[PRCo] Re: Arden Progress

[Fred Schneider]

I have no idea how they ventilated it.  We both know it needed a good blast of
air, preferably in one side and out the other.  Your scheme would not have
allowed it on the same shaft because it had to run backwards if upside down.
Who the hell do I ask today?  The people who did that job are dead now.

Boris Cefer wrote:

> Yes, it did. But I am waiting for Fred's question what was under the glass.
> It has something to do with teasing. Because I think it wasn't true
> accelerator!
>
> Boris
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Harold Geissenheimer" <transitmgr2 at earthlink.net>
> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:51 PM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Arden Progress
>
> > 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?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >