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

Thu Feb 15 16:45:48 EST 2007

I remember talking about "Ice Cars" several years ago on this list. Usually the cars running the 'owl' schedule were enough to keep the 42/38 and 35 open. The 36-Drake and 49-Warrington, however, had no all night service as was the case with the 38A tracks from Clearview Loop to Castle Shannon. I always liked the "Ice Car" duty. You took a non-revenue car (I always took a 1700-series interurban type) and left SHJct via the 42/38. At Clearview Loop you called 'Traffic' and got clearance to go down the 38A.Then, down to Castle Shannon and out to Washington Jct and onto the 36 line. Then to Drake Loop and back to Washington Jct. Then, some fun. Just before Castle Shannon you got permission from 'Traffic' then went over on the outbound track at the crossover and up the 38A tracks again to Clearview. Then back to SHJct. Sometimes, for some unknown reason, they would include Neeld Avenue Loop in the program. Then you got a trip around Neeld Loop. You had to go slowly around Neeld
 Loop. It was very tight and cars liked to jump the track in it. Usually, when a car went into Neeld Loop it brought out several of the people living beside the loop to watch. I guess the cars were so infrequent it was cause to come out and see what was happening. If the ice problem were persistant, you started at the beginning and did it all again. 
One time when I got to the 36-Drake from Washington Jct I could only go five or six feet forward, then had to reverse and keep repeating this for about a half mile. After that the ice on the wire was not as bad and the one pass cut it off. That was on a Sunday and I had the first revenue Drake car behind me. It did not have an ice cutter on its trolley pole so it was necessary to 'lead' the revenue car all way out to Drake Loop.

I never knew of them putting 'ice cars' on the 49. I guess the track was clear from the City of Pittsburgh salt trucks. Ice cutters could be applied to the car working 49 if there was a persistant ice problem. Ice Car Duty -- one of the many PCC-things we will never get to do again.
Herb Brannon

----- Original Message ----
From: John Swindler <j_swindler at hotmail.com>
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:43:01 AM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: What Car is This????

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