[PRCo] Re: And Speaking of Rejected Cars.....
Jim Holland
pghpcc at pacbell.net
Sat Jun 16 20:15:28 EDT 2001
Included is information from when we discussed this in
JUNE--2000!!<ggggggg>
>>> HRBran99 at aol.com wrote:
>>> Provisions in the Federal antitrust laws was the main reason. I was told by
>>> many people in the PATransit organization during the 1970s that Westinghouse
>>> controls were far superior. However, US law prevented purchase of controls
>>> (by PRCo) from only one supplier.
========================================
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 13:06:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: HRBran99 at aol.com
Subject: Re: G.E. Equipped PCCs
Sender: owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Reply-to: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Message-id: <97.66d76d7.26712c93 at aol.com>
When I posed the question of both Westinghouse and G.E. equipped cars to
the Superintendent of S. Hills Division around 1977, I was told that the
US Government required the mix of both manufacturers controls because of
a court ruling having something to do with "antitrust" legislation of
that era. Perhaps some research is required to come up with the exact
reason for this requirement.
HrB
========================================
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 15:26:01 -0700
From: Tom Parkinson <tompark at interchange.ubc.ca>
Subject: G.E. Equipped PCCs
In-reply-to: <393EECA9.1948DEFC at sprintmail.com>
Sender: owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
X-Sender: tompark at pop.interchange.ubc.ca
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Reply-to: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Message-id: <3.0.5.32.20000608152601.007e0c40 at pop.interchange.ubc.ca>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
References: <NDBBIOKINLEKLIJCOKHACEODCDAA.twg at pulsenet.com>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length: 1141
In the early sixties when I worked for the Transportation Division of
Westinghouse Electric Corporation in East Pittsburgh it was accepted
that larger transit agencies or companies had policies to split
propulsion orders. This was to avoid dependence on one of only two
propulsion equipment suppliers in the USA. Dependence or preference for
one could increase prices and reduce the quality of after-sales service
as well as impede competitive product improvement.
NYCTA mandated a 50/50 split between GE and Westinghouse for subway
cars. PRCo did the 75/25 split in deference to the hometown supplier.
CTA tended to go the other way in favour of GE -- no idea why.
This process is still used in Japan where rail car orders are routinely
split between two or more car builders and propulsion suppliers -- often
on very small orders -- purportedly by government decree.
========================================
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 14:33:20 -0700
From: Jim Holland <pghpcc at pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: The Government -- Westinghouse vs GE equipment
Sender: owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Reply-to: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Message-id: <394162A0.7C7B at pacbell.net>
Of the four PCC books --
1)--PCC The Car That Fought Back
2)--PCC From Coast to Coast
3)--St. Louis Car Company - Young
4)--St. Louis Car Company - Lind --
the only information regarding Fed intervention in the PCC field is
during the war when they allocated how many cars could be built because
the materials -- copper, steel, chrome, rubber, etc., etc., etc. --
to build the cars were needed to build war-time machinery -- but this
was true of other mfgr. as well -- the govt placed limits on
production in many fields (possibly automotive and bus mfgr as well) to
ensure material for the war. There is no information in these books
concerning a mandatory split edict from the Fed between WH / GE
electrical equipment -- please correct me if I am wrong. A letter in
the archives from the Feds to St. Louis Car concerning electrical
equipment splits on orders would be very credible information. This
letter would then be in govt archives and could be used for
verification.
Tom Parkinson provided excellent information concerning this split in
electrical equipment and it had nothing to do with the Feds. He spoke
as one in the field.
========================================
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 14:12:45 -0700
From: Jim Holland <pghpcc at pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: The Government -- Westinghouse vs GE equipment --
NO Evidence
Sender: owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Reply-to: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Message-id: <394400CD.17A8 at pacbell.net>
Just using Cox book *PCCs of North America* (and just considering
motors alone)
01)--Birmingham -- WESTINGHOUSE
02)--Pacific Electric -- WESTINGHOUSE
03)--San Diego -- WESTINGHOUSE - 2-orders
04)--Louisville -- WESTINGHOUSE
05)--Illinois Terminal -- GENERAL ELECTRIC
06)--Brooklyn -- GENERAL ELECTRIC - 2-orders
07)--Cincinnati -- WESTINGHOUSE - 4-orders
08)--Cleveland -- WESTINGHOUSE - 2-orders
09)--Shaker Hts -- GENERAL ELECTRIC - 3-orders
10)--Johnstown -- WESTINGHOUSE
11)--Dallas -- WESTINGHOUSE
12)--Vancouver -- WESTINGHOUSE - 4-orders
13)--Toronto -- WESTINGHOUSE - 15-orders
Look at "Equipment Variations - North American PCC Cars" a supplement
to *PCC--The Car That Fought Back*. The back page shows 23 variations
on the GE motors and 18 variations on the Westinghouse. There are 9-GE
Motor controller variations and 15-Westinghouse. There are 20-GE
Master, Brake & Back Up Controllers and 32-Westinghouse.
