[PRCo] Re: SE DE

[Phillip Clark Campbell]

----- Original Message ----
> From: Herb Brannon <hrbran at sbcglobal.net>
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 6:07:52 AM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: SE DE
> 
> Congestion on city streets was increasing as were the headways of all streetcar 
> routes in the early 20th Century. A streetcar line, operating with double-end 
> cars and a "tight" (meaning frequency on the line of five minutes or less 
> between vehicles) headway, encountered a problem at the end of the line. The 
> double-end car required trolley poles to be changed, seats to be reversed and 
> operator controls to be moved to the new head end of the car. On a line with a 
> three minute headway cars would be stacked up waiting to reverse and head back 
> the new direction. Most of the time these cars were stacked up in the middle of 
> a busy street. With the turnaround loop there was a smooth and continuous flow 
> of streetcars and blocking of streets was kept to the minimum. A single-end car 
> was also easier to justify the change from a two man to one man crew on routes 
> carrying heavy passenger loads. 

Mr.Brannon;


This is a great contribution to settling the 'why' question isn't it.  Even those with model trolleys tire of changing poles very fast and most DE equipment is operated as SE.  The labor angle you introduce is highly significant isn't it as this substantially contributes to costs.  It is highly obvious that PRC made quite a conscious decision to go SE by the teens with multiples of orders for low-floors.  PRC obviously had too much experience with this changing as well as double maintenance on controls.  I remember something in the archives that PRC wanted a loop on 42-Dormont didn't they but space available dictated a wye and this was early on.  DE equipment was utilized while available but was phased out 'about' 15-years after the first SE low floor orders weren't they.  The Great Depression helped with that weeding as well didn't it.


Phil