[PRCo] Re: Maintenance standard

Wed Jun 14 10:49:13 EDT 2006

GM didn't sell trolley coaches.  They were a sub-contractor to Brown-Boveri.

  Bill Robb
Fred Schneider <fwschneider at comcast.net> wrote:
  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 
>> 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! 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 
>>>> 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 
>>>>>> 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" 

>>>>>>> To: 

>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 