[PRCo] Re: And Speaking of Rejected Cars.....
Fred W. Schneider III
fschnei at supernet.com
Sun Jun 17 17:01:02 EDT 2001
But in this case, the parts were not identical from two sources but sole
source procurement for parts the company has already locked themselves
into.
Bob Rathke wrote:
>
> 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