[PRCo] Re: PCCs___vs___lrvs

[John Swindler]

>From: "Holland Electric Rwy. Op. H.E.R.O. -- Import SPTC 1.48 Models // 
>James B. Holland" <PRCoPCC at P-R-Co.com>
>Reply-To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>Subject: [PRCo] PCCs___vs___lrvs
>Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 01:12:21 -0700
>
>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.



#1.  WHY???

#2.  ARE THEY???




  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!!!!!!!
> >
>
>