[PRCo] Re: PCC Rehabilitation
Bob Rathke
bobrathke at comcast.net
Wed May 26 22:58:06 EDT 2004
In 1966, a friend from Chicago visited Pittsburgh during the last summer of
trolleys on the East End Lines, and he commented on the PCC wheel rims he
saw, saying, "they appear to be the thickness of coffee can tin."
Bob 5/26/04
-----------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "James B. Holland" <PRCoPCC at P-R-Co.com>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 4:13 PM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: PCC Rehabilitation
> HI!
>
>
> A sampling of PRCo photos -- biased toward better looking
> equipment of which there is Not A Short Supply! You will find others
> in not so good shape, but seems like there are Quite A Few in Good Shape.
>
>
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt108.htm -- 1615 with rust centered
> above anticlimber but otherwise does not look bad. After ({[pat]})
> takeover
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt109.htm -- 1644 shows a thin line
> of rust on the dash below belt rail, some marks on front roof but
> otherwise not bad.
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt127.htm -- 1706 with what looks
> like scrape marks on cars left, but definitely not bad -- After
> ({[pat]}) takeover.
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt128.htm -- 1705 looks quite
> handsome in PRCo days.
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt130.htm -- 1706 again looks very
> reasonable. After ({[pat]}) takeover
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt146.htm -- 1729 latter 1960s looks
> very reasonable. After ({[pat]}) takeover
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt041.htm -- 1663 looks dingy
> --- car behind looks quite good.
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt046.htm -- cars in South Hills
> yards look very good, even 1200s!
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt653.htm -- 1642 looks very good.
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp146.htm -- one handsome little
> puppy in 1962!!!
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp148.htm -- other side of 1646 above
> at same time!!!
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp149.htm -- and 1646 again -- Does
> Look Nice!!!!!!!
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp151.htm -- 1663 right at
> ({[pat]}) takeover -- looks quite nice in New Paint Scheme!!!!!!!
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp153.htm -- 1671 looks nice in
> 1959!!!!!!!
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp155.htm -- 1694 may be mothballed
> but looks quite nice in New Paint Scheme!!!!!!!
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp160.htm -- 1721 looks nice in
> 1959!!!!!!!
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp162.htm -- 1731 looks reasonable.
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp166.htm -- 1790 has a few scrapes,
> looks a little pink, but otherwise ok.
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp167.htm -- 1791 in New Paint
> Scheme!!!!!!!
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp171.htm -- 1001 in 1958 doesn't
> look too bad for a car that will soon be out of service -- In Fact,
> She Looks Quite Decent.
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/wvp174.htm -- Right Handsome!!!!!!!
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/wvp186.htm -- 1630 faded.
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/wvp192.htm -- 1630 again.
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/wvp193.htm -- 1630 After Royalll
> Royce Overhaul!!!!!!!
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/wvp197.htm -- 1630, another after
> overhaul.
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/wvp205.htm -- Handsome 1643!!
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/wvp392.htm -- 1509 1752 in 1964 could
> look better.
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jtp62.htm -- 1449 looks handsome.
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jtp72.htm -- 1792 in ({[pat]}) days.
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jtp15.htm -- not bad this late in the
> game.
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jtp06.htm -- looking rather shappy in
1970
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> James B. Holland wrote:
>
> >HI!
> >
> >
> > A lot of what you mention is Far More Subjective than it is
> >Objective And Very Vaguely Subjective. You agree that safety,
> >electrical, mechanical, track and overhead were not sacrificed --
> >certainly Not Perfect, but still very reasonable. That leaves Only
> >Cosmetic Work. I Also was on the 42, 38, Library, Shannon Very
> >Very Frequently myself -- made excuses to go downtown so I could ride
> >-- and admit cars could be cleaner but still No Gaping Holes ala
> >({[pat]}). Dings and dents and faded paint but also Not A Few
> >cars with fresh paint -- witness the Half--N'--Half paint scheme of
> >the very late 1950s, early 1960s that made it on Not A Few Cars.
