[PRCo] Re: I was in USA!

[Fred Schneider]

1.  I'm sorry that you could remember what you didn't like on 1138 and 1711 but you were unable to remember or observe how much new steel that Adtranz put into those cars.  Because of health and safety issues, I believe they were told to stay away from the equipment cases.  Furthermore, only the body has been restored and PTM has not fixed 1138 for service since it came back because there are only so many man hours available for that work.  It is also unfair to complain about PRC maintenance because the car was not removed from active service and sold to PRC.  PRC was withdrawing the 1000s and 1100s from service as they came due for overhauls.    It was had been retired about 1956 (maybe as recently as 1958) and was stored pending scrapping until 1960 when the museum got it.   Boris, you need to understand that Pittsburgh Railways Company was a private, stockholder owned corporation and not an authority that wallowed in the public trough.   As such they should not have fixed a
car they planned to retire because it would take money out of the pockets of the stockholders.  That money rightfully belongs to the owners of the company and had PRC wasted it on overhauls, the management could have faced an overthrow by the stockholders.  It was retired because they had no intention of repairing it and because they no longer needed it.
2.  I fail to see the logic in your statement about the B-2bs until you got to the last statement.  Did you ask Bruce Wells or anyone in charge in the 1960s and 1970s for the history of those trucks or are you simply speculating?  Could they have come off the GE 1700s that were retired in 1967?    Did some 1700s get B-2 trucks from scrapped 1600s or 1500s?  (Both the 1500s and 1600s had blown motors.)   I think you need to ask and find answers to a lot more questions before reaching any conclusions.  For what it is worth, I did observe many cars with B-2B trucks in the early 1980s.  I pin point the dates because I had finished the PCC books at that time and understood what such a truck was.  I doubted the earlier comments on this site but I had no proof that they changed or didn't change anything so I stayed in the background.  But I find it preposterous that several rusting trucks at a museum can be evidence of a policy affecting up to 75 cars, some of which were scrapped as
early as 1967 and some of which surrendered parts to build a smaller number of 4000s.   Are the trucks you saw even broad gauge?

Boris Cefer wrote:

>
>
> PRCo 1138 looks nice too, but when I climbed into pit to inspect all its underfloor equipment, I was frightened. I would absolutely not expect such an extensive corrosion aften about 20 years of service only. Also the electric apparatus was not in very good condition. At this point I think that neiter PAT and PRCo maintenance wasn't superior. But some portion of car's wiring was obviously done after its retirement by PRCo. From an European's view I must say that we use to put all wiring more precisely. And also large portions of metal under the floor lacked any paint, there was simply a clean rust. Sorry for the criticism, but each coin has two sides. On the other hand, PRCo 1711 seemed better and what is positive, the car runs. Unfortunately, the circumstances didn't allow me to inspect the 1711 from the pit and I will have to ask some questions to PTM volunteers later, but we found that Elmira crews mounted the left sander in a wrong place, which results in that in sharp c!
> urves the left front wheels sometimes hits the sander valve, even with a sudden movement of the seat above it. Also the rubber support spring of the #2 traction motor (original SLCCo truck) is broken.
>
> I remember some speculations on this list that PRCo rebuilt B-2b trucks on city 17 series cars to B-2 tybe. This statement can't be correct, because I found several B-2b trucks with rubber bolster blocks on PTM property. And if PRCo rebuilt cars, then not all.
>
>