[PRCo] Re: Streetcars in D.C.

[Phillip Clark Campbell]

	* To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
	* Subject:  Re: Streetcars in D.C.
	* From: John Swindler <j_swindler at hotmail.com>
	* Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 15:16:29 -0400
________________________________
 
Intentional???  Doubtful
But how many transit managers spend their
holidays observing transit
observations overseas???
Why would decision makers know what options
were available for light rail overhead construction???
That's why they
hired consultants.

Cheers

John
________________________________

Mr.Swindler;


I don't know where one can draw the line between
'accident' and intention.

If the rest of your statement is true then Pat is in far
worse shape than I ever thought.  Transit agencies
often propose specifications, needs, etc. internally
don't they.  Pat probably inherited much PRC talent
that has such experience.  Yes, 'some' but not all
retired and certainly they passed their knowledge to
others.  Additionally, transit consultants are certainly
aware of world wide construction techniques aren't
they.  Or are they according to your comments above?
Certainly a case for being extra cautious hiring
consultants.  Who in his right mind would have
suggested such massive overhead support structures?

Your comments seem to make an even greater case
for intent to denigrate don't they.  As far as I am
concerned I wasn't sold on this idea until I considered
it for these emails.  I am still not sold on 'intent' but
it is more plausible than some of the arguments here.

Shame on Pat for being so oblivious to construction
techniques around them.  Shame on Pat for ignoring
the warnings of their own employees on this project.
Shame on Pat if they allowed good overhead people
to leave without training replacements.  Shame on
Pat for such negligence in hiring consultants.  Shame
on Pat for not listening to Mr.Tennyson and possibly
others, many others.  Pat doesn't just have a bad
reputation; rather, they have stripped themselves of
a reputation altogether.  It is an organization without
a soul.  

It 'is' part of Pats job to be aware of industry standards;
shame on Pat for such reckless negligence.  This
borders on inexcusable.


Phil



> ________________________________
> > From: robert simpson <bobs at pacbell.net>
> > To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> > Sent: Thu, April 8, 2010 4:10:52 PM
> > Subject: [PRCo] Re: Streetcars in D.C.
> 
> > Wonder if they were intended to be "ugly" -
> > or if it was really state-of-the-art for the era in
> > which they were originally built? 
> > They didn't have as efficient insulation at that time.
> 
> > Bob 
> > from Krazy Kalifornia
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:55:05 -0700
> From: pcc_sr at yahoo.com
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Streetcars in D.C.
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org; Charlesebrown at webtv.net;
ktjosephson at embarqmail.com; Milwaukee-electric at dementia.org;
rpmurphy at charter.net
> 
> Mr.Simpson;
> 
> As stated the 'ugliness' of the overhead as intentional is
> postulation; 'insider' confirmation would be needed as
> foundation for 'proving' such a charge wouldn't it. The
> history of Pats hostility toward trolleys is well documented
> from Mr.Dameron through the authority's balking at the
> rebuilding of the Overbrook line which seems quite
> successful now completed. This gives some credence
> to the postulation.
> 
> Insulation is hardly the problem; it is the massive towers
> used to hold up the overhead. Some have commented
> such towers are more in line with the mainline PRR RR
> and GG1 operation. Simple span or floating span
> overhead was in use by a very high percentage of
> light rail operations world wide when this unsightly
> Pgh overhead was constructed. This lends more
> credence to the postulation when much simpler
> overhead is available doesn't it.
> 
> Mr.Swindler mentions Pat was advised not to install
> such heavy overhead yet ignored the advice. Again,
> this adds more to the postulation that a company
> which abandoned trolleys before buses were available,
> which openly denigrated trolleys, which balked at
> light rail construction, which balked at rebuilding
> the Overbrook line did significantly over build the
> light rail infrastructure to continue the denigration.
> 
> I thought this original postulation was 'interesting;'
> after this simple review it gains a little more respect
> doesn't it. Maybe Mr.Tennyson has more inside
> information on the project. 'If' this was the intention
> of Pat it 'apparently' was not successful in
> canceling light rail construction elsewhere.
> 
> Constant writing on this topic over 30+years has
> worn itself out hasn't it. It is time to put this
> topic to rest.
> 
> 
> 
> Phil