[PRCo] Re: Maintenance standard

Fri Jun 16 21:42:45 EDT 2006

The facts speak for themselves.  Unhappily West Penn did not record or
publish scrap dates.  Charlie Dengler compiled a bunch of alleged scrap
dates for the late '20s and '30s but I can establish that some of them
couldn't have happened.  Fred compiled the DIA reports data back in the late
1980s during his lunch hours and they tell interesting stories, most of
which conflict with the venerable railfan truths of yore.  He and I have
spent many hours learning how this company actually did things.

The car undergoing overhaul in the summer of 1952 story is ludicrous, but I
didn't know that 35 years ago.  The last cars painted were 832, 720 and 736,
as nearly as I can determine, and all were done pre-1949.  Keep in mind that
it was at the end of 1948 that they wrote the railways company down to scrap
value ($1 million) and traded its power company stock to the parent in
return for release of responsibility of paying off the bonds that matured in
1960.  From then on, only absolutely essential maintenance was done because
they had decided to get out of the trolley business, and did so as lines
became effectively operationally unprofitable.

-----Original Message-----
From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
[mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org]On Behalf Of Fred
Schneider
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:50 PM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Maintenance standard

Sorry about that but I don't believe what Ed wrote any more than he
believes it.

Rebuilding of the 800s is difficult to believe.   According to data
submitted by West Penn Railways to the Pennsylvania Department of
Internal Affairs, four of the 800s were scrapped in 1940, 6 more were
scrapped in 1951, 2 were off the books in 1952.   One of two retired
in 1952 was 832, which went to the Pittsburgh Electric Railway Club,
now the Pennsylvania Trolley Museum.    Car 833 had been stripped to
be rewired.   I have seen a picture of it in gray primer taken by Bob
Brown.   The job was never finished ... it was merely a shell with
windows, seats and all fittings removed ... not a body that was
completed on the last day of service.   Bob, himself, new that the
car was never finished.   He told me so.   He also liked to tell a
good tall story.   What was the other car scrapped in 1952?   I don't
know.

I'm going to be totally honest.  The DIA data does not show car
numbers.  It simply lists cars by type.   In this case the type is
one-man passenger cars with air brakes.   There were 13 on Dec. 31,
1948, 13 on Dec. 31, 1949, 8 in 1950, 2 in 1951 and 0 in 1952.   The
one car that is possible other than 831 - 842 is car 204 which, in
the fall of 1949 was renumbered 3rd 212, and was retired in February
1950.    So in 1948 we have 831-842 and 204.   In 1949 the same.  In
1950 what remains are 8 of the 800s and 204 is gone.   And in 1951 we
have 832 and possibly the skeleton of 833.   And in 1952 we have none.

On Jun 16, 2006, at 4:03 PM, Edward H. Lybarger wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>