[PRCo] Re: PRCo

[prcopcc at p-r-co.com]

We had this disgustion before --- I provided you with info from a Clark 
drawing and you found that a 17 could  *- Easily -*  stop and hold on Any 
Fineview hill with Much Room for a load as well. 

 

> Boris Cefer writes:

> They should be able to hold an empty 17xx even on Fineview when adjusted 
> properly. But with more than 20 passengers onboard it migt be a problem!
> The interurban 17s had different shaft brakes than the city 17s. 
> 
> B 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Fred Schneider" <fwschneider at comcast.net>
> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 9:03 PM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: PRCo 
> 
> 
>> There was, by the way, a study written by Transit Research
>> Corporation in 1940 that compared the St. Louis 1500s with spring
>> applied shaft or drum brakes with the air cars and the conclusion was
>> that spring brakes would not work on all of Pittsburgh's grades.
>> They did seem to work satisfactorily on most lines, however.   I can
>> assure you that they did not work well on Fineview because I arranged
>> to take 1707 up there in 1958 and the shaft brakes were inadequate to
>> hold it.   PRC normally rate 1600 air cars on it with boosted air
>> pressure.   PAT apparently had some dissatisfaction with 1700s on Old
>> Washington Road (Arlington Avenue) on the tunnel bypass although we
>> know they ran there all the time and that grade was not as steep as
>> roue 8 that had 1700s all the time.
.
.
.
Jim__Holland
.
I....Like....IKE__---__And....PCCs!
.
down...with...pantographs.......
.
UP___WITH___TROLLEYPOLES!!!