[PRCo] Re: Interurban PCCs ???

[James B. Holland]

I was quite young when I first heard that the PCC Interurbans were  
*Geared__For__Higher__Speed.*        That could have been slang for the 
higher shunting.       But I never knew the source of that info and 
after the PCC books came out I dropped that Idea and assumed that  
*All*  PCCs had the same balancing speed.

It is nice to know that there was something else special about these PCC 
Interurban cars besides the pilot, roof light, retrievers and the few 
other amenities  --  increased speed especially is associated with 
so-called  *Interurban__Cars.*       We tend to think of something 
grandiose, like North Shore and Pacific Electric, when we think of 
Interurban Cars but in reality, it was whatever the operating company 
set aside for Interurban service, or at least regularly used for such 
service.       Even many pre-PCC city-type Interurbans were little more 
than city trolleycars with special appointments for interurban service.

It Is Amazing to think that when the Interurbans reverted from Limited 
Service to Local along Overbrook that the same schedules were used in 
spite of the increase in stops.       Ridership may have fallen by this 
time, but Overbrook would be building up after the war so that portion 
of the line may have even seen increases in ridership.       ({[Wonder 
If  The  Archivist  would have such figgers?!]})       But those peppy 
little PCCs were still able to maintain the service.


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!!!!!!!