> >
> > Never Ever hinted that PRCo was up (down??) there with
> >Rolls Royce and your inference of such indicates that you didn't
> >completely read my post or are ignoring what I wrote ---- I
> >detailed the second and recent bankruptcy, the undies who were bleeding
> >off money, the vote to make a public transit authority in 1954, etc. and
> >asked If EVEN Us TrolleyCar Fans would pour money into such a
> >company, knowing it was doomed. But In Spite of all this, PRCo
> >still did the aforementioned paint scheme, renewed track Very Late In
> >Its History, and kept the cars in quite reasonable condition.
> >
> > You want to see junky Totally Neglected PCCs then look
> >to San Francisco in the late 1960s to 1982 when PCC service ended.
> >*The__People's__Railway* pg.204 and I quote::::::: """Not until
> >1980 was there even the beginning of an effort by Muni management to
> >institute a rational, comprehensive preventive maintenance
> >program.""" ALL that Muni ever did *In__Its__Entire__History*
> >was apply Band-Aids when equipment malfunctioned -- NOthing
> >More! But until late 1960s the equipment didn't look *too bad*
> >-- but probably Very Little Paint until the 1970s when a variety of
> >schemes were tried. It was Widely KNOWN and observed by operators
> >that equipment turned in for bad brakes would have the passenger bell
> >cords tested by shop crews, transfer stand was repositioned, and doors
> >were cycled then the Red Not In Service sign was rolled to a service
> >sign and the equipment was sent Right Back Out Without Ever Shifting the
> >car to another track.
> >
> > Personally Had this problem with 1113 where I had a Total
> >Dynamic Failure Multiples of times -- took it in and someone else took
> >it right out. Tracked the car for months and got signed statements
> >from other operators that the car constantly lost brakes, Had
> >testimonies From Passengers seeing operators Literally Stand Up While
> >Applying brakes on 1113 and Still Muni Sent It Out!!!!!!!
> >CRIMINAL____NEGLECT ---- absolutely No Other Explanation.
> >Once taken out of service it sat for many months before anything was
> >done to it.
> >
> > The first Monday of the First Full Week after New Year in
> >about 1979--1982, I had an early morning pull out on the J-Church --
> >supposed to be 15-cars on the line -- Only 9-cars signed out. Car
> >broken down at 30th when I arrived. Had a jam packed car, passed up
> >many intending passengers and at 24th Inbound, the car completely died
> >without warning and would not restart. That one out of service in
> >addition to my follower who had to push me leaving 6-cars on the line
> >for the AM Rush. This Was THE RULE on Muni in the latter 1970s
> >to the end of PCCs ---- went thru this on a daily basis.
> >
> > And Filthy Inside ---- That Definitely Continues To
> >This Day on Muni on most all equipment -- suspect the PCCs and
> >hysterical cars might be in better shape however.
> >
> > Relative to SF-Muni, PRCo Was Definitely A Rolls Royce
> >---- Thank You for bringing it up!!!!!!!
> >
> >
> >JIM
> >
> >
> >
> >Harold Geissenheimer wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Greetings
> >>I competed with Pgh Railways from 1950 to 1964.
> >>
> >>Our buses ran on the same streets as the cars.
> >>
> >>With few exceptions, from an accident, etc, the PCC.'s were
> >>not maintained very well.
> >>
> >>I viewed photos at the time of the takeover which confirmed
> >>this and later what PAT found when they started rehab.
> >>
> >>True John Dameron wanted the end of the PCC's
> >>But it was before Dameron that PRC stopped some maintenace.
> >>
> >>Agreed that safety and electrical was never a question. And there was
> >>track work.
> >>
> >>Lets face it...after Tom Fitzgerald, PRC cars were not properly
maintained..
> >>
> >>I used the 38 and 42 on a regular basis and the cars were not clean or
> >>attractive.
> >>
> >>All of our best wishes cant make PRC into a Rolls Royce.
