[PRCo] Re: Arden Progress

[Fred Schneider]

I only saw the car once, Harold.  I was 22 at the time and not yet into asking why.
I was still at the picture taking stage.  I know the accelerator was inverted and
mounted in a case inside the car.   That could have been a useful tool to show
students how spinning wheels could rapidly advance the accelerator so that it was not
in an appropriate position for braking.  There was a small extension on the
accelerator case but that was there simply to house the pilot motor which also had to
be moved upstairs.

Following up on Borris, I don't remember but I also don't believe that the master
controller had also been moved into the car because that would have been a somewhat
complicated job.  The control push rods from the pedals would have had to have been
altered through a series of bell cranks to bring them into the car.  I'm not sure
that it would have had any value that could not have been achieved simply by marching
the class of students under a car that had the equipment covers removed.   PRC people
were not mental retards by any stretch of the imagination and they labored under very
tight budget constraints, therefore I have great doubts that they would have made
such changes without strong justification.

Have I suitably confused everygody?

fws



Harold Geissenheimer wrote:

> Greetings
> Didnt thePRC PCC instruction car have a glass over the controller?
>
> Harold
>
> Fred Schneider wrote:
>
> >You didn't hear me argue with you.  I'm smiling.
> >
> >The engineer in me says grrrrreat.  The museum manager in me says no, because
> >the public would not understand.  They can recognize complexity, but not
> >differences between a B2 and a B3.
> >
> >Really, the purpose of a museum is to educate and demonstrate, and if it works,
> >good.  The only trolley museum I know of that cut open a car to show how it was
> >made was not run by railfans ... it is the city owned operation in Scranton
> >which took a Birney and carved it up to show the public the different parts.
> >Someone there must have looked across the street at the steam engine that was
> >carved up by the National Park Service to show the same thing.  And guess what?
> >The public looks at it and relates to it.  While I'm not supporting taking a
> >torch to something really significant like the Derby, Connecticut freight
> >locomotive at Branford, I'm certainly not going to take offense at butchering
> >one of the many New Orleans 800s or Boston Type 5s or PCCs to show how they were
> >put together.  How about a PCC laying on its side to show its belly?  Or with a
> >glass floor?  (Would scratch, wouldn't it?)
> >
> >I liked the response.  It gives me entertainment.
> >
> >Boris Cefer wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>And what about to make 1613 (its repair isn't sheduled yet) with one half in
> >>PRCo paint and second half in ugly PAT gray. And front truck B-3 and rear
> >>B-2. Did I say I'm an engineer? Cheeze whiz!
> >>
> >>B
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "Fred Schneider" <fschnei at supernet.com>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>3.  And what about Pittsburgh Railways 4398?  Justin told me has to
> >>>start on it on May 13th.   That will be the car that cannot ever be
> >>>restored to one time frame without a great deal of effort and our own
> >>>gold mine.  Pittsburgh changed them so much over time that there may not
> >>>have been a handful of identical cars by the time they were scrapped.
> >>>Some had level floors, some drop center.  Some had center doors that
> >>>worked; some had blocked center doors with seats added.  Some had  25 hp
> >>>motors, some 37 hp.  Some went to the scrap yard with Jones control,
> >>>some had the Westinghouse copy of GE type M, and others had K-35
> >>>control.  I would not surprise me if at least one got a K43 out of a
> >>>4100 at some point.  Bells were on the roof, some were under the floor.
> >>>Some were scrapped as two man cars, some as one man cars.  Brake ratios
> >>>were changed on some cars.    What a wonderful chance to make a Jones
> >>>car on one side and a one-man K car on the other!
> >>>
> >>>That out to stir up a little hate mail?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >