[PRCo] Re: Russian___PCCs

[Fred Schneider]

You're picking nits, Boris.   Whether the gauge is 1435 mm or 4' - 8  
1/2 " is irrelevant.   TRC had patents on a variety of wheel designs  
and a frame equalized truck on which the Tatra and Russian trucks are  
based.  I don't remember seeing dimensions on over 100 different  
ERPCC and TRC patents.

You can also argue, if you wish,  that they are not PCCs today  
because the patents are now in the public domain.        But that is  
probably the only argument that makes any sense because, since the  
patents are in the public domain, no one stands to make any money off  
those patents any longer.   It's a dead argument.

On Oct 25, 2005, at 12:45 PM, Boris Cefer wrote:

> But the Tatra trucks did not and do not contain any IDENTICAL  
> parts. Some of
> them appear very similar or identical, but the use of our  
> continental metric
> system resulted in use of different dimensions. It is a question  
> whether the
> dimensions play role or not.
>
> B
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fred Schneider" <fwschneider at comcast.net>
> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 6:36 PM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Russian___PCCs
>
>
>
>> That is your definition, Boris.     Fine.   TRC didn't choose to
>> agree with you and they held the patents to the PCC.   Therefore
>> their definition of a PCC holds.
>>
>> David Q. Gaul, the last employee of Transit Research Corporation,
>> which held the PCC patents, gave me their official definition in an
>> interview in 1976:
>>
>> 1.   Any car on which patent royalties were paid was a PCC.   That
>> made some rather nebulous Boston cars PCCs just because the MTA
>> manager wanted to support the TRC and found a way to pay royalties
>> even though no components may have been patented.   This definition
>> also excludes all the Brooklyn PCCs because B&QT refused to pay
>> royalties claiming that ERPCC had used their space in the 9th Avenue
>> carbarn for five years and B&QT thought that was perfectly adequate.
>>
>> 2.  Any car which used PCC patents whether or not royalties were paid
>> was considered a PCC by TRC.   That takes care of  the Tatra cars and
>> all the Russian knock offs.
>>
>> 3.  Remember too that the electrical suppliers refused to become
>> members of the Electric Railway Presidents' Conference Committee
>> because such a membership required them to give up their patent
>> rights.   Therefore the Westinghouse style controls on Tatra cars
>> have absolutely nothing to do with a PCC.   Instead the car buyers
>> submitted to the builders a performance specification, stating how
>> fast the car would run, accelerate, brake, and so forth and the
>> Westinghouse and GE schemes met that.
>>
>> I agree that the Russian MTB or MTV-82 cars had no components copied
>> after PCC cars.   The newest equipment, however, continues to use
>> recycled trucks that match the B-3 patents.
>>
>> On Oct 25, 2005, at 10:26 AM, Boris Cefer wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The Russian MTB-82 (or MTV-82) had trucks that had nothing with the
>>> PCC
>>> designs. Not other Russian cars contain TRC licensed components,  
>>> even
>>> thought the standee windows on some cars may appear familiar.
>>> Then there are the Tatra cars. There had not been royalties paid
>>> and the
>>> Tatra cars do not contain any IDENTICAL components.
>>>
>>> B
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Fred Schneider" <fwschneider at comcast.net>
>>> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
>>> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 9:39 PM
>>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Russian___PCCs
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>   Oh contraire.   What makes you think not?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 24, 2005, at 12:33 PM, Boris Cefer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> These are not PCCs!
>>>>>
>>>>> B
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>