[PRCo] Re: PRC PCC 1644

[Ken and Tracie]

Thanks for the clarification.

K.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Phillip Clark Campbell" <pcc_sr at yahoo.com>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 12:43 PM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: PRC PCC 1644


> This is a resend;  the previous email chopped the
> paragraphs considerably.  Hopefully this one is
> more easily read.  My apologies
> Phil
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message ----
> From: Holland James B.
> To: Phillip Clark Campbell
> Cc: Ken and Tracie
> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 11:32:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [PRCo] PRC PCC 1644
>
> Hi Phillip;
>
>
>
> The enclosed comment about 1644 is not really correct.       Car 1644
> received most if not all the interurban gear  -**-for service as an
> Interurban-**-  with 2-exceptions:
>
> 1. Roof Light
> 2. B3 trucks
> Car 1644 received the experimental Clark B2A trucks,  forerunner of the
> B2Bs under PRCo 1725--1799 and TTC 4500--4549.        The swing link in
> the truck to accommodate the bolster was replaced with a sprung
> member;  details of this construction are shown on pg.128 of PCC
> Fought Back.       In the upper right is the kingpin receptacle
> with the rubber sandwich springs;  in the photo of the assembled truck
> on the left,  look forward of the GE actuator, under the tube frame and
> behind the torque arm to see how this member fit into the truck.
> The cradle to accept the spring was welded to the tubular frame and is
> shown below the above two photos.       The
> torque armson the B2A for 1644
> were omitted as well.       On pg.127 under the heading of  "Derivatives
> of the B-2"  mention is made of outfitting 1644 with these trucks
> and the modifications to keep the axles parallel through strengthening
> the springs to eliminate or check the longitudinal movement.
> Whether or not this was considered  'successful'  is not mentioned;
> the production B2Bs kept both the torque arms common to B2 trucks and
> the sprung bolster.       The ride on the B2B was truly like floating
> on a cloud.       (I wish I could have experienced the B2B on the
> Interurban lines.       The ride on the prw on the 42-Dormont was a
> dream.)       Photos of 1644 as an interurban are scarce;  I haven't
> seen any actual photos of the B2A truck.       The standard B2 trucks
> were on 1644 as a city car after service as an interurban;
> one-of-a-kind items, whether a whole vehicle or parts, never do
> well.      A UOP photo taken from high in a building shows 1644 making
> the turn from Liberty to 5th;  the clamp on the cowl is quite evident
> so the car was assigned to Highland until closure or elsewhere in the
> east for a while before return to South Hills.       I believe a video
> clip of 1644 in the vicinity of the museum is included in the TGM video
> on PRCo Interurbans.
>
> According to Dave Hamley,  who sent me the dates for conversion of the
> 1601s to interurbans several years ago,  car 1644 was converted for
> Interurban service on 1947.05.02.       Then on 1949.05.19 the
> car was returned to City Service minus the interurban
> gear save one tiny part    ----    the clamp to hold the spare trolley
> pole on the forward part of the trolley cowl.       This remained on
> the car until it was sold to some private party and moved out of
> state.       If the car is still around that clamp may still be
> there!       Service as an interurban was barely over 2-years;  because
> the trucks were unique thus posing potential maintenance issues it
> is possible it sat in the yard more than it operated.
>
> Most 1601s converted for interurban service  'apparently'  did not
> receive roof lights until some time after the advent of the 1700-series
> Interurbans which were delivered with same in 1949  (1948 for
> 1700-herself to satisfy the picnickers~!!!)       So it is  'possible'
> that 1644 received a roof light prior to being returned to city service
> but it is not actually known at this point.       A listing of
> conversion dates is included after my signature;  most were converted
> in 1948.
>
> All of this has been detailed a multitude of times before onlist;  the
> URL for the UOP photo was distributed as well.
>
> Thanks for the information you sent about Portland;  sounds like a nice
> visit.       I was through Portland a couple years ago but didn't
> stop.      Are you still considering a move to Portland?
>
>
>
> Jim
>
> 1613     1945.12.xx
> 1614     1946.05.20
> 1615     1948.01.20
> 1616     1948.01.26
> 1617     1947.02.02
> 1618     1948.02.03
> 1619     1948.02.15
>
> 1644     1947.05.02;  CV City 1949.05.19
>
> 1645     1948.05.14
> 1646     1948.02.25
> 1647     1948.03.04
> 1648     1948.03.15
>
>
> Phillip Clark Campbell wrote:
>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message ----
>>
>>From: >Ken and Tracie <ktjosephson at embarqmail.com>
>>To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>>Sent: Friday, August
>>28, 2009 7:59:20 AM
>>Subject: [PRCo] PRC
>>PCC 1644
>>
>>>Fan trip photo.
>>>K.
>>
>>>P.S.-  Does anybody know why car 1644 received some interurban
>>conversion items? It retained its B-2 trucks. Jim Holland noted it
>>remained a "city" car, but had received some of the items PRCo
>>installed on 1613-1619 and 1645-1648.
>>
>>>-- URL : 
>>>http://lists.dementia.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/pitt16141646b.jpg
>
>
>
>
>