[PRCo] Re: Bent Pole

Sun Mar 29 19:10:42 EDT 2009

The retrievers on the museum's Red Arrow cars prior to 1941 are quite flat.
By then, Earll may have been the only game in town(?), and 5/14/24 have the
same model as 1711 does.  Maybe OB built the flat model.  I'll have to look
one of these days after I get back in town on April 11.

-----Original Message-----
From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
[mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org] On Behalf Of Phillip
Clark Campbell
Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 6:14 PM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Bent Pole

> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Edward H. Lybarger <trams2 at comcast.net>
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 5:42:30 AM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Bent Pole
> 
> Interesting...I was not aware that the retrievers on 1700-1724 had 
> been replaced through the years.  But then again, I was not paying 
> attention to things like that in that era.  1711 at PTM is equipped 
> with a retriever, as are PST cars, and we teach the device separately 
> since it can endanger one's fingers if one is careless.
> 
> Ed
> 

Mr.Lybarger;

It is difficult enough to find photos of trolleys other than doors let alone
the back end isn't it.  Then it has to be the back of an interurban.  Good
Grief.

Here is one in the list files that shows the back of a 16-series Interurban
converted to double ender by Pat;  this is the standard catcher:
http://lists.dementia.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/1780-rear-OB_SmithfieldC
arson_1974_JBHolland.jpg

I shall try to attach a photo of 1702 in gray;  this shows the standard
'catcher,'
not a retriever.  Also attached - hopefully - is a photo of 1706 with a bent
pole that looks like a carbon copy of the pole in the photo supplied by
Mr.Josephson.

The 'retrievers' used on the PRC PCCs were made by Earll;  they are markedly
larger than streamlined 'catchers' used on PCCs also produced by Earll, Ohio
Brass, and a couple others.  Earll 'retrievers' were markedly round and
bulbous on the end appearing to use a uniform radius.  'Catchers' were
typically flat or modestly rounded on the end.

Both retrievers and catchers had a base so the machine could easily be
removed  -- lift the retaining pin, rotate the machine, then lift out;
these bases were sized for each and were not interchangeable.  On the
17-series interurbans it was easy to remove the retriever base to install
the same for a catcher;  the end below the rear windows was perfectly
vertical.  The back of the 16-series interurbans was an 11-some degree
slant;  the base was mounted on 3-pedestals to be vertical.  
When converted to catchers by PRC the catcher base was either bolted or
welded to the retriever base on the 16s.  Pat apparently mounted the base
directly to the car body upon rebuild.

During testing for Interurban service, 1613 and 1614 originally sported
OB-type retrievers mounted cirectly in the center below the windows:
http://www.davesrailpix.com/pitts/htm/bvp046.htm

Presumably when the other 16s were converted for interurban service, 1613
and 1614 then received Earlls mounted toward the right side.  1613 certainly
has an interesting history doesn't it.  Following the cutbacks of the
interurbans in 1953,  1613 had its B3 trucks removed and replaced with B2s
and the city catcher was installed 'above' the windows yet it retained the
air horn, pilot, and roof light for interurban service.  Under Pat the roof
light along with pilot were removed, the latter replaced with a lifeguard.
1613 received a new roof light upon overhaul;  I believe it retained the
lifeguard.

Even the Jones cars were occasionally outfitted with streamline catchers
used on PCCs:
http://www.davesrailpix.com/pitts/htm/wvp035.htm

