[PRCo] Re: Streetcars in D.C.

[John Swindler]

Hi Phil

 

There are no Pittsburgh Railway people left at PAT.  That was 46 years ago.

 

There is a PTC person left at SEPTA - he started as a motorman in 1955 and spent his 16th training day on nearside cars.  He  said they were still used on routes 15 and 20 at the time, but I have my doubts about route 20.  

 

And transit consultants are no different then others in the transit industry - or any industry, I suspect.  Let's just say it's been an interesting year.

 

Cheers

John

 

 

 

 


 
> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:13:46 -0700
> From: pcc_sr at yahoo.com
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Streetcars in D.C.
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> 
> * 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1