[PRCo] Re: Maintenance standard

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

"""Because of the superb maintenance practices, all but seven of the PCC 
cars were sold abroad between 1963 and 1965."""       PCC Coast to 
Coast, pg.120.       Probably worth more as operating cars than as 
scrap  --  probably would not have been sold if they had been run into 
the ground.
.
.
.
Fred Schneider wrote:
.

>OK, Boris.   LATL did better.   From your point of view.   Now from a business point of view they were stupid.   One doesn't spend money maintaining a property that you are going to scrap.   That was taxpayers money.  It constitutes malfeasance in office.    And if it were a private corporation, it was the stockholders' money that was thrown down a rat hole and you don't spend the stockholders' money fixing something you plan to retire if you want to be relected to the board next year.
>
>What makes sense is buying a piece of machinery and running it to make money until that piece of machinery is worn out and then scrapping it.   Fixing it and then scrapping it is not something a sane businessman does.
>
>On Jun 13, 2006, at 2:34 PM, Boris Cefer wrote:
>  
>
>>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
>>
>>
>>From: James B. Holland" <PRCoPCC at P-R-Co.com>
>>    
>>
>>>It seems the  Did--Better  reference from Boris is in equipment andinfrastructure maintenance, not related to expansion //  survivability.
>>>
>>    
>>
-- URL : http://lists.dementia.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/Wiring.jpg