[PRCo] Re: Fineview___PCCs

[Boris Cefer]

Wasn't the problem of all-electrics in lack of drum brake adjustment? Maybe
no. The soft adjustment of standard all-electric drum brake would provide
very long stopping distance on steeper downgrade and the shoes would suffer
heavy wear.

Maintenance specification we use here for drum brake says that each car must
be tested by removing of drum brake fuse and pressing power pedal to reach
starting current of 290 Amps - drum brakes must hold the car (on dead level
track). 290 Amps cause approximately the same traction effort as 9.5 %
downgrade. Sometimes we experience drums which are sufficient to hold the
car at 350 Amps, which would be about 11.5 % downgrade, but this is with new
brake shoes and freshly adjusted brake. I think there is no considerable
difference between WAB brake and our CKD product, as for the braking
capability.

But if you find any drawing and cpecification for WAB drum brake and
actuator at Arden (that would need some work - consign it to limbo), I can
easily made a calculation and answer the question of maximum grade which
allows drum brake operation.
Or you can ask Tony, I think he has some experience with 1700s. I am curious
what he knows about drum brakes.

B

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Schneider" <fschnei at supernet.com>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 11:32 PM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Fineview___PCCs


> The 1600s did not have spring applied drums ... they had air brakes.  It
was my
> understanding (correct or incorrect) that the cars used on Fineview were
set up
> for higher brake pressure.  Extended dynamic braking would not have been
> significant because the cars would stop automatically ... they faced
forward
> uphill.  The problem was holding the cars on a hill.  I can assure you
that
> all-electrics would not hold on Henderson Street without also using track
brake
> shoes.
>
> Boris Cefer wrote:
>
> > I know about 1689, 1690, 1695 and 1697. What else?
> >
> > 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
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Swindler" <j_swindler at hotmail.com>
> > To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 10:37 PM
> > Subject: [PRCo] Re: Fineview___PCCs
> >
> > >
> > > Correct Jim.  Not gospal - 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>
> > > >Reply-To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> > > >To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> > > >Subject: [PRCo] Fineview___PCCs
> > > >Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 13:06:06 -0800
> > > >
> > > >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
> > > >
> > > ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> > > >