[PRCo] Re: SE DE

Sat May 17 11:34:55 EDT 2008

Ah, Fred, 
Russ Jackson told us a very valid reason for large cities to go to single end equipment, and Ed Tennyson has told us about the 1700 series interurban purchase.

Russ' stories about MUNI also says a lot about the Third Ave. Ry. route structure in Manhattan.

 John
> From: fwschneider at comcast.net> Subject: [PRCo] Re: SE DE> Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 00:13:59 -0400> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org> > The point I'm trying to make is that grade school teachers might ask > you when was the U. S. Civil War or what event started it (1861-1865, > or the firing on Fort Sumpter) but your college history professor is > going to asking you what were the root causes of the civil war? > Over what was it fought? (States rights or the right of all men and > women to be free?)> > That was the same type of argument I was addressing? It is easy to > see what Pittsburgh Railways did. That is an elementary school > question. They bought trolley cars. They bought double truck cars > mostly after 1905, and mostly single end cars after 1909. But I am > asking you to try to look at all the available information and try to > answer why. Look at it from the university perspective. Take this > beyond the usual I love trolleys issue into a business question. > I'm asking you to push the bar up a little.> > That was all I was doing.> > No, we cannot today go ask those people. They're not there. I > didn't have the sense to ask them when I could have. Young teen > agers don't have that kind of sense. So we are left with > circumstantial evidence. We can look at the route cards. We can > look at motor vehicle registrations. We can look at the car > roster. We can look at the one way street orders issued by the > Department of Public Streets. We can look at the streets. > Eventually we may just get enough information to make a judgement > that is rational.> > Why did Pittsburgh Railways "upgrade" the interurbans? It would be > hard to say that they even upgraded them. The 3700s and 3800s were > junk. It might be easier to say that they "renewed" the equipment > and they did so because Tom Fitzgerald falsely thought that there was > hope for the future. He was looking in the early 1940s at how much > business was there because of people moving to the suburbs and > confusing it with added business because of the war. So they put > new cars on the lines in 1949 and made a decision to abandon them > three years later because the business had disappeared. Was it a > bad decision? They were able to use the 1600s elsewhere. They > were also able to use the 1700s on Drake and Library. It was bad > but probably in light of the fact that they were able to salvage the > equipment and use it elsewhere and the fact that they got 22 years > out of the 1000s and 1100s, 24 years out of the 1200s, 22 years out > of the 1400s, and PAT got 22 years out of the 1500s and the design > life of a PCC was about 20 years, I guess the decision wasn't too bad > all in all. I was told in the early 1950s by Mr. Donohue in Public > Relations that they still wanted to buy more PCCs but the price was > simply beyond what they could afford. Buses by then were the only > logical choice. Ah, so up until 1953 or 1954 they still wanted to > replace the oldest cars with newer cars. Or at least they gave some > lip service to it.> > But PRC also got nearly 30 years out of the newest yellow cars.> > So they probably got 600,000 to 700,000 miles out of a typical early > PCC and closer to a million miles out of some of those low-floor cars.> > There were a lot worse decisions like buying PCCs in Minneapolis in > 1946, 1947 and 1949 and dumping them on Mexico City in 1953.> > On May 16, 2008, at 6:05 PM, Phillip Clark Campbell wrote:> > > To the Group:> >> >> > 'Specifics' I mention must be taken in context within that > > paragraph mustn't it. I inadvertently overlooked the 4400s but > > that is small potatoes - that specific wasn't needed in the overall > > assessment was it. I was speaking generally.> >> > As to Why SE Mr.Schneider? I don't know do I. You mention that > > car cards are very incomplete. PRC didn't keep records for > > historians nor railfans did they but rather for daily operations > > where necessary. One would probably have to deduce SE purchases > > from a myriad of documents to get this answer and that would be > > open to interpretation wouldn't it without a valid verifiable PRC > > statement saying: "We bought SE equipment because _______."