> >>
> >>Most bus lines had good maintance. Community, Bigi, Oriole, Shafer,
> >>Ohio River, Harmony, Penn Transit, Noble Dick, were excellent.
> >>The poor looking ran mill buses in the Mon Valley.
> >>
> >>Harold Geissenheimer
> >>
> >>James B. Holland wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Harold Geissenheimer wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Boris
> >>>>There were several stages of the PCC decline.
> >>>>
> >>>>First Pgh Rys painted few cars and made cheap repairs
> >>>>if any.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Difficult to be specific since email is the Fast-Food of
> >>>communications, and while some aspects of the above are true, I would
> >>>still submit that the basic fleet received pretty decent care.
Think
> >>>we can chronicle that cars nearing the end of life expectancy received
> >>>little to no cosmetic attention but to keep them operating up and down
> >>>the hills, they needed electro-mechanical attention.
> >>>
> >>> The bulk of the PCCs were purchased during receivership
> >>>-- known that the Trustees during this period paid good attention to
> >>>infrastructure and did not a little track renewal. Overhead Not in
> >>>the Los Angeles Perfect category, but Definitely Much Better than most
> >>>systems I have seen.
> >>>
> >>> Not long after receivership / bankruptcy ended in the early
> >>>1950s, talk of a public agency became common. On 1954.12.05 (A
> >>>Cold Day in Pgh, if Not That Other Place!)::::::: ""The county
> >>>commissioners made public proposed legislation, drafted by a
> >>>seven-member citizens' committee, for creation of a county-wide public
> >>>transportation authority to acquire and consolidate bus and trolley
> >>>lines. The legislation required approval of voters in a referendum
> >>>scheduled for primary election of 1956."""---[Pgh.,pg.502 - Stefan
> >>>Lorant.] So the wheels of @#$%&*^ were in progress and it took
> >>>another 10-years before such became reality.
> >>>
> >>> But even as of 1960, equipment was still in decent looking
> >>>condition, overhead was good, track on prw was rough but even some
> >>>street trackage was replaced in the very early 1960s by PRCo. It
was
> >>>still possible to open the cars up on prw and let them roll!
> >>>
> >>> The 1200s were nearing end of life as ({[pat]}) took over
> >>>and may have looked shabby but Do Not Remember Holes to put my hands
> >>>thru on any of the bodies. None of these cars were acquired by
> >>>({[pat]}) OR were retired shortly thereafter if they were. So How
> >>>Much Money would Any One Of Us have spent on a system about to be
> >>>condemned if we sat in the President's seat???????
> >>>
> >>> THE Real DownHill Slide came after ({[pat]}) took
> >>>over because, in spite of *Stated__Intentions* to keep trolleycars
> >>>rolling, the authority was Hades--Bent on getting rid of trolleycars
> >>>and modernizing the city Known For Operating the largest rolling
Trolley
> >>>Car Museum in the country -- Didn't Not Dameron say this himself --
> >>>We Have Had this discussion right here before!!!!!!!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Second after 1964 under PAAC some cars painted grey
> >>>>with very little else. PAAC was going to abandon every thing.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> So the Leaders of PAAC were *Liars* ----
> >>>*Please__Note* that it is the Individual (Authority in this case)
> >>>himself that calls himself a Liar when actions do not coincide with
> >>>statements ---- others just observe the label the individual /
> >>>authority gives himself.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Third. Start of the Early Action program. First 1700's, then 1600's
> >>>>New mod paint styles after 1970. Bi Centenial car 1776 was first
> >>>>1600..
> >>>>
> >>>>Fourth. Continuation by PAT after Ken and I left.
> >>>>Included the stupid steamboat car
> >>>>
> >>>>Five. 4000's, some new, some rebuilt.
> >>>>
> >>>>All of the work done under the Early Actionprogram was first
> >>>>class. Included two 1600's with LRV fronts.. Much credit to Ken
Hssong
> >>>>and Phil Castelano.
> >>>>
> >>>>Harold Geissenheimer
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
More information about the Pittsburgh-railways
mailing list