[PRCo] Re: Arden Progress, changed to M11 accelerator

[Boris Cefer]

Time to come with my theory.

If you want to show anything to student motormen, would you put it in a box
to show as little as possible when it isn't necessary? It means there had to
be a high voltage on that inverted accelerator! I am sure. But there was
also the problem of cooling. That box could not allow cooling of resistor
ribbons since it was too small. Therefore try to follow this THEORY: M11 had
TWO "accelerators". The upper one (we could call it a mutinotch switch) was
inverted together with its pilot motor to show the movements of the rotating
arm with rollers pushing the fingers against bus bar. This was the most
important thing to show, the rest had no value for students. This upper
accelerator had not resistor ribbons. There was also an another accelerator
under the floor (a set of resistors) which had neither rollers, fingers, bus
bar and pilot motor; in fact, it was only a basic frame with insulating
barrel (drum) and ring which carried a complete set of resistor ribbons.
Each finger of the upper accelerator was connected with an appropriate
resistor ribbon on the lower drum by means of a wire. Thus, 97 connecting
wires.

Isn't it crazy? Surely, but it could work and it wasn't impossible. And if
it was done this way, then I understand why PAAC didn't want the car.

B

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Schneider" <fschnei at supernet.com>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 2:06 AM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Arden Progress


> 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?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>