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

[Jim Holland]

Herb Brannon wrote:
.

> 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.

.
Not Really!       The 1601s were more closely related to the 1945 model 
All-Electric PCCs  --  the 1601s had extended range dynamics that faded 
at 0.75-mph,  just like the All-Electric 1700s,  and they were the  
Only  PRCo  Air-Cars to be delivered with Drum Brakes instead of wheel 
tread brake shoes.       It is possible that the acceleration package 
was a little different as well.
.
In all honesty what I hear is more personal preference than objective 
analysis    ----    UnderStood that each of us will have different 
preferences in operating vehicles.
.
I was waiting at SHJ for an outbound Interurban when one of the flat 
front Interurbans pulled out of the yard and behind the admin building;  
the operator beckoned us to board    ----    turns out He Liked These 
Cars and the in service car had already been notified which then pulled 
behind us at the back of the admin building when he came out of the 
tunnel for a direct transfer of passengers.       Problems you describe 
were not experienced in a complete round trip on the car.
.
I   DO   Understand the problem with the low voltage circuitry    
----    it is  'possible'  that  ({[pat]})  did a redesign for this 
which was inadequate    ----    this  Could  be corrected    ----    
whether or not it was is another matter!!!       But this certainly 
doesn't condemn the cars.       The cars were reasonably successful as 
they were not withdrawn from service and were used regularly.
.
.
.
1776-2        ex-1616
.
1777-2        ex-1615
.
1778-2        ex-1617
.
1779-2        ex-1647
.
1780-2        ex-1619
.
1781-2        ex-1646
.
.
.
1615        1777-2
.
1616        1776-2
.
1617        1778-2
.
1619        1780-2
.
1646        1781-2
.
1647        1779-2
.
.
.

> 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.

.
Have seen dogs trying to board  (PCC book makes such a comment)  but Not 
Cows!!       Good Chuckle for the New Year!!!
.
HERB:::   sent you an email the other day and it bounced!!!!!!!
.
.
.

> Ken & Tracie <ktjosephson at earthlink.net> wrote:
> I see both had pilots as 1700s.
>
> K.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken & Tracie"
> 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.
>
.
http://lists.dementia.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/pat1779.jpg
.
http://lists.dementia.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/pat1781.jpg