[PRCo] Re: What Car is This????

Thu Feb 15 11:43:01 EST 2007

Concerning PCC cars, why do they all need to be operable???

Also, as Ed previously pointed out, PTM did not scrap a Shaker PCC car.

As as for the most recent snow storm, wasn't there a time when PAT/PRC would 
run cars through-out the night to keep lines open?  (probably question for 
Herb)

John

>From: Fred Schneider <fwschneider at comcast.net>
>Reply-To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>Subject: [PRCo] Re: What Car is This????
>Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:58:43 -0500
>
>I really hate to bring personal issues into this list, Ken.
>
>I was unaware that PTM scrapped a SHRT Pullman.   There is a SHRT
>Pullman at PTM, number 94.   My personal reaction to it, and I jab
>Dave Hamley all the time about it, is that it is crazy to keep it
>because it is a bucket of rust and an example of the GE propulsion
>system which is difficult to maintain.   Dave feels it belongs
>because it is the first Shaker car he ever rode.   And that, to my
>manner of thinking, is what is wrong with museums.   We allow
>personal prejudices to dictate what we preserve instead of
>evolutionary or mechanical or historical significance of the vehicle
>itself.   PTM at least has a more or less unwritten policy of keeping
>the junque and allowing the next generation to decide what is
>important.   Unfortunately, the next generation will not know what is
>important.   It takes a long and detailed study of the industry to
>determine what is important and few museums have the financial
>resources to underwrite such a study.
>
>The reason the sweeper is at Baltimore is because of Ed Amrhein,
>another hardcore workcar fanatic.   Ed is one of the few people who
>works every weekend.   He almost single-handedly holds the place
>together.   There were no work cars at BSM.   When Branford decided
>to deaccession the Baltimore crane, it came back to BSM through a
>three-way trade orchestrated by Ed.   And the sweeper is also his
>doing.  His e-mail address is "snowsweepered at ________________".   I
>won't totally give away his privacy.   He has felt for years that we
>need a sweeper and Fred has argued for just as long that if Baltimore
>has a snow deep enough to sweep, the visitors won't come anyway.
>
>PTM has two Philly PCCs and I disagree with that too.   One has been
>reconfigured as a handcapped accessible (parttially ADA compliant)
>car that we use for handicapped passengers and birthday parties.   It
>has fold-down tables in the front of the car and fold up seats that
>can make way for wheel chairs.   I've seen the car with as many as 10
>wheel-chair bound people in it.   The other car is still in red-white-
>blue SEPTA paint with a burnt-out traction motor.   It was one of the
>General Overhaul (GOH) or General Screw Up cars that SEPTA messed up
>in the 1980s.    It rests in the "blimp hanger" and you can see it if
>you pay for the storage barn tour at 1:30 each afternoon.   The best
>solution to any of those cars is to tear out all the wiring and redo
>according to original wiring blueprints and why bother.  How many
>PCCs does any museum need.   They really are not ideal museum cars.
>They consume too much power.   They need to be run constantly to work
>right.   They need a lot of technically savy people to repair them.
>It's a lot cheaper to run and easier to maintain a two-motor car like
>New Orleans 832 or Philadelphia 5326.
>
>Are we done inflict personal issues on the list?
>
>fws
>
>
>On Feb 14, 2007, at 7:24 PM, Ken & Tracie wrote:
>
> > Well, I'm a hardcore workcar fan, Fred. I realize some have to be
> > sacrificed
> > to restore passenger car bodies to operating status as the
> > passenger cars
> > generate revenue for museums and tourist operations. (Unless you
> > are part of
> > the IRM Electric Car Department. Then you say your favorite car has
> > a "leaky
> > roof" or a "finicky controller" to keep it hidden in the barn 364
> > days of
> > any given year.)
> >
> > The L-5 was constructed during WW II to haul coal from the
> > Milwaukee Road
> > interchange at Powerton to the Lakeside Power Plant in St. Francis.
> > It was
> > built with a wooden body and reportedly had grounding issues (it
> > would zap
> > crew members in the cab on damp days, which Milwaukee has more than
> > few each
> > year.) It was the first (and only) road locomotive to be retired at
> > the
> > WEPCO power plants which had electric rail service. It was retired
> > around
> > 1955 and sat around as parts source while the other seven steeple
> > cabs ran
> > into the late 1960s.
> >
> > The L-5 was snagged for preservation and basically sat around at
> > North Lake
> > and then East Troy. Paul Averdung dismantled it for parts during
> > the 1980s.
> > There were howls of protest. As rare as wooden steeplecabs are, one
> > has to
> > wonder if its restoration would have been worth it.
> >
> > CA&E car 321 was purchased for parts to restore a TM interurban car
> > at IRM.
> > A decision was made later on to restore the 321 and it toched off a
> > firestorm of protest. In retrospect, it was kinda funny.
> >
> > I see PTM has two Phiilly PCCs now. They scrapped a SHRT P-S PCC.
> > Do they
> > still have another one?
> >
> > K.
> >
> >
> > Ol Message -----
> > From: "Fred Schneider" <fwschneider at comcast.net>
> > To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 3:54 PM
> > Subject: [PRCo] Re: What Car is This????
> >
> >
> >> Ken:
> >>
> >> I should not vent my frustrations openly.   But I simply do not think
> >> the Baltimore Streetcar Museum is a place where Philadelphia PCCs
> >> (there are four or five of them there) and snow sweepers (two of
> >> them) belong.   It was originally created as a venue for Baltimore
> >> transit vehicles.   Even though I've been accused of being
> >> sympathetic to PCC cars after having written two books, I really
> >> cannot condone preserving every available PCC car on the planet.   I
> >> would much rather see them scrapped and the scarce resources spent
> >> instead on more rare streetcars or even old factory buildings or
> >> mansions or our national parks or perhaps even rare art.
> >>
> >> There, that ought to start a real ruckus.
> >>
> >> fws
> >>
> >> On Feb 14, 2007, at 6:29 PM, Ken & Tracie wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sheesh, is this what I started? :-)
> >>>
> >>> Okay, Titans, next time you're around Milwaukee fans, ask how they
> >>> feel
> >>> about the fate of the wooden steeple cab locomotive L-5.
> >>>
> >>> Or about CA&E passenger car 321.
> >>>
> >>> K.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Edward H. Lybarger" <trams2 at comcast.net>
> >>> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 2:30 PM
> >>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: What Car is This????
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Dis be da HOOK alright.  I'm glad it has a happy home.
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
> >>>> [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org]On Behalf Of
> >>>> Fred
> >>>> Schneider
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 4:39 PM
> >>>> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> >>>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: What Car is This????
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Is that where that piece of junk came from?   The car at BSM is the
> >>>> old car known as HOOK.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Laugh, share and connect with Windows Live Messenger 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline