[PRCo] Re: SE DE

[Fred Schneider]

Baltimore's fleet consisted almost entirely of the semi-convertibles  
and articulated trains built from open cars until they bought the 150  
single-end semi-convertibles in 1930.   Of course, Baltimore was one  
of those cities with very wide streets.

I'm not sure what cars Vera Cruz changed controls on that might have  
had HL.   They did converted a bunch of former Pacific Electric 100s  
that had General Electric PCM to the K controllers.   The 100s were  
those relatively short, double end cars with four-leave narrow doors  
on each end.   On PE they were last used on Echo Park Avenue in Los  
Angeles.   Before that they might have been used in Long Beach,  
Pasadena and Riverside but you would have to look at Ira Swett's  
tome's to find out.   I think they came from St. Louis in 1930.

Another city that was almost exclusively double end until about 1930  
was Brooklyn.   Then B&QT bought the 6100 series  front entrance,  
center exit, single-end motor cars from Brill circa 1931.   I think  
the controls were mixed Westinghouse VA and General Electric PCM like  
Baltimore's Peter Witts.   I am deliberately not calling the B&QT  
cars Peter Witts because I think they had turnstiles behind the  
motorman like their PCCs in 1936.

I'm not going to argue whether or not some of these cities had cars  
rebuilt for single end operation.

Montreal also had mostly double end cars but they did have some 1920s  
era single end cars.   Vancouver had a huge fleet of single-end motor  
cars.   All of the 600s, 800s, 900s and the 4 1000s in Ottawa were  
single-end, i.e. virtually everything in the fleet in anyone's  
memory.   Winnipeg also had a huge fleet of single-end cars.   So did  
Regina and Edmonton and Calgary.   Toronto had a huge number of  
single-end Witts, both full Witts and Half Witts.   And what made the  
economics different when you crossed the 49th parallel?   Nothing  
that I know of.   One can only surmise that there were membership  
organizations in Canada at which the maintenance and purchasing and  
operating people tipped glasses and talked to each other and they  
must have done so to the exclusion of people on this side of the  
border because the majority of their large cities used single end  
cars while ours (except for the two in Pennsylvania) used double-end  
cars.

I think that, in spite of all the reasons why we should use a certain  
type of car, that tipping glasses at parties, might have been a  
really significant reason.....



On May 18, 2008, at 9:54 AM, John Swindler wrote:

> 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
>