[PRCo] Re: 1.>--PCCs___vs___lrvs__--__2.>--PCC___Trucks

[Holland Electric Rwy. Op. H.E.R.O. -- Import SPTC 1.48 Models // James B. Holland]

----- Original Message -----

 > From: "Fred Schneider" <fwschneider at comcast.net>

> There has been more said by Boris and Jim in the last
> few days on the B-3 program than I really care about.

.
This was an exercise of unraveling the development of the B3.       At 
first I believed that the test trucks from under the 12s were placed 
under 1613 and 1614.       Then it seemed that there were 4 sets of 
trucks  --  two for twelves and two for the 1601s.       Now it seems 
there were Only 2 Sets of Experimental B3s that were modified during 
experimentation so that the final ones under 1613 and 1614 were rather 
near the production units.       We were not addressing merits / 
demerits of the B2 vs B3.
.

.
> 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

.
This speaks of ride quality but I was under the impression the B3 was 
developed because of maintenance issues with B2s on open track.       
The B3 is Not Necessarily A Better Ride on rough track  --  it can be 
Much Worse.       MANY   writers described that the PRCo PCC Interurbans 
had anything but a desirable ride.
.
As Far As Ride Quality, there is a sense to which a B2 would be better  
On  Open  Track.       The upper frame is Rigid  --  the lower frame 
flexes And Has Spring Support at 4-corners as opposed to two springs in 
the center on the B3.       On the B2 the lower frame could flex 
considerably more with very little effect to the rigid upper 
frame.       On the B3, however, the bolster is spring mounted on either 
side and set on a rigid frame so the bolster is then essentially 
parallel to the plane of the rigid frame  --  Every Movement of the 
plane of the rigid frame will be transmitted to the bolster through the 
spring pot so there is Greater Potential for rock and roll with the B3 
In Addition To Bounce because of the large spring.
.
Guessing that the flexible joint of the torque arm assembly is the 
weakest point of the B2  (and possibly even the bolted end of the torque 
arm is under Not A Little Stress As Well)  --  the flexible joint not 
only takes a beating from low and high rail joints, pounding through 
open joints, and fore and aft stresses But Also stress from the motors 
in acceleration and braking  --  if the axle is not held in place 
rigidly which is accomplished in great part because of the torque arm, 
these motions by the motors would spin the axle assembly like a clock  
(or until the drive shaft snapped off as the axle housing 
rotated!!)        Thus the torque arm is taking considerable downward 
and upward pressure from motor torque in acceleration and braking!

The B2B truck  DID  add another dimension to the ride quality with the 
rubber spring mounted bolster inside the upper rigid frame  --  this 
isolates the body from motor vibrations  (since motors are mounted to 
the upper rigid frame)  And  even further isolates the body from track 
irregularities.       The ride on the B2B was Truly Like Floating On A 
Cloud    ----    wish PCC production and research had continued so that 
this truck would have been improved.       The torque arm assembly could 
have been improved as well.

> If the monomotor truck is a problem, then why does
> it work so well all over Europe?

.
Strictly anecdotal info -- Imperfect world, people behind all 
construction of rail vehicles and All People come from the same Place -- 
the Very fragile,    V-E-R-Y    Imperfect  Human  Mold   --   Problems 
everywhere and anywhere  --  we just don't hear about it.       And do 
we know that it is this very specific truck that is in use All Over 
Europe  --  NO!       Quite a variety of trucks in use in Europe  --  
Not A Few PCC and PCC advanced trucks as well.

> 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.    

Every Single Press Release?       No.       Did go to school in 
Pittsburgh, PA, not in California -- did learn to read and write.      
Dad always said::       """Believe only 50% of what you read and  NONE  
of what you hear!"""       Over used, trite cliché, But Not Without 
Merit.       Believe Everyone Here knows to weigh the preponderance of 
evidence and not take one piece of evidence  (one snoozepaper artickle)  
as The Gospel.

> A monomotor truck requires that all wheels be
> the same diameter or it will put undue wear on
> the gear boxes. 

.
I am aware of this  --  this problem is not so acute with the standard 
two-motor truck so I just mentioned the style of truck with which a 
problem developed without going into all the details of the 
problem.       Doubt if anyone here could assemble enough evidence to 
point a finger or to exonerate  ({[pat]})  in this situation  --  but 
there was obviously a problem.

I find this very interesting  --  Boeing had a monomotor truck and I 
haven't heard of any particular problem with this truck  --  same for 
UTDC.       I have already mentioned that I have personally experienced 
problems with Siemens  --  Very strong tendency to Hunt and Viciously 
so, even in a radically different design of vehicle, the new low floor 
cars in Portland, OR.       Disc brakes on Siemens tend to chatter 
during application making for a rough stop.       I am not enamored with 
this   *--European___Siemens--*   and then the fact that Pgh. 
experienced this monomotor problem doesn't help Siemens either;  in 
fact, it lends credibility to  ({[pats]})  problem!
.
Some time back I posted Dozens Upon Dozens Upon dozens of  URLs of 
derailments of TrolleyCars  IN  Europe,  and that in just a couple 
cities.       I experienced  ONE  derailment in Pgh. under PRCo and saw 
one other;  have heard of several with PCCs under  ({[pat.]})       
Personally know of just a couple here in San Francisco.       I don't 
Even Know Of as many TrolleyCar derailments in the entire  U.S.A.  as I 
listed for just a couple cities in Europe.       NOT   trying to put 
anyone down, but this constant reference to the Perfection of Europe and 
Insanity of  U.S.A.  just doesn't cut it here any more.       Mistakes 
// Accidents // Bad Judgment // Poor Decisions Do // Can // SHALL   
happen everywhere and anywhere in this world    ----    it is not 
whether or not they will happen but How we handle the same when they 
do.       I don't take pleasure in any of these problems regardless of 
where it happens but would rather contribute to a solution than point 
fingers and call names.

I see Not A Few Europeans on my bus  --  for those who live here in the 
U.S.A. for a time  (student visa, temp work visa, etc.  --  NOT  just 
vacationers)  I ask them where they would rather live  --  There or  
U.S.A.    ----    WITHOUT    Hesitation they says  U.S.A.    """because 
we have So Many More Choices And Opportunities."""       These are 
German and French people    ----    one beautiful German couple came on 
the bus one night to say good-bye and their faces spoke volumes about 
the sadness of returning home.       She offered it would be nice to see 
family again  (Seems Far More Important to the ladies, and 
understandably so)  but they both wanted to stay here!

Couldn't guesstimate those who ride public transit at home in Europe  
--  maybe 50-50  --  I ask that as well  --  some do and some don't  --  
some couldn't be bothered with it.


Jim