[PRCo] Re: Interurban PCCs ???

[Boris Cefer]

That's a good idea! Ed, can you hear us? Put on your overalls :-)

At this point we don't know what field shunting equipment the GE 16s and 17s
had (unfortunately there is no GE car to look at :-( ), but there is at
least evidence that GE 16 had overspeed protection. Now I see in the GE
parts catalog that also GE 17s had overspeed relays! This "may" suggest that
also GE cars were capable of higher speed.

Several PCC series had also slip relays (both W and GE 14s, 15s and 16s),
but it appears that they were removed or at least deactivated.

B

----- Original Message -----
From: "James B. Holland" <PRCoPCC at P-R-Co.com>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 9:05 AM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Interurban PCCs ???


> Another clarification.       As we are talking about only the 1700--1774
> WH cars, the same holds for the 1600 and 1601--1674 cars  --  we do not
> know about GE in either series  --  correct?
>
> Yes, PRCo trackage was rough relative to other properties, but it was in
> the early 1960s when I experienced the governor cut-out of power on both
> the 17s and 16s  --  you could still get those cars rolling very nicely!
>
> Maybe Ed could check those jumpers on 1711 as Hands-On Training for his
> Electrical Engineering Degree!!!
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> Boris Cefer wrote:
>
> > But the earlier books appear more detailed.
> > There are possibly some data in GE wiring diagrams, but I haven't seen
> > any except for the early air cars (1000-1200 series), but they don't
> > make me happy because the early GE design was terribly complicated. GE
> > parts catalogs do not contain any useful data, these are endless lists
> > of parts with some pictures only.
> >
> > And an another question is still the Westinghouse 1700s. Their
> > equipment allowed to change the balancing speed by means of higher
> > field shunting.   Only four small jumpers joined to the field shunting
> > resistors increased the balancing speed several mph, but we don't have
> > any evidence whether PRCo or later PAAC did not dismantle them to
> > avoid eventual accidents due extremely high speed over irregular
> > track. Memory is sometimes very delusive and some few can tell us what
> > the top speed was 50 years back. Our friends at PTM would have to
> > check whether the jumpers on 1711 are in place...
> >
> > B
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "James B. Holland" <PRCoPCC at P-R-Co.com>
> > To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 10:17 PM
> > Subject: [PRCo] Re: Interurban PCCs ???
> >
> >
> >> Time to speculate why GE was so Resistant to include specific
> >> information!! :-)
> >>
> >> Various PCCs had been *tested* for interurban service according to
> >> that 1952 ERA type dissertation on the PRCo Interurbans as well as
> >> the Ira Swett article on Charleroi -- but they weren't specific about
> >> the tests and whether or not the PCCs were run beyond Library -- we
> >> know that they were used as trippers this far and even the PTM
> >> calendar shows an 1100 used for Fair Grounds tripper about 1949 or
1950.
> >>
> >> With 1613 and 1614 converted for interurban Test service within
> >> 6-months of delivery (at least for 1613) PRCo was *probably*
> >> considering PCCs for interurban service even as the 1601s were
> >> ordered. Guess we shall never know For Sure without something turning
> >> up in the archives.
> >>
> >>
> >> Jim__Holland
> >
>
> I__Like__Ike.......And__PCCs!!
>
> down with pantographs ---- UP___WITH___TROLLEYPOLES!!!!!!!
>
>
>