http://www.davesrailpix.com/pitts/htm/wvp046.htm

Phil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
> [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org] On Behalf Of 
> Phillip Clark Campbell
> Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 6:38 PM
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Bent Pole
> 
> 
> > ----- Original Message ----
> 
> > From: BobDietrich
> > To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> > Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 3:32:37 PM
> > Subject: [PRCo] Re: Bent Pole
> > 
> > Here is a dumb guess!  The spring tension on trolley poles often 
> > causes the poles to bow.  Could it be that this is simply bowing of 
> > the pole, it would bow more in the center than toward the ends.  Or 
> > could it be weakened there from so much bowing and appears to be 
> > starting
> to bend?
> > 
> > OR could the retriever yanked it down so hard a couple of times that 
> > it
> bent?
> > 
> 
> 
> Mr.Dietrich;
> 
> This is not a dumb guess is it;  this is information I intended to 
> include before.
> The tension of the springs and the resistance of the overhead causes a 
> natural 'bow' in the pole which amplifies with time.  Simply for the 
> sake of discussion let's call it a 'convex bow.'  Your description is very
good.
> 
> Let's use deductive reasoning to apply the above to backing maneuvers.  
> The pole wants to stand on end but the overhead resists;  this could 
> force a kink in the pole like 1702 supplied by Mr. Josephson:
> http://lists.dementia.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/pat1702.jpg
> The pole may not dewire in such cases.
> 
> We associate backing with the 42-Dormont.  Most every yard had much 
> backing maneuvers didn't they.  In South Hills after the rush hour the 
> cars pulled onto tracks 3-6 facing south;  shopmen wyed them south of 
> the buildings, brought them to the ladder track, then backed them onto 
> tracks 1-6 facing north.  In the summer overhead is soft allowing the 
> pole to rise more against the overhead in backing maneuvers increasing 
> the risk of kinking the poles.  This would be quite prevalent on 
> tangent wire at spans;  PRC contact wire is light.
> 
> In addition to South Hills, Craft was primarily backup maneuvers to 
> spot cars properly; so was Keating as was Glenwood and Ingram.
> 
> In the photo supplied by Mr.Josephson, 1702 has a trolley 'catcher,'  
> not a 'retriever.'
> We tend to use these terms interchangeably don't we but they are 
> distinctly different machines.  A 'catcher' has a spring simply to 
> keep the rope taut; a crescent lever on the back of the rope spindle 
> is activated by centrifugal force to engage teeth around the perimeter 
> which stops the rope from moving out and stops the upward movement of 
> the pole.  A 'retriever' has all this but also has an additional 
> spring to pull the pole down which is activated when the crescent 
> lever deploys.  The PRC interurbans, both conventional and PCC cars, used
'retrievers;'  city cars used 'catchers.'
> 1716 was the first to lose its 'retriever' in 1958;  as 'retrievers' 
> failed they were replaced with 'catchers.'  1721 is the last car to 
> use a 'retriever' into the latter 1960s.
> 
> A sudden and instantaneous stopping of the upward movement of the pole 
> could cause the pole to develop a 'convex kink' ala 1702 equipped with 
> a 'catcher.'  Even more damage to the pole, and car, is possible if a 
> retriever pulls the pole to the roof; this is not common, but possible.
> 
> >> ----- Original Message ----
> >> From: Bill Robb
> >> 
> >> Trolley poles get bent when cars dewire at high speed and the pole 
> >> strikes any bracket arms in the poles path before the car comes to 
> >> a
> stop.
> 
> Relative to the photo of 1702, bracket arms do not exist but the pole 
> would strike span wires on dewirement.  Let's use deductive reasoning 
> again.  The pole dewires, moves upward  (remember, while tubular, the 
> pole - the whole pole - is a mass in motion,)  and strikes a span.  
> The part of the pole between the span and the wheel - mass in motion - 
> continues an upward movement with a potential 'concave kink' as a 
> result.  The the 'most likely kink' as a result of dewirement, failed 
> catcher or one without time to activate, then striking a span is in the
opposite direction of that on 1702.
> 
> >> I remember seeing a picture (perhaps in Trains) of a Niagara St. 
> >> Catharines and Toronto interurban that dewired and bent the pole 
> >> out of
> shape.
> >> Bill
> 
> Pg.375 of Interurban Era by William Middleton in the chapter entitled:
> 'Wrecks and other mishaps.'  The photo is by Middleton himself.  On 
> pg.342 is another photo of the very same car, 620, by Middleton;  
> 'presumably' both pictures were taken on the same day as Middleton 
> chased the car with his auto.
> 
> There were extenuating circumstances to this dewirement weren't there:
> In the photo on pg.342 please note the distinctly bowed/arced trolley
rope.
> It is revealed that a high cross wind was present when the pole 
> dewired, this from the photo caption pg.375.
> 
> We need to do a little more deductive reasoning don't we.  Trolleycars 
> are 'generally'
> 11' to 14' high;  contact wire is 18' to 20' above the rail.  That 
> leaves a 4' to 9' gap between trolley base and contact wire.  How much 
> further does a dewired pole travel before the 'retriever' activates?  
> A couple feet which leaves a gap of 6' to 11'.  The 'retriever' is 
> designed to prevent pulling the pole to the roof.  It would seem that the
maximum retrieval would be 6'
> or less;  remember that this is a wound spring which unwinds and loses 
> strength in the process.
> 
> Now let's apply this to 620 - bowed trolley rope, strong crosswind.  
> Pole dewires; it must move considerably before straightening the bowed 
> rope or before causing enough centrifugal force at the 'retriever' for
activation.
> This means much more rope needs to be retrieved to pull the pole clear 
> of the overhead and the pole probably hit the bracket arms before this 
> happened;  after all the car was moving quite fast.
> 
> There are limitations to 'retrievers.'  The pneumatic 'retrievers' on 
> Pacific Electric brought the pole down to the roof but they had to 
> rise to a pre determined level first;  if there are many cross spans 
> then the rise is canceled and the pole can be damaged.  Not every
dewirement causes damage.
> 
> Here is a 'bent pole:'
> http://lists.dementia.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/1776_36-SHJ_BentTP
> _197xx
> xxx.jpg
> 
> Dewirements on PRC were unusual;  don't know about Pat.
> 
> Kinks in poles similar to 1702 most likely due to time, weakness, 
> backing maneuvers and stress on pole from overhead resistance when 
> backing.  A simple dewirement where the catcher activates and suddenly 
> stops the pole movement is another 'possibility.'
> 
> 
> Phil
> 
> 
> 
> >> > ----- Original Message ----
> >> > From: Ken and Tracie
> >> > To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:18:38 PM
> >> > Subject: [PRCo] Bent Pole
> >> > 
> >> > I have a couple dozen shots of Pittsburgh cars with bent poles.
> >> > Here's a shot of car 1702 with one. I wonder what happened?
> >> > Not likely to for an interurban using the Dormont wye.
> >> > Perhaps back-poling in the shop or yards?
> >> > K.

-- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
-- Type: image/jpeg
-- Size: 89k (91894 bytes)
-- URL :
http://lists.dementia.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/1702_Catcher.jpg

-- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
-- Type: image/jpeg
-- Size: 374k (383953 bytes)
-- URL :
http://lists.dementia.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/1706_BentPole.jpg