[PRCo] Re: Interurban PCCs ???

[John Swindler]

Your right, Jim.  It would be 'slang'.

What also sets the PCC cars apart is their acceleration/braking rate 
compared with older equipment.  See the annual talks of Dr. Conway and Prof. 
Hirshfeld to the AERA in the early 1930s.

John


>From: "James B. Holland" <PRCoPCC at P-R-Co.com>
>Reply-To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>Subject: [PRCo] Re: Interurban PCCs ???
>Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 00:29:07 -0800
>
>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!!!!!!!
>
>