> >> > Why did PRC upgrade the Interurbans with specially equipped PCCs? > > Not unlike Mr.Swindler's question as to why any property purchased > > PCCs post war.> >> > Still an interesting subject isn't it.> >> >> > Phil> >> >> >> > ----- Original Message ----> >> From: Edward H. Lybarger <trams2 at comcast.net>> >> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 4:46:04 PM> >> Subject: [PRCo] Re: SE DE> >>> >> And yet they said that very thing. We just don't yet know why.> >>> >> -----Original Message-----> >> From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org> >> [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org] On Behalf > >> Of Fred> >> Schneider> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 6:46 PM> >> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org> >> Subject: [PRCo] Re: SE DE> >>> >> Sure they're needed. Companies simply don't make decisions in a> >> vacuum. They don't say, "Hey, from now on we're going to buy > >> single- end> >> cars." They weigh all sorts of factors ... construction costs,> >> revenue gains and losses, real estate costs, political gains. It is> >> all part of the story of Pittsburgh Railways in the teens and > >> twenties and> >> until you know why, you don't understand the company.> >>> >>> >>> >> On May 14, 2008, at 4:10 PM, Phillip Clark Campbell wrote:> >>> >>> Specifics aren't needed are they -- 4400s DE were purchased as > >>> well> >>> - folder is stored again so don't have dates available - small > >>> number.> >>>> >>> Why? Why indeed! More efficient operation with sE?> >>>> >>>> >>> Phil> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> ----- Original Message ----> >>>> From: Fred Schneider> >>>> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org; Phillip Clark Campbell> >>>>> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:04:50 PM> >>>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: SE DE> >>>>> >>>> All except trippers went to Wilmerding.> >>>>> >>>> The 4700s were 1917 and delivered in 1918. You forgot the 4420s.> >>>>> >>>> But you are still not addressing why?> >>>>> >>>> On May 14, 2008, at 3:55 PM, Phillip Clark Campbell wrote:> >>>>> >>>>> Hi!> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Another way to look at this is dates of equipment purchases isn't> >>>>> it.> >>>>>> >>>>> 4000s & 4100s -- SE High Floor -- 1910--1911> >>>>>> >>>>> 4200--4399 -- DE low floor 1914--1917> >>>>>> >>>>> 4700s thru 5500s -- SE low floor -- 1916--1926> >>>>>> >>>>> Seems that SE was the vehicle of choice by 1920, even earlier.> >>>>>> >>>>> DE equipment was used as needed but loops / wyes were constructed> >>>>> on DE routes over time. As DE equipment aged and loops / > >>>>> wyes> >>>>> built the DE equipment was phased out.> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Phil> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----> >>>>>> From: Phillip Clark Campbell> >>>>>> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 12:17:36 PM> >>>>>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: SE DE> >>>>>>> >>>>>> To the List: In 1928 PRC made its last purchase of equipment> >>>>>> before the PCCs,> >>>>>> the 15 St.Louis SE Interurbans. Equipment purchases 'by PRC'> >>>>>> were 72% SE;> >>>>>> inherited equipment made up bulk of DE cars. It would seem that> >>>>>> PRC made up its mind well before 1929 since by 1925 they had> >>>>>> purchased predominantly SE cars.> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Did all 87-Ardmore trips go to Wilmerding or did some turn in > >>>>>> E.Pgh> >>>>>> on city street loops? Yes - given that DE routes existed, 62 one> >>>>>> of them along with 99, 12, (1,4,5 - not sure how/when these got> >>>>>> loops,) 29, 38A, Washington & Donora locals, etc.> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Phil> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----> >>>>>>> From: Fred Schneider> >>>>>>> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org> >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 5:47:48 PM> >>>>>>> Subject: [PRCo]> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> ----------------> >>>>>>> I think it just shows that by 1929 they had made the decision > >>>>>>> that> >>>>>>> single-end was better where it was possible to use them ... cost> >>>>>>> less to maintain and they seated about 13 more people in a 45'> >>>>>>> body.> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 
_________________________________________________________________
E-mail for the greater good. Join the i’m Initiative from Microsoft.
http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Join/Default.aspx?source=EML_WL_ GreaterGood