[PRCo] Fwd: Re: Maintenance standard
Fred Schneider
fwschneider at comcast.net
Wed Jun 14 09:30:34 EDT 2006
Here is John's comment on the GM trolley buses in Edmonton. I think
they may all be gone by now.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "John F Bromley" <johnfbromley at rogers.com>
> Date: June 14, 2006 9:16:06 AM EDT
> To: "Fred Schneider" <fwschneider at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [PRCo] Re: Maintenance standard
>
> I know nothing about TBs although the contract to build Edmonton's
> "GM" TBs was won by one of the European electrical suppliers Brown
> Boveri who did not build bodies, and they contracted with GM for
> bodies.
>
> JFB
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Schneider"
> <fwschneider at comcast.net>
> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 8:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [PRCo] Re: Maintenance standard
>
>
>> And even GM sold trolley buses. . Or don't we know that. GM
>> Canada that is. Edmonton had them. Or at least, if GM didn't
>> make them, someone did them with GM Fishbowl bodies.
>>
>> Toronto was a curious one, wasn't it? It ran its own shop,
>> relatively free of political interference just as long as
>> revenues generated enough money to run the system. Then about
>> 1967 the city had to begin subsidizing losses for the first time
>> in something like 46 years, and then the politicians began
>> telling TTC how to run their shop. In the 1970s they bought new
>> trolley coaches and before they were even worn out, they were
>> scrapped. I would like to know the logic but John Bromley is no
>> longer part of this list. Perhaps a blind carbon will wake up
>> the sleeping Bromley.
>>
>> But the initial reason, as I recall (and if my memory doesn't play
>> tricks), was a Canadian federal government law supporting electric
>> transit vehicles that came into play in the early 1970s. It
>> resulted in the new vehicles for Toronto and Vancouver and
>> Edmonton and the hurried abandonments in Kitchener and Hamilton.
>> Maybe John can remember this.
>>
>> On Jun 13, 2006, at 9:39 PM, Ken & Tracie wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
More information about the Pittsburgh-railways
mailing list