[PRCo] Re: Interurban PCCs ???

[Boris Cefer]

My opinion is that the figure of 42 mph is related to the early PCCs which
were lighter than the postwar all-electrics. Fred gave us an overview of
balancing speeds on various different track grades, which supposedly came
from a prewar PCC specification book.
Heavier postwar PCCs would have slightly lower balancing speed on dead level
track than their light predecessors built in 30s, but the difference is not
big.

B

----- Original Message -----
From: "James B. Holland" <PRCoPCC at P-R-Co.com>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 12:46 AM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Interurban PCCs ???


> 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.
> >>>>>>>
>
>