[PRCo] Re: More Thoughts on 1600s versus 1700s

[Jim Holland]

Ken:

	Interesting thoughts.

	The 1600-series Interurbans saw even less usage than Any Other
PCC!    Relegated to strictly rush hour service post-1953 and with
25-All-Electric Interurbans, this allowed complete base service on
both Charleroi and Washington while allowing for 6-9--spares of
All-Electrics!

	**Ride__Quality**  is much like  *Beauty*    ----    In the Eye of
the Beholder!

	The  *Original*  City 17s with Clark B2B trucks were extremely smooth
riding.    But about 1960 PRCo either replaced the spring bolster with
a swing-link or bolted the bolster to the tube framing as they rode
like any Air-Electric PCC.    So the city 17s and City-16s would have
an almost identical ride.

	ANY  truck rides great on good track be it prw or street.    I would
say the ride on any PCC truck was Very Good but the B2 and B3 had
distinct differences.    Many outsiders complained about the ride on
PCCs on the Interurban but the same truck, B3s, on other systems with
prw was just fine!    Same with the B2  --  would ride just fine on
prw that was in decent shape  --  i.e., Better Shape than Pgh.:)   
Shaker is an example where B2s were used exclusively at higher
sustained speeds on prw than in Pgh. and the ride was just great!   
Motormen complained about the IT cars with B3 trucks on Shaker because
they bounced considerably.    But that is more a maintenance issue 
--  springs may have been worn.    Other systems with B3s in regular
use did not have that experience (outside of Pgh!:))

	While the B3 was designed with prw in mind, don't think the B3 was
any better nor any worse than the B2 on prw    ----    just different
charcteristics to the ride on each.

	Personally, 1.)--I prefer the B3 on both prw and street.    Please
note that I am Not saying the B3 is better.    2.)--Others prefer the
B2 on both.    Personal Preferences in Both Cases    ----    it's  In
the Eye of the Beholder!

	The 17s had distinct differences in the 3-pedal arrangement that are
hard to describe but are more refined than their Air-Electric
siblings!:)    Seemed to be less movement to the power pedal while
that movement was more graceful!    Shape of the pedal from the side
view may enhance that difference.

	I liked the electric door motor instead of air on the 17s  --  more
positive movement in addition to sounding more rugged.

	But the City-16s seemed much peppier than any other PRCo PCC.    But
performance tests or side by side operation (up thru the tunnel, for
example) would probably prove almost identical!

	Interurban PCCs always seemed more rugged and even heavier (but the
17s were actually lighter than City-17s!)

	But the moment an Outbound Interurban left South Hills Jct, even
clattering thru the special work, the operations were distinctly
different from city lines, even those with prw!    Yes, city lines had
banked curves as well, but clattering thru the Jct., climbing up to
Warrington, hitting the banked curve onto the Bridge and clattering
over it, and moving out smartly from there on seemed distinctly
different And Special as compared to City Lines.

	I must have ridden a City Car on the Interurbans (M11 for sure, but
that is the Only One I can think of)  but to my mind in the 1950s it
was reprehensible to have a City Car on the Interurbans let alone Ride
It!    Heaven Forbid!    Because Interurban cars were so special, I
would walk up to W.Liberty to attend the PM meetings of PRMA at the
downtown YMCA knowing that an Interurban would come along on the
38-Mt.Lebanon going back to the Barn!    An Interurban on a City Line
was Very Special.

	Only know of 2-instances when an Interurban was actually Assigned to
a run on the 42-Dormont.    1.)--was mid 1950s when a 16-Interurban
was working the morning rush and had to display  PITTSBURGH  since it
still had its old Interurban roll sign!    And 2.)--about 1960, PM
(possibly going downtown for the PRMA meeting) and a heavy snow  -- 
motorman said they swapped for interurbans after the PM-rush for use
on other lines in heavy snows because they rode better and were
heavier cars.    Latter not true  --  Interurbans were lighter, but
not by much!

JIM

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [PRCo] More Thoughts on 1600s versus 1700s
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 22:30:32 -0800
From: Ken & Tracie 

We all know the PCC car continued to evolve during it's sixteen year
production run as a street railway car (and beyond as a rapid transit
car.)    The 1700s definitely represented an advanced design and were
superior in most respects over the preceding offerings.

That said, one would think the 1600s, despite their older style
bodies, would not be much more worn out than the 1700s. They were only
three years older, their basic "platform" was in production for nine
years by the time they were built, meaning most of the "bugs" should
have been worked out (i.e., rattles, loose parts, etc.) by the time
they were built. By the mid 1970s, the 1700s were doing most of the
work, while the 1600s were usually used as tripper cars. I am not
doubting Herb's assessment. I am simply wondering if three additional
years of service would make that much difference or if the 1600s
simply didn't receive as much TLC during the PAT renovation period.

I remember asking Herb if the few 1600s with B-3 trucks rode any
better than the rest which had B-2 trucks. I seem to recall him
replying there was a much better riding quality on the P.R.O.W.
sections with the B-3 equipped 16s as opposed to the B-2 equipped 16s,
but all the 17s were better riding than the best of the 16s.

It is interesting to note that the 1700s rebuilt into 4000s had a
seating arrangement in the front half of the car which was very
reminiscent of the 1600 and earlier PCCs.

K.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

James B. Holland

Holland  Electric  Railway  Operation....... 
___"O"--Scale St.-Petersburg Trams Company Trolleycars and...
______"O"--Scale  Parts  mailto:pghpcc at pacbell.net

______Pennsylvania Trolley Museum http://www.pa-trolley.org/
___Pittsburgh  Railways  Company  (PRCo),   1930  --  1950
N.M.R.A.  Life member #2190; http://www.nmra.org

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>