[PRCo] Re: PRC 4398

[Fred Schneider]

Common, Jim.  Get real.  If it wasn't a problem, why did the Railways
Company spend money to cut out the twisted steel panels, jack the cars up
again, and install new steel?   They must have done that because they simply
wanted to spend money they didn't have.    And we have pictures of that
being done.  Sarcasm acknowledged.  fws

"James B. Holland" wrote:

> Fred Schneider wrote:
>
> > Don't know if you ever saw the Osgood-Bradley builders photo of 5200.
> > If you have one, observe that the front platform was already sagging
> > before it was loaded onto a flatcar for shipment to Pittsburgh ... in
> > that case the design change for the double front door left a platform
> > too long to be properly supported and the side panel under the first
> > window on the right side already had a crease in it. Of course the
> > 5200 had all the extra weight of the coupler on the front.
>
> Yes, this has been mentioned here before and pictures of same  *may*  be
> at the dementia website.       .......BUT.......  where is the official
> documentation from PRCo files that says that the low-floors suffered
> from hanging platforms?       Doesn't seem to have been a problem for
> PRCo.       Interesting observation from the photo which may be an
> abberation of the photography.       The low-floors served for 30++ some
> years and seemed to perform their job as well as any other
> trolleycar.       Even photos of 3756 at certain angles give the
> *appearance*  of a sag of the front platform.
>
> The length of the front platform is not unlike the length of same on
> many other trolleycars that have double front doors  --  even many
> descriptions of the PCC divide the car into  *Body*  and
> *End--Platforms*  and the PCC has double doors and the truck king pin is
> about as far back from the ends of the car as it is on the
> low-floors.       Believe the length of the platform remained the same
> as for the single door car.
>
> Have seen photos and even other trolleycar equipment where the platform
> *appeared*  to be sagging.         Have seen homes // businesses //
> buildings with Bay Windows that have tremendous sags!       And Most Of
> Us Sag considerably with age as well.
>
> > I may be assuming a little too much. A lot of the structural problems
> > with those cars may also be related to atmospheric pollution in
> > Pittsburgh. There was a lot of sulfur dioxide in the air which coverts
> > very nicely to sulfuric acid when it rains.
>
> Of course  --  anything can have an affect.       Aging is something
> that happens to everything  --  Animal, Veetable, Even Mineral  --
> witness the window sag above.       Why does this surprize us?
>
> As to the under cariage of 3756 it is not dissimilar to that of 1138 as
> noted by our Distinguished PCC Expert when he visited  --  aging and the
> way it is dealt with in the good ol U.S.A.  --  bondo, patches,
> bandaids, but by all means Never Preventive Maintenance nor true repair
> --  just ain't American!       Not trying to disparage  --  just another
> way of saying that America is a Maintenance Free Society.       As
> Dennis noted, 3756 is 80-years old  --  aging is taking its toll.
>
> Jim__Holland
>
> > "Dennis F. Cramer" wrote:
> >
> >> Fred wrote: "It scares me what 3756 must look like under the skin."
> >>
> >> Do not accelerate too fast with 3756. You might just leave the body
> >> behind!     A few summers ago a battery blew up on the car as I was
> >> giving an operator a training run. Looking under the car, there is
> >> not much there to hold it together. Just hope 4398 gets finished
> >> before 3756 falls apart (or the pole comes crashing through the
> >> roof). It is a great car to operate and still has a lot of kick for
> >> closin g in on 80 years of age.
> >