[PRCo] Re: The "Light Rail ex-1600 1700s"

[Edward H. Lybarger]

I don't recall...maybe it was the MG set.

-----Original Message-----
From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
[mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org]On Behalf Of Boris
Cefer
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 12:05 PM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: [PRCo] Re: The "Light Rail ex-1600 1700s"


What was burning? Wires or brake lining?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward H. Lybarger" <trams2 at comcast.net>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 6:03 PM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: The "Light Rail ex-1600 1700s"


> I recall that we had this car on a charter once.  I have photos of smoke
> emanating from an undercar location out at Arlington.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
> [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org]On Behalf Of Herb
> Brannon
> Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 11:24 AM
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: The "Light Rail ex-1600 1700s"
>
>
> Both were awful to operate. The PAT installed turn signals were always
going
> dead as were the interior lights. The first time I got to operate one was
> the cream/red trim one. I relieved an operator at SHJct, inbound, on
42/38.
> By the time I got to 7th/Grant the turn signals were blinking slowly, the
> interior lights were getting dim, and the radio had stopped transmitting
and
> receiving. I barely made it through the tunnel before the car would no
> longer run. So much for my excitement over operating one of the 'new'
PCC's.
> These were common and recurring problems with the cars. Most of the work
> done on them was only cosmetic. The old wiring and controls actually
needed
> replaced with updated versions. After all, they were still 1945
> air-electrics built to the 1936 design.
>
>   The cars were very troublesome and were clumsy to operate. The
squared-off
> front end changed the clearance on curves and when turning corners. The
> auxillary electric circuits were always going dead, too.  Also, I always
> joked that the cowcatcher (pilot) should be placed under the front door
> steps. Then the cows could just walk on board.
> Ken & Tracie <ktjosephson at earthlink.net> wrote:
>   I see both had pilots as 1700s.
>
> K.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken & Tracie"
> To:
>
> Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 11:33 PM
> Subject: [PRCo] The "Light Rail ex-1600 1700s"
>
>
> > Some slides I bought from Mr. Bromley. Was 1779 one of the interurban
> > 1600s,
> > or was the pilot installed when the front end was replaced?
> > K.
> >
> >
> > -- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
> > -- Type: image/jpeg
> > -- Size: 66k (68072 bytes)
> > -- URL : http://lists.dementia.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/pat1779.jpg
> >
> >
> > -- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
> > -- Type: image/jpeg
> > -- Size: 55k (56414 bytes)
> > -- URL : http://lists.dementia.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/pat1781.jpg
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Herb Brannon
>
>
>
>
>
>