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

[Dietrich, Robert J.]

Golly Boris I'm sure glad you got around to an explanation.  I was
beginning to believe that box contained a large gyroscope to keep the
car from rounding curves so the students could learn to re-rail the car.
Then my imagination started to get carried away iad I believed it was
also filled with water and the fish had to stay away from the gyroscope.
Actually not a difficult task, the hard part for the fish was getting
out of the corners while that thing was spinning.

Have a good day all...

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
[mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org] On Behalf Of
Boris Cefer
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 12:50 AM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Arden Progress, changed to M11 accelerator

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