[PRCo] Re: Braking Systems

[John Swindler]

NO, the operator was operating the streetcar.  The operator was NOT making 
management decisions.  Management was making management decisions.

John



>From: Fred Schneider <fwschneider at comcast.net>
>Reply-To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>Subject: [PRCo] Re: Braking Systems
>Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:24:28 -0400
>
>Are you trying to say that the contractor hired by PAT (the operator)
>removed it and that PAT isn't in any way at fault for the fiasco?
>
>On Oct 20, 2005, at 5:13 PM, James B. Holland wrote:
>
> > John Swindler wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Jim/Fred:
> >>
> >> It wasn't the operator that removed the necessary action derail
> >> switch.
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >
> >
> > Would this be considered a Necessity Action turnout?       Toronto
> > used
> > such a system which is outside the norm used by others and PRCo.
> > Under the Toronto system a turnout stays set and It Is Necessary To
> > Take
> > Action to set it in another position  --  on PRCo, SF, Philly, and
> > most
> > other systems the turnout will set for the straight through direction
> > unless the toggle is activated // power applied when passing
> > through the
> > contactor which sets  AND  maintains a turnout for the diverge
> > direction.
> >
> > This turnout still operated in traditional PRCo fashion but with delay
> > and a reset so once a car passed through it returned to derail
> > position.
> >
> > Just a clarification of terminology  --  believe this is not a
> > Necessity
> > Action type turnout although it was Necessary to set it for the
> > desired
> > direction  --  but that is true of any turnout.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jim__Holland
> >
> >
> > I__Like__Ike.......And__PCCs!!
> >
> > down with pantographs ---- UP___WITH___TROLLEYPOLES!!!!!!!
> >
> >
> >
>
>