[PRCo] Re: PCCs_vs_lrvs

Sun Apr 9 18:11:30 EDT 2006

The Venice Short Line probably beat up the riders as much as it did  
the cars.   Can you picture yourself hanging on the end of a rubber  
band bouncing up and down?

There has been more said by Boris and Jim in the last few days on the  
B-3 program than I really care about.   To me what was important was  
that PRC had a lot of poorly maintained open track and they needed a  
truck much more rigid than the Clark B-2 truck, particularly for the  
interurban lines.    Would the B-2 ride well on smooth, well- 
maintained, rigid open track.   Certainly.   Dave Gaul claimed that  
the Mack FCD rail buses on the New Haven Railroad rode very well on  
B2 trucks but the track was very well maintained and very rigid ...  
very firm ... at that time,

PE's track going out the Venice Short Line was probably akin to  
riding on a sponge.    Perhaps sand with a dressing of ballast on top  
to make it look good?   An MCB truck on the old wooden 950s probably  
rode a whole lot better.

You want a good sicde-by-side comparison, let me take you out on the  
Philly 2723 at Arden (B2 trucks), then Pittsburgh 1711 (B3 trucks),  
then PST 14 (St. Louis MCB trucks).    SEPTA monkeyed with the wiring  
on their cars so the best you can get out of the 2700 downhill, flat  
out is 25 mph.   No field shunting.   I might be able to get 30 to 35  
out of 1711 before I don't want to push it any farther.   The factory  
specs claim the balancing speed on 14 is 59 miles per hour ... I may  
have had it up to 50 and it's smooth as silk (in comparison).

I remember something that Walter Keevil told me 20 years ago.   As  
preface, Walter walked into his uncle's job as superintendent of  
electric vehicle design for Chicago Transit Authority.   The Keevils  
go back into the Sam Insull era.   I think Walter might me a little  
younger than I am but close to retirement.   His statement was that  
perfectly matching a truck to a car ... the dynamics of same ... was  
sort of a matter of chance.   There were rules to follow that would  
result in a good city truck or a good truck for high speeds but even  
within those parameters, getting it perfect involved a lot of luck.    
I've had people hint to me that with computers we can do a better job  
now.   I don't know.

On Apr 9, 2006, at 5:17 PM, Ken & Tracie wrote:

> Fred,
>
> Along the same subject line (no pun intended), wasn't it noted in  
> one of the
> PCC books that the rough trackage on P.E.'s Venice "short line"  
> beat up
> their PCCs' trucks?
>
> K.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fred Schneider" <fwschneider at comcast.net>
> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
> Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 2:07 PM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: PCCs___vs___lrvs
>
>
>> If the monomotor truck is a problem, then why does it work so well
>> all over Europe?
>>
>> It wasn't the problem.   You have to remember, Jim, that press
>> releases are documents issued to cover up something that a
>> corporation or agency doesn't want you to know and divert attention
>> to something else.    A monomotor truck requires that all wheels be
>> the same diameter or it will put undue wear on the gear boxes.   When
>> PAT failed to properly maintain the trucks, i.e. by changing one
>> wheel set and leaving the other worn, then their answer was to blame
>> the manufacturer for his 'poorly designed' truck that worked
>> perfectly well where it was maintained according to specifications.
>>
>> On Apr 8, 2006, at 8:12 PM, Holland Electric Rwy. Op. H.E.R.O. --
>> Import SPTC 1.48 Models // James B. Holland wrote:
>>
>>> Fred Schneider wrote:
>>> .
>>>
>>>> Ah, but the Siemens cars were also not revolutionary.
>>>
>>> .
>>> Agreed!       This is the thrust of my comments below  --  modern  
>>> lrvs
>>> just an extension of  Already  Existing  Transit  Technology    ----
>>> so why the arduous month long // xxxx mile Non Revenue operations  
>>> for
>>> Each And Every Vehicle purchased???????       My original
>>> observation is
>>> that  Off  The  Shelf  Siemens  equipment goes through shake down
>>> testing before entering service like  <--Specially  Built  Bredas--
>>>>  in
>>> San Francisco.
>>> .
>>> .
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> .
>>> Track Not Necessarily The Problem.       Monomotor design of Siemens
>>> truck seems to be the culprit as detailed in press releases and
>>> Trolley
>>> Fare articles    ----    Boeing used mono and weren't any problems
>>> specifically attributed to that.       Siemens used elsewhere in
>>> U.S.A.
>>> // Canada without  <--problem.-->
>>> .
>>> <--Problem-->   Is,  However,   that Siemens equipment has  
>>> tremendous
>>> affinity for  <--Hunting-->  as it heads down the tracks  --   
>>> lateral
>>> oscillations that increases with speed.       Have experienced  
>>> this on
>>> virtually every Siemens system I have ridden as has local Rail
>>> Aficionado Harry Peat who has ridden far more than myself    ----
>>> other equipment, such as UTDC in San Jose and Bombardier in
>>> Portland, do
>>> not exhibit such problems.       Indeed, even the New Low-Floor
>>> Siemens
>>> cars in Portland, OR, exhibited this potential  When  Brand  New!
>>> Haven't been back to ride since then.
>>> .
>>> Disc brakes on Siemens have a tendency to chatter during application
>>> making for a rough stop.
>>> .
>>> Siemens // German // European equipment  Not  Without  Problems  of
>>> their own!
>>> .
>>> .
>>>
>>>>> James B. Holland wrote:
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just An Observation!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't there a lengthy shake down for Siemens car in
>>>>>> Pittsburgh?        Siemens not uncommon in USA.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jim__Holland
>>>
>>>
>>> I__Like__Ike.......And__PCCs!!
>>>
>>> down with pantographs ---- UP___WITH___TROLLEYPOLES!!!!!!!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>