[PRCo] Re: Wheels__&__Shoes

[James B. Holland]

Fred Schneider wrote:

>The ideal solution was a pantograph.  But it requires a firm and properly
>aligned roadbed or the car will rock and ultimately the pan will catch somewhere
>and tear down wires.  And it also wants a figure "8" cross section (or grooved
>as Ken called it) wire which is clamped from the side ... the bottom surface is
>perfectly smooth.  When trolley bus lines were installed, this type of wire was
>installed initially.
>
             Grooved wire is what Boris provided in a diagram  --  
Figure-8 wire is totally different and is much more rigid.     Figure-8 
is commonly used in troughs inside shop buildings and // or in troughs 
at underpasses and between short pieces of special work for trolley 
coaches here in San Francisco.     Have  *never-ever*  seen Figure-8 
wire used as the main contact wire throughout a system.     This 
Figure-8 Overhead is referred to as a Reversible Bar by Ohio Brass 
Catalog #25, pg.74 and is described thus:   """...is of steel, 1-inch 
high with 3/8-inch diameter lobes [top and bottom].     As the lobe 
dimensions are identical, when one side becomes worn the bar may be 
reversed, forming a new full size underrun.     Universal Bar is 
supplied in 18-foot lengths.     It is light in weight and can be formed 
readily to any curvature desired."""       This description reveals why 
it isn't used throughout the system  --  entirely too rigid  --  
wouldn't smut the custard at grade changes and would be difficult to 
bend in this direction  --  expansion and contraction would skew it out 
of alignment for long curves and runs  --  even that in troughs has 
ripples from expansion etc.     Other Figure-8 wire by different 
manufacturers could have been of material other than steel.

             PRCo used simple round wire everywhere.

             San Francisco had round trolley wire on a few trolley coach 
lines until about 2-3--years ago   ---   that along California Street 
used by the 1-California and 4-Sutter at Laurel village was round and 
probably dated from 1953 when initially installed!

             Ears for round trolley wire were tapered to fit snugly 
around the wire and shoes could pass over this quite simply without 
pulling it apart  --  wheels would be more damaging because of the solid 
metal to metal contact.     The O-B Marathon Trolley Ears were for 
wheels and the O-B Type-AS Trolley Ears were for carbon shoes, BOTH on 
round wire  --  pgs 134 and 135 respectively in the Ohio Brass Catalog 
#25, 1948 and also pgs11 and 12 of Catalog #76, 1978!!!!!!!       The 
M-Ocean View line in San Francisco was totally round trolley wire with 
shoes until conversion to pantograph / trolley pole overhead about 
1980--1982 at which point grooved overhead was used and ears that clamp 
leaving the under run totally clear.

                What PRCo did with many but not all ears is to wrap an 
O-B Type-F Formed Copper Armors (For Ears and Splicers) or O-B Trolley 
Armors (Pg.42 OB Catalog #25) around the wire under the ear to protect 
the ear itself  --  more difficult to replace the ear itself than it is 
the protective armor.     And  PRCo  used this protective armor into and 
out of many frogs but not all and it ran for several feet before and 
aft.     Wire at a frog is not always sitting square in the wheel or 
shoe and the sides of the wheel are exerting great pressure against the 
contact wire thus causing more wear  --  necessary for this position to 
get the pole to track properly thru a frog.

             The protective armor thus was in the direct path of the 
wheel and it wasn't uncommon for the pole to bounce at an ear enough 
where one could see the lights flicker and feel the break in power if 
the power was applied  --  most noticeable at night in the 
gauntlet-overhead section along Overbrook.     Have been told that the 
wheel is constantly arcing a very small amount, not really noticeable, 
and this is what helps to cause more wear with a wheel  --  have not 
seen confirming information on this as yet.     And would need 
considerable data before I would believe the bouncing of the wheel and 
flaking of the overhead described by Milwaukee.     Ohio Brass 
recommends 30-32-pounds at 18-feet height for a wheel and 25-30-pounds 
at same height for a shoe  --  if there were appreciable bouncing with a 
wheel it would dewire.     The fact that wheels remained so long in Both 
Pgh. and Philly City Lines indicates they weren't as bad as Milwaukee 
claims.

>Why didn't
>Pittsburgh at least change to shoes earlier?  Probably no good reason to spend
>the money.  Speeds were not high. Rolling stock wasn't heavy and power robbing.
>And there was no joint operation with trolley coaches (both using the positive
>wire).   Charles Shauck is dead, so is Karl Hittle, and R. Tighe so I can't ask
>the question.  But we can observe two bankruptcies between in 23 years between
>1917 and 1950 and that may be all we need to answer the question.  I do know
>that Charlie came out of every annual budget meeting with his requests slashed
>deeply.
>
                 The biggest challenge is changing the frogs and most 
specifically the diverging frogs (trailing frogs and crossing frogs 
could be negotiated by both wheel or shoe with little difficulty)  --  
the rest of the overhead could have been used by shoes until regular 
replacement was needed.     PRCo was One Mighty Big TrolleyCar System 
into the early 1960s and 700 harps with shoes (not that many PCCs but 
don't forget work equipment and spares) and all those frogs would have 
been a real challenge.     And with the waning of trolleycars and  
({[pats]})  hell-bent attitude to rid the city of trolleycars why would 
they even consider the change and why would they be considered as a 
source of information on such data  --  they didn't care!


Jim Holland