[PRCo] Re: new PCC?

[James B. Holland]

Hi Bill!


I know who wrote that piece  --  yes, he has transit experience but he 
Is Highly Prejudiced as well.       I am therefore skeptical of these 
comments  --  need more information.       This writer has also stated 
that the SF F-line is   NOT   transit service and that Muni does not 
have liability for problems along the line as a result  --    PURE    
BUNK!!!!       This writer has also said that the North Shore 
Electroliners were not good equipment!

Here in SF the new ETI Trolley coaches are  WORSE  than PCCs  --  
another reason I am skeptical of the comments below.       Almost 
immediately after entering service an ETI was involved in such an 
accident where someone not seen passing in front of a coach was 
hit.       We now have mirrors specifically for that purpose.       
Driver seat  WAY  back from window and window design is different from 
older coaches so visibility below front window line is totally obliterated.

How was the Birney body easily made compliant?       Compliant to 
what?     ADA?

Very Interesting that you mentioned this  --  I had thought of 
introducing it to the list And responding to the comments below on the 
other list  (citing the above)  but decided against it because of the 
crazy discussions that ensued around SF Muni F-line authenticity as transit.



Bill Robb wrote:

> I've recently heard remarks attributed to Brookville representatives 
> (at the APTA/IPTE conference) that the PCC car design would never meet 
> modern motor vehicle safety standards. The issue is mainly with front 
> end visability.
>
> This maybe shouldn't be such a surprise as the designs originated in 
> the 30's and 40's, but when you can find on the streets everyday 
> people assume things are possible.
>
> Here's an example:
>
> "bad news part two. No they can never make any new PCC cars, in fact 
> no one can make any new PCC cars to the traditional design. apparently 
> there are safety rules now that require an operator to be able to see 
> much closer to the front of the vehicle at a lower height (child 
> crossing in front of car) that the traditional design could never 
> meet. to make it work would require lowering the winshields and 
> putting the operator higher and closer to the glass. This would 
> totally change the design of the front end. rebuilding cars is 
> grandfathered but building new would require the entire front end to 
> be redesigned among other things."
>
> The bad news part one was that the SEPTA PCCs were in worse shake than 
> Brookvile anticipated and they made less money than expected.
>
> "and yes Brookville considers the cars PCC cars because of using PCC 
> patents, most notably the kingpin design."
>
> Another comment:
>
> "Interestingly the Birney body style was easy to make compliant."
>
> Any comments?
>
> Bill Robb




Jim__Holland


I__Like__Ike.......And__PCCs!!

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