[PRCo] Re: Pittsburgh seating

[Harold Geissenheimer]

Fred and all
Add another reason for long seats on PRC PCC's

Mill workers with lunch boxes and dirty clothes.

With a long seat, workers could just sit down without
climbing over an other passenger.

On buses, long seats over front wheels were a physical
necessity.  One problem with todays low floor buses such seating is lost.

ADA requirements have added some fold up long seats on buses.

Low floor LRV's have poor long seats in the
center articulation,.  Example, ex Twin City PCC's in Newark had
all good forward facing seats.  Replacement LRV's have 1/2 facing forward
on rear platform, 1/2 backwards in the front and the rest long seats
in the ADA and center areas..  Not passenger friendly.

Pgh high floor LRV's are half and half..   Best LRV seating is in a single
end high floor LRV like SEPTA or Hong Kong new territory LRV.  The
Hong Kong system built new and has many loops.  Pgh had to build
many loops for the PCC's.  Single end cars eliminate second cab and
has doors on blind side.  A big increase in capacity..  Also TATRA
built single end car MU train cars without front cab

Suburban or charter buses with all forward seats and raised platforms
are not really suitable for local service.  NY's 45' MCI cruiser 
Express  buses with a
single door are the worse.

About surveys.    I am guilty.  Ken Hussong and I just rode the bus and 
asked
the questions..  No cost.  We did some tests at Craft Ave to layout  floor
variations on the ground and actually used live bodies from Pitt.

When Phil joined us in equipment design, we continued this process.  Its
called "seat of your pants" planning and design.  Dave Gunn is using
this at Amtrak,,, passengers are no longer guests, now once again
customers.  Phil designed and built the two PCC cars with LRV fronts.,

Harold Geissenheimer


Fred Schneider wrote:

>The standard configuration for the low floor yellow cars was the same as the
>early PCCs.   The cross seats began behind the center door.  Remember that
>these were built as pay as you enter cars with the conductor at the center
>door.  The front door was used for egress until they were converted to
>one-man cars.  However, there were some that were fitted with bucket seats
>in the rear. Those 5200s were based at Ingram ... probably a futile attempt
>to take passengers back from the bus companies.  As those of us with ample
>dimensions understand, bucket seats don't work for everyone.
>Someone who has ridden in one should correct me ... I think the high floor
>4000s and 4100s had longitudinal seats on left side and transverse on the
>right side.   This would make sense because they were essentially pass
>through cars ... get on the rear platform and off the front.  Therefore a
>uniform aisle width would be beneficial.
>
>Some older double truck cars (see 3487 at PTM) were pure bowling alley ...
>longitudinal seats on both sides.  That would have facilitated pay within
>fare collection.  However, if you look closely at 3487 today, you will note
>that it was modified for pay as you enter fare collection.  Not at all
>surprising as Pittsburgh was one of the largest big cities to opt for one
>man operation on trunk routes.   Something I've never studied ... only a
>suspicion that bench seating was common in many cities regardless of the
>length of the car ... be happy to have someone do an analysis and prove me
>right or wrong.
>
>The low-floor trailers were all single end ... one door in the middle of one
>side ... don't bother us with issues of emergency exits, thank you.  I think
>they too had longitudinal seats all the way around.
>
>And there is no doubt at all, as Harold points out, that it is much easier
>for a patron with shopping bags to get up if they were in a side seat.  With
>buses I suspect the decision was often made for the operator by the coach
>designer ... cross seats don't work as well as bench seats over a wheel
>well.   Many manufacturers installed longitudinal seats over both the front
>and rear wheel wells.  ACF Brill had suburban C36 coaches (we had a few in
>Lancaster) with cross seats from front to rear ... but they were elevated
>above the aisle.  There was also a luggage rack overhead.  I remember well
>the night my mother came home from town on the Lititz bus when they had
>pressed one of those charter C36s into scheduled suburban service ... she
>was very upset about the indignity of trying to pry herself out of that
>seat.
>
>An aside to Harold:  Public transit authorities commonly query passengers
>... a typical government cover your butt mode.  But did the private
>companies do it to the same degree?  I really don't know but I suspect not
>because surveys cost money that they didn't have.  Tell me ... I would like
>to learn.
>
>Harold Geissenheimer wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Greetings to all
>>
>>Interesting discussion about seaiting
>>
>>PAT returned to long seating on several orders of New Look busses iinthe
>>1960's
>>
>>It did improve passenger flow in the aisles.  But we found that many
>>passengers liked the long seat based on passenger interviews.
>>
>>Why:?   Because older passengers, heavy set passengees.
>>passengers with kids or shopping bags could more easily sit there
>>
>>The single forward facing seat was not without disadvantages.
>>
>>There are many points of view.  Did some  older PRC yellow cars
>>have long seats before the PCC?
>>
>>As a rider, I found different advantages in each.
>>
>>Harold Geissenheimer
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>
>  
>