[PRCo] Re: I was in USA!

[James B. Holland]

Fred Schneider wrote:

>Your opinion is wrong.  They [Adtranz] did what they were told to do, under supervision from PTM.  I did not use the world asbestos ... you did.  But that was the issue.  Asbestos presents legal issues and its presence causes the workers to follow legal and very expensive requirements for its removal,, regardless of your opinion.   We are dealing with United States and New York State and Pennsylvania health and safety laws.
>To make profits as high as possible is correct as far as you have taken it ... more correct would be to say to make any profit at all.  The money simply wasn't there to make cars look nice.  The city made every effort possible to control Pittsburgh Railways' income and in the 1960s to make them loose money so that the county could condemn the private company at a lower cost.   I think you fail to understand Economics 101 as it applies to business in a free world economy.
>

Amazing how those within the USA who love to Bash The USA  AND  Exalt 
European practices are the Quickest to Defend the USA    ----    AND  
put down the Europeans.       Must be a lesson there    ----    
somewhere :-D !!!!!!!

Boris addresses the asbestos issue thus:       """Asbestos is not too 
dangerous as you want to suggest to us. With some safety provisions, you 
can handle it very safely, especially when you don't produce large 
clouds of asbestos powder."""       This has great impact for me but 
maybe because I learned something else from Boris.

Boris wrote about a problem with a Skoda TrolleyCoach in Ostrava  --  I 
mentioned that maybe I should alert Muni officials  --  we have 300++ 
new Skodas!       Boris got a good chuckle out of it because the problem 
in Ostrava was quite isolated but we Americans tend to exaggerate the 
problems to an extreme.       Europeans obviously deal with asbestos 
safely  --  our  LEGAL  issues have only clouded the situation and we 
can't act without attorneys guiding us every step!       Seems we can 
learn something from Boris that tisn't in Econ_101  --  and donut know 
many people who Really Understand Econ no matter how much they say they do.

Boris has been quite enlightening about PRCo equipment from a technical 
standpoint.       He definitely cleared up the hill holding capabilities 
of drums on 1700s on Fineview when the technical information for drums 
was provided  --  it's in the archives here  --  drums on 17s can hold 
cars on hills in excess of those on the 21--Fineview.       Debunks that 
1700-interurban on Fineview with track brakes raised on one end, doesn't 
it  --  Drums  AND  Track Brakes Applied  --  total fabrication  --  
never happened that way.       Never believed it in the first 
place.       Was pushing a PCC here in SF where the motorman of the 
pushee accidentally released the deadman which set up the track brakes 
on the pushed car.       Remember that the drums are wound off so can't 
apply no matter what.       Got stuck on a hill because of the track 
brakes and track brakes  ONLY  were holding  TWO CARS  on said hill and  
NO  amount of pushing was able to move the car once stopped  NOR  cause 
the track brakes to lift on one end.       Once it was discovered that 
the deadman was activated, the problem was solved and we were off.

Have learned much from Boris about PRCo  (Partial thanks to his Previous 
Life There  --  am understand why he left for Greener Pastures!)  and 
have learned some about personal relationships and life in 
general.       It is said that Living is Growing and Learning and if we 
aren't Learning and Growing then we ain't living  --  just dead.


Jim__Holland


>Boris Cefer wrote:
>  
>
>>Fred Schneider wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>>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.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>I don't know exactly the shape of 1711 before the repair at ADtranz, but my opinion is that they didn't do some jobs that they surely should do.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>>Because of health and safety issues, I believe they were told to stay away from the equipment cases.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>Asbestos is not too dangerous as you want to suggest to us. With some safety provisions, you can handle it very safely, especially when you don't produce large clouds of asbestos powder.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>>It is also unfair to complain about PRC maintenance because the car was not removed from active service and sold to PRC.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>I could be wrong.  Sold to PRC???
>>But at least the standard of body repair jobs showed that PRCo didn't care much about appearance. Many cars were rusted or the paint was worn and when a new paint was applied, it was put directly on a rough body. This makes me think that only the basic function of equipment was necessary to make profit as high as possible.
>>
>>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?
>>
>>What logic in my statement? I simply said what I had seen. My opinion is that continuing this truck discussion is only wasting time, if we have no tangible sources of information. I have no idea what late PRCo or PAAC did with trucks, but some of them obviously could not originate from Pittsburgh property. The only intent of my note was to tell the people that B-2b trucks with rubber bolster springs still exist and PRCo or PAAC thus could not rebuild them into B-2s.
>>I don't understand your question concerning B-2b trucks on PTM property, Fred. At least some of them are under SHRT PCC, and if the car was running over PTM track during the big move, they had to be broad gauge trucks.
>>
>>Boris
>>    
>>