[PRCo] Re: Maintenance standard

[Boris Cefer]

Exactly the aspect I had on mind. Of course, there is relation to financial
situation, but there are also obligatory technical rules. Or not? PCC car is
a complicated electric device, not a horse-team.
The attachment shows something dangerous, but not a wiring.

B

----- Original Message -----
From: "Holland Electric Rwy. Op. H.E.R.O. -- Import SPTC 1.48 Models //
James B. Holland" <PRCoPCC at P-R-Co.com>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:19 PM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: W_a[i]t a Minute...


> It seems the  Did--Better  reference from Boris is in equipment and
> infrastructure maintenance, not related to expansion // survivability.
> ..
> LATL  certainly qualifies in this category  --  excellent Track,
> Overhead, Equipment maintenance right up to the end.
> ..
> San Francisco Muni   NEVER   had preventive maintenance until the advent
> of the Boeing lrv in the 1980s  (The People's Railway, pg.204, 2nd
> column.)       But Muni never contended with Winter Snows.       Caught
> up to them in the 1970s  --  PCCs in horrible condition eletro /
> mechanically  --  best I would describe it is  Criminal__Neglect.
> .
> .
> .
> Jim


-- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
-- Type: application/octet-stream
-- Size: 128k (131436 bytes)
-- URL : http://lists.dementia.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/Wiring.jpg