[PRCo] Re: Maintenance standard

John Swindler j_swindler at hotmail.com
Wed Jun 14 08:12:38 EDT 2006 


By 1966 the competition was Flxible, and anti-trust concerns.  That was 
behind Flxible having access to Detroit Diesal engines and Allison 
transmission.  Flxible was able to deliver a cheaper 'new look' bus.  
Chicago was a steady purchaser.  I think CTA 8499 (?) is preserved at Union 
as example of Flxible transition to new look design.

But the market changed with large transit authority contracts having to be 
awarded to low bidder.   A good GUESS is that GM was saddled with high 
overhead costs.

John



>From: Fred Schneider <fwschneider at comcast.net>
>Reply-To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>Subject: [PRCo] Re: Maintenance standard
>Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:31:26 -0400
>
>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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

More information about the Pittsburgh-railways mailing list