[PRCo] Re: PCCs___vs___lrvs

[Fred Schneider]

Ah, but the Siemens cars were also not revolutionary.   We were  
trying to blend German technology in the 1980s with American track  
maintenance and the two simply did not mate well.   How many years  
did it take to rebuild the Overbrook line to European track  
standards, or at least close enough thereto that they could run  
modern cars?   I could show you pictures of the Swiss tearing up the  
same special work and replacing it five years apart because it had  
worn out beyond their precise standards.   That should give some clue  
how the Swiss, Germans and Austrians could run two-axle cars for  
years without passenger discomfort while we had such complaints about  
bouncing Birneys.

You guys need to understand that European continental streetcar track  
maintenance would make the Pennsylvania Railroad mainline look  
horrible in comparison.

Russ Jackson once had a classic line to one of the Japanese who was  
in Philadelphia when the Kawasaki cars were being built in 1980.    
The man was bewildered that the PRR hung the trolley wire directly  
over the center line of the track and everywhere else in the world  
the wire moves back and forth to spread the wear across the  
pantograph shoe.   Russ smiled and quipped, "We don't staggger the  
wire here, we stagger the track."   I thought it was a very polite  
way of saying we build the slop into the track structure.

On Apr 8, 2006, at 4:12 AM, Holland Electric Rwy. Op. H.E.R.O. --  
Import SPTC 1.48 Models // James B. Holland wrote:

> Holland Electric Rwy. Op. H.E.R.O. -- Import SPTC 1.48 Models // James
> B. Holland wrote:
> .
>
>> Just An Observation!!!
>>
>> Isn't there a lengthy shake down for Siemens car in  
>> Pittsburgh?       Siemens not uncommon in  USA.
>> .
>> .
>> Bill Robb wrote:.
>>
>>
>>> This is not a valid comparsion.       The PCC was a thoroughly  
>>> tested product before being purchased by the transit  
>>> companies.       Years of research went into it's  
>>> development.       The builders were established businesses with  
>>> a solid track record.       In many ways the PCC of the late 30s  
>>> was an off the shelf product.
>>> .
>>> Whereas today's light rail cars on systems like Muni are custom  
>>> built to the customer's individual specifications.       The  
>>> track record of the builder is not as clear, although they may be  
>>> an established transit or rail vehicle builder.       How many  
>>> other systems are operating the vehicles Muni purchases?        
>>> How many other cities are operating the exact same Breda  
>>> LRVs?       Given the operating environment I'm sure it's diesel  
>>> buses aren't completely off the shelf either.
>>>
> .
> My original comments were Just An Observation  (as mentioned  
> above)  but
> Bill set me thinking along these lines.       Bill makes  A  Viewpoint
> above;  for the sake of discussion, could other viewpoints also  
> exist??
> .
> .
> I-F   """the operating environment  [in  SF]  is unique for diseaseal
> buses......."""   then same must be true for PCCs?
> .
> .
> .
> On Pgs.056-057 of  PCC Car Fought Back  is 2-page chart entitled::::
> .
> .
> .
> """The  PCC--Nothing  New  Under  The  Sun....."""
> .
> """Evolutionary  but  not  Revolutionary."""
> .
> .
> .
> NOPSI  900 series are first cars listed along with  Peter Witt from
> TTC;  Master Unit from Key System;  Electromobile from York-PA;  A few
> other old cars;  various Pre-PCC experiments;  The Brooklyn PCC Fleet;
> PRCo 1600 All-Electric;  Brilliner.       The chart compares body
> styles, materials of construction dimensions;  details of Trucks;
> Mechanical / Electrical / Brake details with performance specs and  
> weights.
> .
> At the end of that list the modern lrv could now be listed    ----
> The  lrv  Is  Definitely  In  the  Evolutionary  Chain  of  Transit
> Vehicles  As  Is  The  PCC.       (One SnoozePaper columnist //  
> railfan
> from Oz or NZ is adamant that the lrv is Totally New WithOut Even A  
> Hint
> of Relationship to other transit vehicles    ----    maybe they have
> reinvented the wheel down there, or maybe it operates differently  
> upside
> down, or people think differently standing on their head(!)    ----
> at any rate,  My Apologies to him!!!)
> .
> .
> ALL  on chart including modern lrv used for
> ...............Same  Identical  Purpose    ----
> ...........................transporting people from
> ......................................Proverbial Points A to B.
> .
> .
> ALL  use electric motors for propulsion.
> .
> .
> PCCs // lrvs use dynamic // regenerative for Main Brake;  friction
> brake  (wheel tread -- drum for PCC -- axle mounted disc for lrv)  to
> complete and hold stopped vehicle;  magnetic rail brake for
> emergency.       PCCs use electro-mechanical for acceleration while  
> lrvs
> use solid state  --  PCCs in Europe advanced to solid state but this
> begs the question as to PCC authenticity  (doesn't meet current PCC
> standards but had the  ERPCC  continued existence until the present it
> is very possible standards would upgrade to Solid State.)       Boeing
> lrv truck Very Much Like B3 with AirBag in same identical location and
> for same identical purpose as B3 spring pot - lack of axle housing
> precludes frame equalization so torque arm ala B2 is necessary.
> Bombardier lrv truck  (Portland,_OR)  not at all unlike B3 as well  
> with
> chevron springing in same location as B3 - sprung bolster.
> .
> Doors Open And Close to allow passengers to board // alight!
> .
> .
> .
> One  Could  Observe  That  The  Modern  lrv  Is
> ....................<--Just-->  A  Souped  Up  PCC!!!
> .
> .
> And although it is a Much Worn out cliché,
> ....................it is extremely applicable here:
> .
> ................................."""Hardly___Rocket___Science!!!"""
> .
> .
> .
> The specifications of the purchaser would hardly design the individual
> components but list performance requirements that allow the builder to
> choose from available systems to be included in the vehicle.       How
> difficult can all this be that  Each  And  Every  SF  Breda  Needs
> Minimum  of  30-Day  Testing  before it can enter service     
> ----    or
> run for  xxxx  miles before it can be used for revenue service?
> Some  120,,  140,,  150  vehicles???????
> .
> The Business Climate also needs to be considered    ----    with
> extremely modest exceptions,  ALL   PCCs  from 1935--1952   
> purchased by
> Private Enterprize where a return on the investment is The Very Basic
> Concept and thus the equipment  Would  NOT  Sit / Run  Idle / Empty
> like modern lrvs.
> .
> .
> NOW   we  have a  Hint  Of  A  Comparison between  Delivery,  Burn-In,
> Testing,  Service  Dates // Times  of  PCCs  vs  lrvs    ----     
> others
> can contribute comments one way or the other    ----    but to me, the
> modern lrv burn in period seems to be   Much___Ado___About___Nothing!!
> .
> .
> .
>
>> James B. Holland" <PRCoPCC at P-R-Co.com> wrote:   The tens typically  
>> show 2 or 3 days between delivery and service ---- this is Utterly  
>> Fascinating since PCC technology was Brand New then while in SF  
>> today, new rail equipment goes through a 30-day shake down At  
>> Least before entering service! PCC 1007 was received on 19370204  
>> and put into service the next day, the 5th of Feb.
>>
>>
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> Jim__Holland
>> .
>> .
>> I__Like__Ike.......And__PCCs!!
>> .
>> down with pantographs ---- UP___WITH___TROLLEYPOLES!!!!!!!
>>
>
>