[PRCo] Re: Interurban PCCs ???

[James B. Holland]

John Swindler wrote:

> Concerning M11, Jim, the power pedal might have been to the floor, but 
> at the balancing speed, that doesn't do any good - except to maintain 
> the car's speed at the balancing speed of the motors.


Thank You for mentioning this, John  --  don't know how I could have 
missed this fact! :-D

> It's not the car's that have a balancing speed. It's the motors.
>
> John


Let me restate this to make my point clear    ----    After reading the 
books I was under the impression that  ALL  PCCs  were wired the same, 
thus their motors would deliver a maximum of 42-mph balancing speed on 
level tangent track, no // minimum load.       Thus  ALL  PCC  Cars  
would operate at the same speed.


Jim



>> 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 01:14:38 -0800
>>
>> Well, Glory__Be!!!!!!!
>>
>> We thought slip/slide was something developed with the electronic 
>> revolution -- and here the PCCs had it 60-years ago.
>>
>> Whatever governors were on the lower series Air-Cars - 14s, 15s, 12s 
>> - didn't operate the same as on the 16s -- power never shut off on 
>> the lower cars and EveryThing was vibrating at speed! M11 took speed 
>> extremely well with little vibration, however -- rode a charter out 
>> on Library and the power pedal was flat on the floor unless it was 
>> absolutely necessary to brake. Very Interesting that the 17 on 
>> Library caught up to us at Castle Shannon Inbound -- motorman on the 
>> charter thought it would even though we were moving at break neck 
>> speed with M11.
>>
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>>
>> Boris Cefer wrote:
>>
>>> Slippage, skid.
>>> The slip relays provided protection of main motors against excessive 
>>> speed due wheel slippage or they prevented creation of flat spots on 
>>> wheels in braking.
>>> In acceleration the relays inserted some resistance in the power 
>>> circuit reducing the motor torque. In braking they inserted field 
>>> shunts with the same effect on the main motors - reduction of 
>>> braking torque.
>>>
>>> By the way, it looks that Westinghouse 14s and 15s had SG (speed 
>>> governor ?) relays. But I can't find them in schematic diagrams.
>>>
>>> B
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "James B. Holland" <PRCoPCC at P-R-Co.com>
>>> To: "- 1714 PRCo__WP__JTC -" <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 10:02 AM
>>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Interurban PCCs ???
>>>
>>>
>>>> What is a Slip Relay, Please?
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Boris Cefer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>