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

[Herb Brannon]

This is wonderful...............finding all the 'lost' emails in the bulk mail folder. Now the posts to the list will make some sense!
   
  I did not care for the fake lrv rebuilds. After only a few months I know the turn signal add-on on the cream color car failed and was never repaired to my knowledge. As I have said many times before, give me a 1700 series (1949 1700's) any time. They ran better, as far as acceleration and braking. They had more passenger and operator ammenities, and, in my opinion, looked far superior to the 1600's. 
   
  Now, I am speaking of the square-front rebuilds. Also, two, possibly more, 1600's were rebuilt into 1700 numbered cars and had rear controls for use on an emergency operating system which never came to pass do to Amalgamated Transit Union objection to the system PATransit wanted to put into place. These type of rebuilds still operated like a 1600 inasmuch as most of the "rebuilding" was cosmetic in nature. Believe me, it all fell apart faster than the 'factory' circuits and systems. What took 30 years to come to the point of needing rebuilding took only a few years to come back to that point after the PAT circuits and systems were installed. This is not to fault PATransit because they did not do a good job. They did do a good job, however, the quality of the 'parts' in the 1970's was not the same quality seen in the 1940's. Also, note that the rebuilding of the 1700's (1949 models) in the 1980's made the cars last just a few more years.
   
  Perhaps if the rebuilding would have been handled differently, PCC's might still be operating in Pittsburgh. Then again, maybe not.
   
  At any rate, I was happier operating a 1700 series.
Jim Holland <prcopcc at p-r-co.com> wrote:
  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 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






Herb Brannon