[PRCo] Re: SE DE

[John Swindler]

Are you implying, Fred, that the Canal cars did not use the loop at the foot of Canal St. in 1958?
 
?
 
John   
> From: fwschneider at comcast.net> Subject: [PRCo] Re: SE DE> Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 16:11:17 -0400> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org> > New Orleans ran 45 second headways on Canal in 1958. Don't remember > extreme stacking. Of course they had two man crews. The conductor > was flipping the seats while the motorman was changing poles and > dashing to the other end with his handles.> > On May 17, 2008, at 3:09 PM, Phillip Clark Campbell wrote:> > > ----- 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> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 
_________________________________________________________________
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