[PRCo] Re: Maintenance standard

[Edward H. Lybarger]

A word about this text...I wrote it in 1971 or so from information received
in conversations with Bob Brown.  But I have no idea just how factual it
was...I can't point to any hard evidence, especially about the streetcar.
Oiling the switches, I believe...to an extent.

Ed

-----Original Message-----
From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
[mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org]On Behalf Of
Holland Electric Rwy. Op. H.E.R.O. -- Import SPTC 1.48 Models // James
B. Holland
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 4:31 PM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Maintenance standard


"""West Penn never followed the pattern of so many other traction
companies, in that they did not permit deterioration of equipment and
facilities  [unlike PRCo!!!].       To the end, cars were carefully
maintained and track was cared for........       As examples, an 800
series car had received a complete overhaul which was finished only days
before abandonment    (IT___NEVER___GOT___TO___RUN___IN___SERVICE,
[emphasis added])    and even on the day after the  'last day'  crews
were carefully oiling curves and switches for the fantrip cars, just as
they had done so many times before."""       _West__Penn__Railways_
Pennsylvania Railway Museum Association, Inc.  (PRMA,  formerly  PERC
now  PTM!),  pg.18.
.
.
.
Fred Schneider wrote:
.

>Valid point.   Now, what I can't answer is what Cairo paid for those cars.
They might have gotten them for $1 more per car than the scrap dealer and
that isn't what justifies excessive maintenance.    Now had there been 20
companies bidding on the fleet, that would have been a different situation.
But in 1963 the market for use PCCs was Egypt or the scrap dealer and I
suspect Cairo knew that.   And the way that text was written in the book
might not be the way it was written today.   Hind sight always works better.
Today I might have left off the dependent clause, and simply said, "All but
seven .....were sold abroad between 1963 and 1965."
>
.

>James B. Holland wrote:
>
>
>>"""Because of the superb maintenance practices, all but seven of  the PCC
cars were sold abroad between 1963 and 1965."""       PCC Coast to Coast,
pg.120.       Probably worth more as operating cars than as scrap  --
probably would not have been sold if they had been run into the ground..
>>
.

>>Fred Schneider wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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
>>>>
>>>>
.

>>>>From: James B. Holland" <PRCoPCC at P-R-Co.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It seems the  Did--Better  reference from Boris is in equipment
andinfrastructure maintenance, not related to expansion //   survivability.
>>>>>
>>>>>
.
.
.
-- URL : http://lists.dementia.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/Wiring.jpg