Cincinnati with ALL Westinghouse motors also had Westinghouse Motor &
Master Controllers but GE brake controllers on each car. While railfans
have referred to cars as Westinghouse or GE, what were the
qualifications -- motors alone?
Toronto used Westinghouse Motors, Motor Controller, and Master
Controller but GE brake controllers except where that was not applicable
(some master and brake controllers were combined into one package.)
Pittsburgh used GE brake controllers on all cars except all-electrics
where master and brake controllers are combined.
St. Louis used GE Brake controllers exclusively and where motors are
Westinghouse, other components except brake controllers are
Westinghouse. On GE cars, all components are GE.
And it appears that 99% of the cars that had separate brake controllers
used GE regardless of the origin of other electric components.
As you mentioned, the industry was evolving - it is history to us and
while we see differences those differences are not pronounced for us. I
still think that Tom Parkinson has given us the best understanding of
the situation so far. And since the industry was evolving, the transit
properties never knew which electrical system was better without trying
it because new advancements and refinements were constantly being made
to the products.
========================================
> YES -- this has been mentioned before -- right here on the list
> -- by Herb!
> If I understand this, antitrust laws prevent monopolies from forming,
> not individuals--companies buying from one supplier.
> Birmingham -- Pure Westinghouse.
> Pacific Electric -- Pure Westinghouse.
> San Diego -- Pure Westinghouse
> Louisville -- Pure Westinghouse.
> Cincinnati -- Pure Westinghouse
> Cleveland -- Pure Westinghouse
> Johnstown -- Pure Westinghouse
> Dallas -- Pure Westinghouse
> El Paso -- Pure Westinghouse
> British Columbia -- Pure Westinghouse
> (Western suburb of Pgh.!<G>)
> Toronto -- Pure Westinghouse
> (Northern suburb of Pgh.!<G>)
> (*Should* therefore be GE)
> Montreal -- Pure Westinghouse
> Illinois Terminal -- Pure GE
> Newark -- Pure GE
> Brooklyn -- Pure GE
> Shaker -- Pure GE
> The Superior argument --
> Excerpts from pg.161, 2nd column,
> *PCC The Car That Fought Back:*
> [Starting at end of first column:] "Numerous times over the last two
> decades we have heard the lament that the GE commutator control was far
> less reliable than the Westinghouse product, with the echoes coming
> generally from a full chorus of maintenance workers. The only operating
> data available disclosed that the Westinghouse equipment had a
> 30-percent higher failure rate in service....... Both systems
> apparently scored high marks for durability, but not necessarily for
> maintainability. The Westinghouse accelerator was very easily
> serviced. All moving parts and resistor elements could be changed out
> in a matter of minutes from an inspection pit in the carbarn.
> Operations which would have been simple with the Westinghouse product
> were anything but simple with the General Electric controller. Just to
> true up the commutator required removing control cabinet parts, power
> and air lines, bolts, and lifting the 300--pound unit from the car while
> the mechanic savored the dirt falling down his neck. If there was any
> higher incidence of failures with GE cars, it may have resulted from
> postponing routine maintenance until the car failed in service."
> "In reality, both sets of controls were far more reliable than anything
> previously produced."
> "Truly, the two manufacturers [Westinghouse & GE] were able to produce
> control packages that were just what the doctor ordered."
> Anyone could have a preference for certain equipment//hardware, and
> from different perspectives - maintenance, operations, etc., but that
> does not necessarily reflect the quality of the item.
> This has been discussed in detail here on list, and all the above has
> been quoted here on list as well. I have 100,000--bytes of TXT files on
> this very subject (that's because full headers are saved when saving
> ASCII and there are quotes repeated, but obviously this is still of good
> size for a discussion.)
>
> > Kenneth Josephson wrote:
> > I've read and heard this, too. But there were a number of companies (North Shore
> > Line and Milwaukee Electric come to mind, as well as several of the operators in
> > the NYC area) that swore by GE. Milwaukee dumped their newest Pullman-Standard
> > trackless trolleys in favor of a mixed fleet of Marmon-Herringtons and
> > Pullman-Standards for the last several years, when all the Pullmans were
> > sufficient to cover all runs. Why? Because the newest Pullmans from the order
> > were Westinghouse equipped and the Transport Company wanted an all GE fleet
> > until the new diesel coaches arrived in 1965. Paul Ward noted on another
> > discussion list that many trackless trolley operators seemed to like GE equipped
> > coaches over Westinghouse units when all other things were equal.
> > I have heard and read that Westinghouse controls needed more frequent "tuning"
> > than GE, but that Westinghouse equipment was much easier to overhaul than GE's
> > when major repairs were necessary.
> > Do we have any "shop jocks" on this list? :-) I'd like to hear from the front
> > line people on this debate. Ken J.
> ====================
> Jim
--
Good Morning!!
====================
Jim
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/
James B. Holland, 0288
Presidio Division
JLMB Worksite
Committee
More information about the Pittsburgh-railways
mailing list