[PRCo] Re: comparison with Cleveland

Mon Mar 28 17:35:20 EST 2005

Add these to the list of Scruffy, Dirty, Ugly, Bad, Terrible, Decrepit, 
Hideous, Horrible, Heinous, PRCo equipment::::::: :-P

http://members.aol.com/bigdog244212/prc1494_032705.jpg

http://members.aol.com/bigdog244212/prc1684a_032705.jpg

http://members.aol.com/bigdog244212/prc1695_032705.jpg

http://members.aol.com/bigdog244212/prc1630_032705.jpg

James B. Holland wrote:

> John Swindler wrote:
>
>> Wasn't there a reorganization around 1950? What underliners
>> still existed within Pittsburgh Railways (II) corporate structure by
>> late 1950s/early 1960s???
>>
>> Just wondering.
>>
>> John
>
>
>
> First Off -- if we need a comparison to Cleveland, Detroit, Any other
> property -- go to Dave's -- http://206.103.49.193/index.html -- we
> don't need special emails here to see that.
>
> From what I have already posted, here is what Ed had to say in 2002
> (more below -- and PLEASE check the archives to verify that I didn't
> alter anything:)
>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Edward H. Lybarger" <twg at pulsenet.com <mailto:twg at pulsenet.com>>
> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> <mailto:pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>>
> Sent: Friday, 29 March, 2002 8:44 AM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: PRC PCC scuffs
>
> During WW II PRCo was still painting cars on about a 4-year cycle.
> Maintenance was far better than we think...they had cash: near record
> passenger loads and the protection of the Bankruptcy Court (no bond
> interest to pay out) meant (relatively) good times. It was after the
> final iteration of PRCo emerged in late 1950 that the real money crunch
> started. But the worst trolley maintenance of all was John Dameron's.
>
> Ed
>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> NONE (underlier after 1950 reorganization) as far as I know -- but
> what you are *apparently* hinting at is the decrepit condition of PRCo
> by 1960 Which Is Not True if you look at the photos -- we have
> been through this before! There were basket cases of bad
> *cosmetic* equipment, but it was not the rule. It is a Given that
> PRCo body *appearance* left much to be desired; It is also a Given
> that PRCo Safety Standards were considerably higher than on other
> properties -- And This Has Been Discussed Here Before (And *I*
> personally am on record here in San Francisco and now on this email list
> claiming that San Francisco Municipal Railway PCC maintenance in the
> latter 1970s to end was *Criminal__Neglect.) Now which do you
> consider more important? The public at large goes for cosmetics
> -- The__Hollywood__Approach if you will -- is this the camp into
> which we fall???????
>
>
>
> Lettuce look at 1950s:
>
> 01.>-- PRCo absolutely hated by politicians and this was personified
> in the person of Anne_X._Alpern
>
> 02.>-- Had been many attempts by city politicians to undermine PRCo
> and do it in.
>
> 03.>-- It was 1955 when the formation of PAAC was approved by public vote.
>
> 04.>-- For the vote for PAAC to take place, much discussion went on
> for Years before this.
>
> 05.>-- Thus the handwriting was on the wall that the end was near.
>
> 06.>-- How Would You Spend PRCo Money Knowing That PRCo Demise Was
> Just__Around__The__Corner???
>
> 07.>-- Answer to #06: Sparingly.
>
> 08.>-- Others have pointed out that PRCo did track renewal along
> 5th(?) Forbes(?) in the very late 1950s, maybe even early 1960s, so
> this is *evidence* that PRCo did not shirk responsibilities.
>
> 09.>-- It was THE Very late 1950s, early 1960s when I did the most
> active railfanning and it was STILL POSSIBLE to get the PCCs up To
> TOP SPEED and I personally experienced this on Not A Few Occasions in
> the early 1960s -- can't do that with unsafe equipment.
>
> 10.>-- Over and Over and Over and Over when museums go to refurbish
> equipment, Coast To Coast, the complaint is that so much bondo was
> used that it is a wonder the car didn't just collapse. So what
> *appears* nice on other properties is just what we have already
> mentioned -- pure *cosmetics* and little to nothing of substance.
>
> 11.>-- PRCo had to go to court to get fair value for what was taken
> over by ({[paac.]})
>
>
> As I have already mentioned, I wrote a treatise like this before but
> cannot find it -- when I find it, I'll resend it. PRCo cosmetics
> left much to be desired, but it Was NOT gross negligence which seems
> to be claimed here. Rail maintenance by ({[pat]}) on the other
> hand was considerably worse than that of PRCo in ALL categories --
> INTENTIONALLY worse.
>
>
> John Swindler wrote:
>
>> But Ed Tennyson also had some caustic comments about Charlie Palmer.
>>
>> John
>
>
>
> And????????????? Get 100 different people together and we can have
> 1,000 different comments about Mr.Palmer. Where is the substance
> to support these claims (see more below???????)
>
>
>
> GIVEN:
>
> IMPERFECT___WORLD -- ALL VERY FAR FROM PERFECT.
>
> ALL VERY FAR FROM PERFECT.
>
> PRCo cosmetic body appearance fell far short of what it could have been,
> but it was not utterly gross as has been claimed here. Think about
> this: everyone at PRCo in the 1950s was from the Greater Pittsburgh
> Area ---- A Very Visible and Public representation of the
> area ---- and as such, PRCo was just a cross section of ALL the
> people of the Greater Pittsburgh Area AND representative of the
> character of the People of the Greater Pittsburgh Area -- doesn't
> speak so highly of the people in this regard, does it? PRCo is
> just a cross section of ALL the people of the Greater Pittsburgh
> Area. Scruffy place, it was!
>
>
> Harold:
>
> 01.>-- You have been bitterly caustic toward Mr.Palmer on several
> occasions.
>
> 02.>-- Your language most recently leaves much to be desired.
>
> 03.>-- You Yourself say your comments are Emotional when they should
> be Objective.
>
> 04.>-- Your style in begging not to be disliked indicates that You
> Yourself have concerns about what you are writing.
>
> 05.>-- Much of your writing lacks substance to support your claims
> -- NO Meat, NO Milk, NO Water ---- Just soda which tastes
> sweet, goes down smoothly, but which ALL nutritians recognize is Very
> Bad For Us.
>
>
> I recognize that you, Harold, are disappointed and even frustrated with
> what PRCo could have done better -- but in the overall scheme of
> things, the cosmetics are hardly important when balanced against safety
> and other concerns.
>
> But I shall also say that because of the above points you discredit what
> you say against PRCo and give me reason to doubt your other assessments
> as well. Please note that I am not saying this behind your back as
> some are prone to do.
>
>
>
>
> The GOOD.......
>
> The BAD.......
>
> The UGLY:::::::
>
> Scruffy__Pittsburgh__Railways__Company__(PRCo).......
>
> Non--Exhaustive Listing Follows:::::::
>
