[PRCo] Re: SE DE

[Fred Schneider]

I'm talking about the Cemeteries end of the line.

On May 17, 2008, at 4:37 PM, John Swindler wrote:

>
> 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. T!
>  he> >> 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 hig!
>  hly obvious that PRC made quite a > > conscious decision to go SE  
> by t
> he 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
>