[PRCo] Re: PRC 4398

[James B. Holland]

Fred Schneider wrote:

>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
>

Very First Time this has been mentioned on list Fred  --  NEVER  been 
any talk about PRCo rebuilding the low-floors before.

JBH

>
>"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.
>>>>        
>>>>
>
>
>
>  
>