[PRCo] Re: your mail

[Fred W. Schneider III]

I don't know how many times we have to hammer on this but it appears
necessary again.

Control has absolutely nothing to do with defining a PCC car.  ERPCC and
later TRC provided a performance specification for acceleration,
braking, jerk limits, etc.  They did not tell anyone how to build it. 
Westinghouse and General Electric refused to join the ERPCC in order not
to compromise their patent rights.  They did, however, give cash
donations to ERPCC for their research.  

Therefore, it does not matter a twit what control is in a PCC car.  

If the Portland cars have PCC trucks, which were built under license,
there can be an argument that those heritage cars are PCCs but they
certainly do not embody any other aspects of what Thomas Conway and
Clarence Hirshfeld considered to be modern.  

Remember also, in your argument, that the main purpose behind a PCC was
to recapture lost business and to upgrade the fleet in order to do so. 
Conway was very much concerned that the average streetcar in 1930 was
nearly 30 years old!  If the old man was still living, I'm absolutely
convinced that he would not accept anyone calling a Portland car or any
heritage car a PCC.  If the organization was still in business with the
same motives today, you can bet they would be building chopper
controlled, air-conditioned, light rail vehicles but they would be mass
produced to standards that would fit everywhere.

God hath spoken. 

ROGER Jenkins wrote:
> 
>  To continue , the Portland cars do not use PCC CONTROL , just the
> trucks of same so they really are not PCCs .