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/ehpb005.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/ehpb006.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/ehpb008.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/ehpb009.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/ehpb010.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/ehpb011.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/ehpb012.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/ehpb013.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/ehpb017.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/ehpb018.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt106.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt113.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt114.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt115.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt116.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt117.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt127.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt128.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt130.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt135.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt137.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt138.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt139.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt140.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt141.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt142.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt143.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt144.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt147.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt148.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt155.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt156.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt157.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt041.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt046.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt047.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt048.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt614.htm -- just months after
> ({[pat]}) takeover and still in decent shape.
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt621.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/pitt628.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp001.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp002.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp054.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp055.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp056.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp057.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp058.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp059.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp062.htm -- here's a bad one - PRCo
> didn't keep equipment much over 20-years and this one ready for 
> retirement.
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp063.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp064.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp065.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp069.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp070.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp073.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp074.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp075.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp076.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp077.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp079.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp080.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp082.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp083.htm -- in storage for repair!
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp084.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp085.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp087.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp092.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp093.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp094.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp095.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp096.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp099.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp100.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp102.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp103.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp106.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp111.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp112.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp114.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp115.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp118.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp120.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp121.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp124.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/jfp126.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp001.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp002.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp004.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp006.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp007.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp008.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp009.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp010.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp016.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp017.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp019.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp020.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp023.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp029.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp030.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp031.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp032.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp033.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp034.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp037.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp038.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp039.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp042.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp043.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp044.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp045.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp046.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp047.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp048.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp049.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp053.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp054.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp059.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp061.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp062.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp063.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp068.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp069.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp070.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp071.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp072.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp073.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp074.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp075.htm
>
> http://206.103.49.193/pitts/htm/bvp076.htm
>
>
>

-- 
Jim__Holland

I__Like__Ike.......And__PCCs!!

down with pantographs ---- UP___WITH___TROLLEYPOLES!!!!!!!