[PRCo] Re: So you can't get to Pittsburgh?

[John Swindler]

>From: Fred Schneider <fschnei at supernet.com>
>Reply-To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>Subject: [PRCo] Re: So you can't get to Pittsburgh?
>Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:29:37 -0400
>
>What ifs always make nice arguments.
>So let's add one more group of what ifs.  A PCC was a car utilizing patents 
>held
>by Transit Research Corporation.  The organization was rolled into 
>Institute for
>Rapid Transit, and that later (in a merger with the ATA) became part of the
>American Public Transit Association (APTA).  It's no longer an issue of 
>patents
>but one of lobbying.  And it is one of lobbying because TRC no longer was 
>able
>to earn money on its patents because no new cars were being built and thus 
>no
>royalties were generated.
>


If you want to see what a PCC car from the 1980s would look like, check out 
the Hague 3000 series.

As for minimizing costs, not really applicable in US.  Otherwise, why not a 
three section articlulated of about 100 meter length?  After all, how many 
systems operate multi-car trains on primarily private right of way?  At 
least Dallas is finally starting to see the light.

Concerning on-board vs. off-board fare collection, check out news articles 
on Melbourne's experience with off-board fare collection.

John


>But for a moment, let's assume that cars continued to be built.  Because 
>the PCC
>was a modern, up-to-date, mass-produced vehicle ... indeed that was the 
>premise
>on which Thomas Conway created the ERPCC ... then I think we need to assume 
>that
>if PCCs continued to be built, that they would continually be modernized to 
>meet
>the needs of today.
>
>In addition to passenger comfort, we would be attempting to minimize 
>expenses
>and maximize revenue per passenger.  This is a concept that may not have 
>been
>addressed from day one but it has been part of the equation at least since
>1900.  I think, therefore, that the following would have been part of a 
>2003 PCC
>car:
>
>1.   As many seats as possible per employee.  Sounds like articulated cars 
>to
>me.  But see item 6.
>
>2.   Chopper controls ... solid state devices don't require the same 
>inspection
>time as resistance control schemes.  (You fix it when it breaks instead of
>fixing it before it breaks.)
>
>3.   Regenerative braking ... maybe, if we have enough traffic to make the 
>line
>receptive.
>
>4.   Flourescent Lighting lasts longer than incandescent bulbs.
>
>5.   AC motors (without brushes) are cheaper to maintain than DC motors.
>
>6.   Fare collection may be addressed as an acknowledgement that honesty 
>does
>not work and that buying tickets from machines on the street may be on the 
>way
>out.  (Holland, for example, has restored onboard fare collection.)  And 
>this
>may cut into the need for articulated cars unless we are willing to have 
>two-man
>PCC cars.
>
>7.   Air suspension?  Maybe.  General Motors used it since 1953,  Budd used 
>it
>on the Philadelphia area Silverliners 1958.  It does reduce noise 
>transmission.
>
>8.   Plastic seats?  Remember reducing expenses per passenger?
>
>9.   Molded plastic trim panels inside, and maybe even outside.  I suppose.
>
>10. Two headlights?  Certainly.  Automobiles need them.  Trucks do.  Buses
>also.  Without even looking, I could imagine that it has part of law in 
>some
>states.  Remember also the ditch lights that the FRA requires on 
>locomotives and
>self-propelled cars now.
>
>11.  It would need to look modern.  How about that Siemen's Combino?
>
>Sounds like an LRV to me.  How about to you?   I have not addressed 
>operating
>speed.  If it was a PCC car and was intended to run on the street, we may 
>be
>back to a 40 mph rapidly accelerating vehicle instead of 55 or 60 car with 
>less
>rapid get up and go.
>
>And why isn't the Combino or the Siemens U2 or the Adtranz Eurotram 
>acceptable
>to railfans?  Maybe they just aren't old enough and threatened yet.  The 
>next
>generation will revere them.   But I think they really are the PCCs of 
>today.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Ken & Tracie wrote:
>
> > Jim Holland wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, have Not ridden the current lrv and  *Never*  would be
> > > too soon for me, but the rebuilt Overbrook has definite interest
> > > Specifically Because of the History behind it.    Additionally,
> > > ({[pat]})  didn't want to rebuild it and denied its value but a
> > > significant cut in running time over the current 42/38-line
> > > (sorry, don't know current route numbers  AND  am not interested
> > > in knowing same!)
> >
> > On a purely emotional level, we're on the same page, Jim. But one thing 
>I
> > have always noted is had the bulk of the streetcar network been retained 
>in
> > Pittsburgh (or for that matter ANY of it in Los Angeles, Baltimore, 
>Chicago,
> > St. Louis, Kansas City, D.C., Brooklyn, etc.), change would have been
> > inevitable. Had reasonably priced PCCs been available through the 1950s 
>and
> > into the 1960s, a heck of a lot fewer air-electric cars would have 
>survived
> > into the 1980s in the cities that still used PCCs.
> >
> > Street running in densely traveled areas would have been shifted to 
>subways,
> > underutilized parallel railroad corridors, pantographs probably would 
>have
> > replaced trolley poles  (except in urban Philadelphia, Toronto &
> > Mattapan-Ashmont as well know for sure) and K&M overhead hardware would 
>have
> > replaced most of the familar Ohio Brass fittings.
> >
> > The changes to Pittsburgh's surviving South Hills lines were relatively
> > minimal (not counting Early Action) during the 1971-1981 as plans for 
>the
> > future were fluid. After losing over three quarters of what was there in 
>mid
> > 1964, I believe we were more acutely  aware of what we still had and 
>what
> > seemed to be its impending demise.
> >
> > Had Mr. Swift remained at the helm of PAT from Day One, even a pro-rail
> > attitude wouldn't have stopped some of the abandonments, reroutings, 
>changes
> > in route designations, etc. It's an unfortunate reality, but we can 
>still
> > hold on to our dreams.
> >
> > K.
> >
> > P.S.- I wonder if we would have accepted early 1960s models of PCCs with
> > dual or quad headlights and slanted "Fishbowl" style side windows? :-)
>
>xx
>

_________________________________________________________________
Never get a busy signal because you are always connected  with high-speed 
Internet access. Click here to comparison-shop providers.  
https://broadband.msn.com