[PRCo] Re: Streetcars in D.C.

Tue Apr 13 19:04:29 EDT 2010

He said that they were still used on only two routes at time he was hired. I met him in a rail safety meeting.  Got some very strange looks from others when I asked if he ever operated 'nearsides'.  (I couldn't resist, and suspected other SEPTA employees would not know what he and I were talking about)  But that gets into other stories.

Cheers

John

> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Streetcars in D.C.
> From: fwschneider at comcast.net
> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 23:04:52 -0400
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> 
> They were used on route 20 then. Probably also on routes 7, 9, and 54 but we do not know what day he was hired. 
> 
> 
> On Apr 12, 2010, at 10:57 PM, John Swindler wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> 
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old 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_3