[PRCo] Re: 1138

[Fred Schneider]

Can we not but pause and wonder at the definition of "in better  
condition?"   Electrically?    Body?    Mechanically?    It was  
retired because it came up for inspection and the money was not spent.

Don't know that it makes a whole lot of difference though.    
Pittsburgh ordered 100 cars and told the builder to paint 1000-1099  
on them.   Before the order was completed, PRC came back and said  
keep building.   Make another hundred and put 1100 - 1199 on them.    
There are not a whole lot of differences aside from minor things like  
the split destination sign and a change in the brake controller.    
One would hope that, since the 1000s and 100 were identical, that the  
1100s at least gave Westinghouse and PRC time to straighten out any  
electrical problems that might have existed before the 1100s went  
into production.   But that doesn't say that our 1138 has any  
resemblance today to the 1138 that was unloaded at Millvale in 1937.

I'm reminded of Russ Jackson commenting, perhaps 20 years ago, on  
wanting to spend a vacation at Branford tracing wiring on the  
Brooklyn PCC.   He told me that they had a GE wiring blue print for  
the car but they didn't have a New York City Transit Authority wiring  
print and he knew that they made a whole lot of changes because it  
was the first General Electric PCC car and a lot of things were made  
right in later orders and were subsequently corrected in the Brooklyn  
job after delivery.

Is there any reason to believe that the same didn't happen with  
Pittsburgh 100 and the 1000s?

Thomas Conway had a lot of work to do with the Electric Railway  
Presidents' Conference Committee.   Here was a man asking the car  
builders and electrical suppliers to throw away time honored methods  
and do something new.   They knew how a K-35 controller worked.   The  
guys at Brill could wire a car, probably blind folded.   And you  
could load it onto a flat car, ship it, unload it, install a fare  
box, and put it into service that afternoon.  And it could be  
guaranteed to work.    Now Conway was asking them to design and build  
something from scratch.   And when you got it off the flatcar, you  
had months of teething problems and rewiring this and rebuilding and  
replacing that.

I'm glad we have an 1100.   I'll be even happier if I find it has a  
PC2 compressor retrofitted.

Hey guys, I'm sitting here with a big grin on my face waiting for the  
harpoon.



On Oct 18, 2005, at 9:42 PM, Bob Rathke wrote:

> Back when 1138 was acquired by PTM (then PERC) - I remember asking  
> Denny
> Foley at the Museum why they didn't get a 1000 series car.  His  
> answer was
> that 1138 was in better condition than any 1000 series car  
> available at that
> time.  This was around 1961.
>
> Bob 10/18/05
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark McGuire" <macmarka at netzero.net>
> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 7:44 PM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Apology
>
>
>
>>  I wish it were ready for service. It would be nice to have a pre-war
>> Pittsburgh PCC in service at PTM, especially during the heat of  
>> summer.
>> I'll settle for a double-end low floor car though. ;>)
>> Can't wait to see the finished product.
>>
>> -- Fred Schneider <fwschneider at comcast.net> wrote:
>> An open apology to Boris:
>>
>> Boris:
>>
>> You asked when the trolley pole was on 1138 and I quipped "sometime
>> in 1937."   I didn't recall that anything had been done to get the
>> car ready for service.   And for the most part, it is still sitting
>> in service bay of the new "Trolley Display Building" in the same
>> condition that it was in when it came back from Elmira.   But the
>> pole is on it.   I asked the guy who put it back on and he does not
>> remember when he put it back on.   "Sometime in the winter of
>> 2001-2002 or maybe 2002-2003."
>>
>> But the car is no way ready for service.
>>
>>
>> fws
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>