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

[Boris Cefer]

The water would be used to damp down the burning accelerator micarta drum
when MG failed to provide fresh air.

B

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dietrich, Robert J." <Robert.Dietrich at unisys.com>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 2:55 PM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Arden Progress, changed to M11 accelerator


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