[PRCo] Re: Maintenance standard

[Fred Schneider]

Possible.   Roughly half the decisions in any business are faulty.    
We do know they still planned to keep P (Pico - East First) right up  
until a few weeks before "Die Day."    So they continued to maintain  
the property right until the end.   And it it makes no sense except  
that someone didn't do their homework before making the decision.    
Could have been a political decision too.   Somebody at General  
Motors may have put some money in the mayor's reelection campaign  
fund.   I really don't know.   Nothing is really impossible in  
politics, is it?



On Jun 13, 2006, at 8:44 PM, Ken & Tracie wrote:

> So no truth to the story that LAMTA initially planned to run the  
> five car lines and two trolley coach lines until 1970 or so, but  
> changed their minds when the thought of maintaining three series of  
> PCCs and two series of ACF-Brill coaches as well as overhead, rail,  
> substations and several series of GMC coaches would cost more than  
> just maintaining the GMC coaches?
>
> K.
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Fred Schneider <fwschneider at comcast.net>
>> Sent: Jun 13, 2006 5:46 PM
>> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Maintenance standard
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>> ----- 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>