[PRCo] Re: Fineview___PCCs

[John F Bromley]

I have many photos of 1700s on the 40 from 1959 through end of service -
every time I visited but one there was at least one 1700 on the 40.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Holland" <PghPCC at pacbell.net>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 5:11 PM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Fineview___PCCs


> Good Morning!
>
>
> > Boris Cefer wrote:
>
> > I know about 1689, 1690, 1695 and 1697.     What else?
>
> In later years, much in the way of protocol was
> relaxed.     17s and 12s apparently disallowed on 40-line
> but Palmer himself approved such usage on NMRA charter  --
> in the archives somewhere.     Got the maintenance and
> operations people in a tizzy!     Just as a guesstimate,
> from 1960 forward operations which had been taboo were
> not observed  --  doubt taboo actually changed, it just
> wasn't enforced.     And most every rule has its exceptions.
> But as we go vurther back in time more definite trends
> can be discerned  --  but again, exceptions will exist.
>
>
> 12s like 17s in that brake shoe was spring applied
> and air released.     Also difficulty releasing brakes
> for towing and might have been safety issue on grades
> on 40-line.
>
>
>
>
> > But my opinion is that it had nothing to do with dynamics.
> > The problem was in drums which were not sufficient to
> > hold the car on a steep grade or make a rapid stop.
>
> > Boris
>
> Agreed.     Drums would be the weak point.
>
> Assuming the bulk of what you see in European
> theater is  All--Electric    ----    seems air-applied
> drums are more responsive than spring-applied.
>
> Only 16s and 17s delivered with drums  --  others
> retrofitted.     The 1600s also had extended range dynamics
> like 1700s  --  fade at 0.75-mph  --  ALL  16s had this.
>
>
> Nevertheless, good grades all over PRCo and PCCs
> managed nicely.
>
>
>
>
> >> From: "John Swindler" <j_swindler at hotmail.com>
>
> >> Correct Jim.  Not gospel - just something once heard -
> >> or read.     And the recollection is that it wasn't the
> >> entire 1680s.     Had to do something with extended
> >> braking - which sounds like something for Fred the
> >> third to clear up.
>
> >> Wish I'd paid more attention back then.
>
> >> John
>
>
>
>
> >>> From: Jim Holland <PghPCC at pacbell.net>
>
> >>> Good Morning!
>
>
> >>>> Fred Schneider wrote:
>
> >>>> Was 1699 one of those cars altered to run on 21 FINEVIEW?
>
> >>> Fred  --  wouldn't your car-cards give us this info?
>
>
> >>> I was told it was the 1680s modified for Fineview.
>
> >>> This is  *White--Flagged*  information which means
> >>> it is the best information so far but unconfirmed.
>
> >>> John Swindler told me this in the 1960s.     John
> >>> never said this was Gospel  --  it was just what he had
> >>> heard and thus shared with me.
>
>
>
>
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>
> Jim
>
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>