[PRCo] Re: PCC__Seats

[Edward H. Lybarger]

PRCo entered the second bankruptcy May 10, 1938.

-----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: Saturday, March 11, 2006 10:20 PM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: [PRCo] Re: PCC__Seats


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!!!!!!!
>