[PRCo] Re: The "Light Rail ex-1600 1700s"
Jim Holland
prcopcc at p-r-co.com
Mon Jan 1 23:02:20 EST 2007
Herb Brannon wrote:
.
> 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 amenities, and, in my opinion, looked far
> superior to the 1600's.
.
I was always a fan of the 17s but the other vehicles have grown on me
considerably; the 1601s were my second choice and were peppy, powerful
cars!! As stated before your observations are personal
preference, which Is Fine, but this alone doesn't make the 1601s bad
vehicles.
.
.
.
> 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.
.
1779-2, 1781-2 and 1976 were flat front PCCs -- I don't remember
1780-2 being so converted off-hand.
.
Believe that 1779-2, 1780-2, and 1781-2 were All quasi
double-enders to get around blockages of a track but they were not as
successful as hoped. They were "Squared__Off" after being
involved in accidents and // or had the double end equipment removed in
the case of 1780 if it wasn't squared off!
.
I do not know the extent of the rebuilding of the 1601s ---- Nor
the 1700s for that matter which could and probably did have as much
cosmetic work as you claim on the 1601s ---- but Do Know that the
first one was 1616 into 1776-2 which was deemed successful. I
remember driving from Illinois overnight and would always check out the
interurban line before heading home to wake everyone up and was Very
Surprized to see a 1601-series interurban on the line heading toward
Simmons. Just barely got parked at SHJ and raced to board the car
to find that I had left my wallet on the seat of my car -- and it
stayed there until I had a Very Nice ride on the ex-1616.
.
Included are 3-photos of the above discussion:::
.
.......01--1780-2 Rear to show the Roof Light and pilot!!
.
.......02--1781 front to show the front pole.
.
.......03--1976, city car converted to flat front -- someone else may
recall the 1601 number or take the effort to look it up!!!!!
.
.
> 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.
.
The ex-Septic PCCs rebuilt by Morrison-Knudsen for San Francisco
seem to be doing quite well ---- they have been operating for a
decade or so. They were completely stripped down and rebuilt.
Others have observed that the ex-Newark, ex-TCRT PCC rebuilds for
San Fran by the people who built the Septic__PCC2s are barely cosmetic
because of restrictions apparently made by San Fran so these cars may
not last as long AND may be very similar to All the PCCs overhauled
by ({[pat]}) whether 17s or 16s.
.
.
.
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.
>
>> Jim Holland <prcopcc at p-r-co.com> wrote:
>
> .
> 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!!!!!!!
> .
> .
> .
>
>> ----- 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
-- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
-- Type: image/jpeg
-- Size: 261k (267349 bytes)
-- URL : http://lists.dementia.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/1780-rear-OB_SmithfieldCarson_1974_JBHolland.jpg
-- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
-- Type: image/jpeg
-- Size: 282k (289087 bytes)
-- URL : http://lists.dementia.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/1781-35-IB_SimmonsLFO_1974_JBHolland.jpg
-- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
-- Type: image/jpeg
-- Size: 97k (99767 bytes)
-- URL : http://lists.dementia.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/02-1976_49-OB_SHJ-People_19760704_JBHolland%20Inet.jpg
More information about the Pittsburgh-railways
mailing list