[PRCo] Re: Maintenance standard

Tue Jun 13 21:39:31 EDT 2006

I believe some systems such as NOPSI and MUNI, where power costs wewren't an issue, systems such as Dayton, Toronto, etc. where there was a commitment to electrics, would generate a large volume of sales if GMC could push them over the edge with a discounted price per bus.

Remember, three or four years later, Flyer Industries reintroduced electric buses, AM General entered the fray, even as Flxible was going under.

K.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Fred Schneider <fwschneider at comcast.net>
>Sent: Jun 13, 2006 9:31 PM
>To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>Subject: [PRCo] Re: Maintenance standard
>
>But anyone deeply committed to his beliefs often needs to believe in  
>a conspiracy theory when nothing else works!    <BFG>    Hey, if  
>taking an extra $5,000 off a $30,000 bus will get you the first of  
>many orders, why not.
>
>But by 1966 there wasn't a whole lot of competition out there.   Why  
>would GM want to give any discounts?   ACF Brill quit in 1954 or  
>1955.   Seems to me that Mack was gone.   I know White was also  
>gone.   Fitzjohn?  Were they not also gone.   Was Twin the only  
>competitor left?    At that stage it seems strange to be giving  
>discounts to get business that no one is going to take from you.    
>Let someone else punch a hole in my thinking here.   I'm not sure who  
>was left in the bus business then.
>
>As a sidebar, I was told that one of Al Creamer's jobs with Public  
>Service of New Jersey was to make a once a year trip to Detroit to  
>pick up the president's  free Cadillac ... the "reward" for buying  
>buses from General Motors.   I was told the story by someone else  
>after Al died.   I knew Al, and was in his home several times.   But  
>he never told me the story and I never verified it.   But it doesn't  
>surprise me that a company as large as PSCT would be rewarded for its  
>loyalty.   It is simply good business.
>
>Of course the SEC might ask when does good business end and a bribe  
>begin....  If GM rewards you for buying a new car every three years  
>by offering lower financing, that is certainly legitimate.
>
>On Jun 13, 2006, at 9:15 PM, Ken & Tracie wrote:
>
>> I have a GMC brouchere from 1967 and a trade magazine article from  
>> 1966 stating that GMC would give a special discount to any property  
>> that replaced electric transit  vehicles with their motor coaches.  
>> They apparently were aware of mavericks like Bill Owens (of  
>> Dayton's City Transit) and the Mexico City system who were buying  
>> used trolley coaches and both the neccessary infrastructure and  
>> parts to both maintain and expand such service for scrap prices.
>>
>> I don't believe it wasn't part of any conspiracy, just an effort to  
>> drum up more business.
>>
>> K.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Fred Schneider <fwschneider at comcast.net>
>>> Sent: Jun 13, 2006 8:52 PM
>>> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Maintenance standard
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>