[PRCo] Re: PCC__Seats

Sun Mar 12 09:08:59 EST 2006

Jim:

Mohair would be bad for the same reason as carpet in subway cars.    
That is it requires excessive expense to keep it clean, and companies  
neither have the time nor the money.   The result is it isn't kept  
clean and it puts off passengers.

I had remember when BART cars were first carpeted and a Rohr  
representative at Transpo in Washington in 1975 told me that it would  
never be a problem in that environment.   Well, after I saw the cars  
in service I disagreed.   I also remembered a cartoon in Floor  
Covering Weekly when NYCTA experimentally carpeted several subway  
cars.   Their editor told me of getting on a car with carpet in New  
York and telling me it had been used as a urinal.   If you ever had a  
dog use your living room carpet, you understand the problem.

There are some things that simply don't work.   Carpet it subway cars  
is one of them.   Fabric seat cushions on streetcars serving coal  
mines and steel mills is something else that makes limited sense.    
If it had worked, PRC would not have replaced the mohair with leather.

fws

On Mar 11, 2006, at 10:19 PM, Holland Electric Rwy. Op. H.E.R.O. --  
Import SPTC 1.48 Models // James B. Holland wrote:

> Fred Schneider wrote:
> .
>
>> Howard White, who coeditor Headlights magazine with me, ...asked me
>> what percentage of management decisions were valid. He read  
>> a ...study
>> that showed that in a good, well managed company, about 58%  
>> percent of
>> the decisions were good decisions. To continue the thread, he pointed
>> out that in a poorly managed company, perhaps 52 or 53% of the
>> decisions were faulty....
>
> .
> A simple look at Polls reveals somewhat similar results.       Over
> <--_Many__Decades_-->  I had noticed that Poll results, regardless of
> type of poll, revealed that somewhere between 60% and 66% would be the
> high whether a pro or con result  (and Almost Always within those two
> figures)  which means that Half As Many had some other opinion.
> When I first started school, 70% was the minimum for a D-  --  i.e.,
> anything 69% or lower range was Failing.       Eventually that came  
> down
> to 66% for a D- and then down to 60% for a D-  --  donut know where it
> is today.       The only time I  "Remember"  that Poll figure stepping
> outside the 60% to 66% range is post 9.11  --  tragedy unites
> people.       Basically, using the school guidelines of my youth, it
> could be said that Society Is A Failure!
> .
> It's  A  Given  That  This  Is  An  ImPerfect  World.       Maybe
> "Perfect"  should be taken out of that statement to make it more
> meaningful  --  This  IS  A  Faulty  World!!
>
>> This brings me to the theme of the mohair seats on the Pittsburgh
>> PCCs.   Apparently that was a flawed decision or it would have been
>> continued on subsequent orders after the Tens or Eleven's.     
>> There is
>> a negative in the PTM library of a car cleaner with his hand held  
>> tank
>> vacuum cleaner sucking the dirt out of the seat fabric.    .......I'm
>> not surprised that the 1000s were split between leather and fabric
>> because there was no time to evaluate the fabric on 100 because the
>> order for the 1000s was placed before 100 was delivered.    I'm not
>> sure if the 1100s were split, but we know the 1200s were leather.
>> They knew by 1940 that steel mill dirt and mohair seat cushions did
>> not go well together.
>
>
> Not  True!       Below is a copy of an email from Noah's Ark-Ives  (so
> one may go back and check for accuracy of quote)  written by one  
> Edward
> Lybarger, Archivist at PTM.......
>
> .......Last Half Tens    ----    1050--1099
>
> .......First Half Eleven's    ----    1100--1149
>
> .......ALL  Twelve's    ----    1200--1299
>
> .......Had  Mohair  Seats:::::::
>
>
> The 11s were ordered as the 10s were being delivered so there  
> wasn't any
> time for a durability test and the practice was continued on the
> 11s.       We don't know if it was a conscious decision or an  
> encouraged
> one  --  mfgr. possibly gave PRCo an incentive to make the test.
> And it could have been done Purely As An Experiment  --  don't know  
> the
> results without a field test.       Regardless of type of fabric, it
> eventually needs replaced  --  which one lasts longest And is less
> costly In The Long Run would be the goal.       Could be that a Higher
> Initial Installation Cost is outrun by longevity of the material.
> I-F   it was an experiment, that's a decent if not good decision.
> And in the overall scheme of life, the decision of mohair / leather is
> way down the ladder of importance!
> .
> But why use Mohair on All the 1200s?
> .
> Personally,  I  Don't  want to Point Fingers at PRCo for a Bad  
> Decision
> on seat coverings  --  ALL  is assumption.       Was PRCo in  
> bankruptcy
> at this time?       If not, it was not far off  --  this contributed
> toward decisions as well.
>
>
> -- == -- ==-- == -- ==-- == -- ==-- == -- ==-- == -- ==
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -- == -- ==-- == -- ==-- == -- ==-- == -- ==-- == -- ==
>
> Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 12:22:21 -0400
> From: "Edward H. Lybarger" <twg at pulsenet.com>
> Subject: Miscellany
> Sender: owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Reply-to: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>
>
> Several weeks ago, there was discussion about seat coverings on the  
> PRCo
> 1100s.  I've found the seat assignment list, so to speak:
>
> Mohair:  1050-1099, 1100-1149, 1200-1299
> Leather:  1000-1049, 1150-1199, 1400-1499, 1500-1564, 1601-1699,  
> 1700-1799
> Woven plastic covering:  1600
>
> Leather prevailed, because it gave a "longer life and better
> appearance," and was "easier and cheaper to maintain."
>
> Also, the hub odometers on the 1000s and 1100s were removed after  
> about
> a year due to "high maintenance costs."
>
> -- == -- ==-- == -- ==-- == -- ==-- == -- ==-- == -- ==
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -- == -- ==-- == -- ==-- == -- ==-- == -- ==-- == -- ==
>
>
>> Wouldn't it be great if we could just go back 70 years and find  
>> out why?
>>
>> The seat cushion decision seems to be one of their bad choices just
>> like MU control. Did they buy nearly 300 MU cars that they never
>> ran in trains because they planned to or was the mentality of the
>> company focused on remote control systems because the early Jones
>> scheme was remote?
>>
>>
>>> Boris Cefer wrote:
>>> .
>>>
>>>> I think this photo shows the seats far better.
>>>> B
>>>
> http://lists.dementia.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/101carco1603-3.jpg
>
>
>
>>> Jim__Holland
>>>
>>>
>>> I__Like__Ike.......And__PCCs!!
>>>
>>> down with pantographs ---- UP___WITH___TROLLEYPOLES!!!!!!!
>>
>
>