinghouse equipped 17s been that 
>much more of a
> >> headache than maintaining twenty or twenty five cars with air brakes, 
>air doors,
> >> different interior and body fittings?   Ken J.
>
>====================
>Jim
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com