[PRCo] Re: And Speaking of Rejected Cars.....
Bob Rathke
brathke at mediaone.net
Sat Jun 16 22:13:49 EDT 2001
Having a second sourse of supply for any product, purchased by a public or private
organization, is accepted business practice.
Sometimes this means purchasing products from both sources in order to protect future
avialability of products, parts and services.
Bob 6/16/01
-------------------------------------
Jim Holland wrote:
> 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