[PRCo] Re: Maintenance standard

[Fred Schneider]

Valid point.   Now, what I can't answer is what Cairo paid for those  
cars.   They might have gotten them for $1 more per car than the  
scrap dealer and that isn't what justifies excessive maintenance.    
Now had there been 20 companies bidding on the fleet, that would have  
been a different situation.    But in 1963 the market for use PCCs  
was Egypt or the scrap dealer and I suspect Cairo knew that.   And  
the way that text was written in the book might not be the way it was  
written today.   Hind sight always works better.   Today I might have  
left off the dependent clause, and simply said, "All but  
seven .....were sold abroad between 1963 and 1965."

On Jun 13, 2006, at 6:01 PM, Holland Electric Rwy. Op. H.E.R.O. --  
Import SPTC 1.48 Models // James B. Holland wrote:

> """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
>
>