[PRCo] Re: PCC being towed

[John Swindler]

What were the equipment needs in 1967?  (hint: 35/36/37/42/47/48/49)

What about 1969:  (hint: 35/36/37/42)

What was the expected life of a Westinghouse 1600 in 1970?  (hint: 35/37)

Things don't always work out as planned.

And concerning SEPTA:  What was ratio of GE to Westinghouse cars.  It wasn't 
1:3

John



>From: Fred Schneider <fwschneider at comcast.net>
>Reply-To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>Subject: [PRCo] Re: PCC being towed
>Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 13:57:30 -0500
>
>They had their proponents and their detractors.   Maybe one of the
>chief arguments against them was the expense of physically removing
>the commutator controller from the car in order to work on it while
>work on the Westinghouse unit could largely be done in place.   As a
>young man, I don't know that I could ever recall any difference
>between a GE or a Westinghouse car if I rode them with my eyes closed.
>
>The G. E. cars were the first to go in Pittsburgh but many managers
>would have done the same when confronted with a 1 to 3 equipment
>split and and a need to keep either 75 of one type and 25 of another
>or 100 of one type given that a few of them might be four years
>older.....   I don't think the early disappearance of the GE 1600s
>and 1700s related to any overwhelming fault in their design but more
>simply a need to get a handle on maintenance.     Might have been
>easier to have a few compressor to maintain than a few cars with GE
>KM units.
>
>I once asked the shop foreman for SEPTA at 3rd and Wyoming which he
>thought was better, G. E. or Westinghouse and he favored G. E.   Then
>I counted the cars in the shop and found 60 percent were G. E.
>cars.   Maybe he liked them because of job security or maybe it was
>just an off day.
>
>Shaker Heights was fond of G. E. because if they had a problem, an
>engineer from Erie would be in Cleveland within a day.
>
>
>
>On Oct 30, 2005, at 11:06 AM, Boris Cefer wrote:
>
> > Ja ja!
> >
> > Do you have any personal experience (worse) with GE equipped units?
> >
> > B
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Fred Schneider" <fwschneider at comcast.net>
> > To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 2:31 PM
> > Subject: [PRCo] Re: PCC being towed
> >
> >
> >
> >> And it wasn't even equipped by G. E.
> >>
> >> Reminds me of the day we were having trouble in east Berlin with a
> >> rental Ford that really had other intentions than running.   Getting
> >> that car to work was sort of like asking your teenager to do his
> >> homework.  I was trying to get it to start when a native came up,
> >> looked at this modern machine and quipped, "Es ist kaput and es ist
> >> nicht nur ein Traubi!"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> (It's broken and it isn't even a Trabant.)
> >>
> >> On Oct 30, 2005, at 6:55 AM, Boris Cefer wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Content-Type: text/plain;
> >>>     charset="iso-8859-2"
> >>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >>>
> >>> The attachment shows something unfrequent - a PCC being towed by
> >>> an =
> >>> another PCC. Perhaps the salty slush got in one of its motors. I
> >>> haven't =
> >>> seen any picture like this one before. One would expect failed PCC
> >>> to be =
> >>> pushed to a nearby loop or spur track to wait there for one of the
> >>> tow =
> >>> cars.
> >>>
> >>> B
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
> >>> -- Type: application/octet-stream
> >>> -- Size: 93k (95801 bytes)
> >>> -- URL : http://lists.dementia.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/1757%
> >>> 20towed.jpg
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>