[PRCo] Re: Interurban PCCs ???

[Boris Cefer]

At least we know they exist.

B

----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward H. Lybarger" <trams at adelphia.net>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 2:08 AM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Interurban PCCs ???


> Not for me easy to understand.
>
> It's been years since I looked at the COs in any detail.  They got damp in
> the flood and all I did on their return was make sure they were dry!
> They're still upstairs in a carton somewhere.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
> [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org]On Behalf Of Boris
> Cefer
> Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 3:59 PM
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Interurban PCCs ???
>
>
> You don't say that, Ed :-) Neither I am an electrical engineer, but the
> basic principles are easy to understand when you have spent some time in
> books and beneath the cars.
>
> Have you any clue how far are the COs detailed?
>
> B
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Edward H. Lybarger" <trams at adelphia.net>
> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
> Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 9:52 PM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Interurban PCCs ???
>
>
> > I'll have to take a look at that CO when I can dig it out.  Will be away
> all
> > next week, though.
> >
> > I'm the wrong guy to ask about technicalities!  I'm the business person,
> not
> > the engineer!
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
> > [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org]On Behalf Of Boris
> > Cefer
> > Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 2:32 PM
> > To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> > Subject: [PRCo] Re: Interurban PCCs ???
> >
> >
> > It would be interesting to know what electric equipment manufacturer was
> > intended for 1775-1799 as interurbans. GE??????
> >
> > If the 1600s were not intended for interurban purposes, why were they
(and
> > Westinghouse 1700s) equipped for higher speeds?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Edward H. Lybarger" <trams at adelphia.net>
> > To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 6:55 PM
> > Subject: [PRCo] Re: Interurban PCCs ???
> >
> >
> > > No.  There had been experimental trucks on the property for several
> years,
> > > but no cars were actually ordered for interurban service until the
> 1700s.
> > > 1775-1799 were originally to have been the interurbans; this was
changed
> > at
> > > some point to the lower numbers.  The 1600s, except for 1613-14, were
> > > retrofitted about the time the 1700s came.  We have that construction
> > order
> > > somewhere, along with those for the car orders.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
> > > [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org]On Behalf Of
Boris
> > > Cefer
> > > Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 11:03 AM
> > > To: PRCo
> > > Subject: [PRCo] Interurban PCCs ???
> > >
> > >
> > > Several wiring diagrams say that PCCs 1601 to 1617 (and possibly also
> the
> > > Queen Mary) were capable of higher balancing speed than all previous
> > series.
> > > Cars 1618 to 1674 arrived with standard field shunting and were
rewired
> > > later, in 1947.
> > > Does exist any evidence that PRCo ordered the first 17 1600 series
cars
> > for
> > > interurban service?
> > > B
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>