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

[Fred Schneider]

Which was peppier, a 1600 or a 1700?  If the acceleration limit relay was
identical and the spring tension adjustment on the relay spring remained the
same, which was probably true, then the acceleration became a matter of car
weight.  Weights generally increased over time.  Therefore a 1700 probably would
be slower getting out of the gate than a 1600, but a 1000 would probably beat
both of them.

The cars with blown motors probably could be made peppier than those with
internally vented motors, because the external fan on the MG set could keep the
motors cooler at lower speeds.  But I have never seen any proof that specs for
the limit relays were changed on cars with blown motors.  Now I know I'm speaking
Greek, right?  The motors on the original PCCs (and on most streetcars before
them) were cooled by a fan on the armature in the motor.  Of course the fan runs
fastest when the motor run's fastest.  And the greatest heat is generated when
the motor is revolving very slowly.  Fineview was very abusive to such a car.
Blown is synonymous with extenerally vented -- those cars with blown motors
required a separate fan on the MG set just to cool motors.  The distinction was
generally air-cars were internally vented and all-electrics had externally vented
motors.

Jim Holland wrote:

> 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!
-- Trailing quotes stripped by Listar --