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

[Fred Schneider]

1.  The easy question.  The B3 truck was designed for open track while the B-2
was built for paved track.  There was no such thing as one being better or worse
than the other without first qualifying where.   They both served well when they
were where they belonged.  Oh yes, the B-2 design on the FCD Mack buses on the
New Haven railroad worked fine, but that track was supported like it was on
concrete in thiose days.

2.  Pittsburgh Railways was in bankruptcy from about 1937 or 1938 until 1949.
None of the PCC bodies ever received superb maintenance.  Bondo was the
operative word.  It filled any dent.  Completely rebuilding car frames is
something transit companies didn't do.  Most trolley cars ran for 15 to 30 years
(the earliest ones and the later ill-advised cars even fewer years).  The Philly
50-hundreds and 80-hundreds lasted no more than 22 years (most ran a lot fewer
years).  Here in Lancaster, the Birney cars lasted no more than 21 years and
many were strengthed after 15 years to keep the roofs from stopping in front of
the cars.  Altoona got 25 and 29 years out of their newest cars (the same with
Scranton).  The Philly Nearsides had an excetionally long life of 42 or 43
years.  The Pittsburgh 4100s ran for 29 years or less.   Pittsburgh's wooden
4-axle cars lasted no more than 30 years and most were gone before that.  The
fact that the 1700s lasted more than 50 years wasn't a testimonial to the cars
but rather luck that no one fell through the step wells.  The cars were junk
(without the -que).   A friend at Pullman-Standard who inspected the cars in the
early 1960s with the eye to a rebuilding contract told me then that the 1700s
were marginally acceptable and everything else was shot.   The design life was
about 20 years.  Beyond that was pushing the envelope, especially in the
Norteast where we began to use salt in the winter in the 1960s.

Ken & Tracie wrote:

> 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
-- Trailing quotes stripped by Listar --