[PRCo] Re: new PCC?

[Fred Schneider]

Interesting comment Bill.   You cannot see a small child in down in  
front of a PCC.   Inching one into a carbarn, if you've never done it  
before, is also problematic;  because of your seated position, the  
anticlimber of the car ahead of you disappears from view when you are  
several feet away from it.   Not the same with a Philly 80-hundred,  
the Birney, or a New Orleans 800 because you can lean out the front  
window, with one hand on the controller, the other on the brake  
valve, and see that you have 1/2 inch to go.    But then you have  
less visibility from the cab of a Peterbilt!   And can you imagine  
running a steam locomotive or a GP7, long hood forward, down a city  
street?

This fits in the category of you get use to it, just like you get  
used to architecture in a foreign country after you've been there for  
months on end.   Now that I think about it, I remember the first time  
I had to close up a PCC against another car in a car house.   Now I  
just do it instinctively.   But that five year old could still sneak  
in the blind spot.

And that is one reason why we had HB Life Guards under the front of  
PCC cars.   And now that government runs the cars and we have law  
prohibiting collecting losses from government, what does it matter?

F W Cynic Schneider III


On Oct 26, 2005, at 3:27 PM, 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>