[PRCo] Re: SE DE

[Richard Allman]

just occurred to me that several huge systems used predominantly double 
enders, costs and lost seating capacity aside:Boston-pre-PCC 100%-despite 
loops on most lines(and btw, also post-PCC), Chicago(many outer routes 
lacked loops), Brooklyn, Third Avenue, Baltimore, LARwys; San Francisco, 
Washington DC
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Swindler" <j_swindler at hotmail.com>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 9:54 AM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: SE DE


> But I grew up in Pgh late 50s and early 60s, Fred, so the gas stations 
> sprouting up in the loop terminals is a remembrance.  Things like 
> Birmingham and Vera Cruz converting HL cars to K controller and to single 
> end operation involved 'noted in passing' while reading magazines.
>
> Hard to think who else might have converted double end cars to single end 
> 'Peter Witt' operation other then Birmingham.  Didn't Baltimore have 
> mostly DE cars until the PCCs, but still had loops at most terminals?  And 
> most routes 'through-routed' to avoid downtown terminals.  And Mitten 
> management bought 1500 nearside cars around 1912, but a lot of routes were 
> on parallel streets.  And didnt' Red Arrow converted 69th St. terminal 
> from stub to loop at some point but kept the stub terminals at outer ends?
>
> You could almost claim that all large cities eventually went to single end 
> operation, and then note the exceptions.  And why would the large cities 
> do this but not the Lancasters?   As Russ, Herb and I have been claiming: 
> headways.  And this was a lesson lost on MUNI management by 1970s.
>
> That was the major consideration pushing this issue.  Just about 
> everything else was secondary.
>
> John
>
>
>> From: fwschneider at comcast.net> Subject: [PRCo] Re: SE DE> Date: Sat, 17 
>> May 2008 18:02:51 -0400> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org> > Not sure 
>> how many places converted DE to SE. Pittsburgh did. > Birmingham might 
>> have. I never paid much attention to what was > happening in Vera Cruz. 
>> You're right about management not > caring ... but they do care if it 
>> means you can cut cars out of a > schedule or if cars back up or if 
>> politicians complain because of the > problem. Come on John ... gas 
>> stations were not issues when we > made those changes ... Pittsburgh 
>> leased a lot of loops for gas > stations but that was late in the game 
>> and had nothing to do with the > earlier years. You will also recall how 
>> the city reacted to PRC > doing that ... "How dare you make money doing 
>> that!!!!!!!"> > On May 17, 2008, at 5:06 PM, John Swindler wrote:> > >> 
>>  >> > Switch points and frogs needed for stub terminals, but not needed > 
>>  > for a loop. Although it is nice to have a siding at a loop.>!
>  >> > Also, with a loop, if large enough, the center part can be leased > 
>  > for a gas station. Pirl St. comes to mind, but won't swear to it.> >> > 
> And management doesn't care if the motorman has to "lug" handles, > > 
> farebox and supplies to the other end. They do care if cars back > > up 
> because of scheduled headway and congestion at the terminal.> >> > Didnt' 
> Vera Cruz shop double end cars to convert to single end? > > Likewise 
> Birmingham?> > John> >> >> From: fwschneider at comcast.net> Subject: [PRCo] 
> Re: SE DE> Date: > >> Sat, 17 May 2008 15:03:05 -0400> To: pittsburgh- > 
>  >> railways at dementia.org> > A lot of reasons for single-end > >> 
> equipment:> > 1) you can put more people in more seats. Depending > >> on 
> how wide the > center doors are or whether or not there are > >> center 
> doors, a single- > end car will seat 9 to 23 more people > >> than a 
> double-end car. > Therefore you have more happy customers.> > >> > 2) 
> Happy customers produce more revenue.> > 3) Seats cost le!
> ss > >> than additional controls, wiring, air brake > piping and hand
>> >> brake rigging.> > 4) Turn around time at the ends of lines using > >> 
>> >> single end equipment > is shorter than that required for double- > >> 
>> >> end equipment. The > operator doesn't have to lug the handles, > >> 
>> >> money changer, his supplies > and the fare box to the other end of > 
>> >>  >> the car and flip all those > blankety-blank seats. You can go > >> 
>> >> through a loop, fill in the day > card, and be out in 30 seconds. > >> 
>> >> The double end car will require > several mi!> > nutes. So single end 
>> >> cars on a line might save a car or > two in > > the rush hour and 
>> >> that, in today's dollars is $2 million for > an > > articulated or 
>> >> about $1 million for a single car.> > 5) Traffic > > congestion favors 
>> >> single end equipment because you can > turn it on > > private 
>> >> property.> > Working against it and in favor of the double- > > end 
>> >> cars you already have:> > 1) loops, either on private property > > or 
>> >> around city streets cost > money. Special work is incredibly > > 
>> >> costly to fabricate. ("Spec!
> ial > work" is the term used for track > > frogs and switch points. It is 
>  > usually a manganese steel which is > > much harder and more durable than 
>  > ordinary carbon-steel.)> > 2) > > If you build the loop on private 
> property, the real estate costs > > > money. If there is already a house 
> there, it costs money to > > > demolish it, fill in the basement and level 
> the property.> > 3) If > > you have a large fleet of undepreciated and not 
> fully > amortized > > double-cars, you really don't want to write them off 
> and > buy ne!> > w single-end cars if you can you don't have to. You also 
>  > don't want> > to spend the money shopping those double-end cars to > 
> convert them > > into single-end cars if you don't have to because that > 
> costs > > money.> > 4) Stockholders don't like you spending their money on 
>  > > things you > don't need.> > 5) When I say double-end cars you > > 
> already have, remember that > everyone already had double-end cars. > > 
> That is the way the industry > start!
> ed.> > 6) You can also turn > > double-end cars on a spur onto private
> property > but once you have > > the land for a spur, you might as well 
> take > advantage of items i, > > 2, 3 and 4 in the first section.> > And 
> then there is the narrow > > versus wide streets issue.> > Finally there 
> is the status quo > > issue. Every business is filled > with people whose 
> mentality > > favors "we've always done it that way and > we should 
> continue to > > do so" regardless of whether or not it makes > any sense 
> at all.> > > > > On May 17, 2008, at 2:38 PM, Phillip Clark Campbell 
> wrote:> > > > > ----- Original Message ----> >> From: John Swindler > > 
> <j_swindler at hotmail.co!> > m>> >> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org> >> 
> Sent: Saturday, > > May 17, 2008 8:34:55 AM> >> Subject: [PRCo] Re: SE DE> 
>  >>> >>> >> > > 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.> 
>  >> > Mr.Swindler!> >> > > > ....And those stories are?> >> >> >> >> >> >> 
>  >> > _________________________________________________________________> > 
> Change the world with e-mail. Join the i'm Initiative from Microsoft.> > 
> http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Join/Default.aspx? > > 
> source=EML_WL_ChangeWorld> >> > >
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>