[PRCo] Re: Streetcars in D.C.

Tue Apr 13 19:09:37 EDT 2010

No disagreement with your last paragraph, Phil.  But suspect it wasn't intentional.  Difficult to determine at this point in time.

J

> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:56:22 -0700
> From: pcc_sr at yahoo.com
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Streetcars in D.C.
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> > From: John Swindler <j_swindler at hotmail.com>
> > To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> > Sent: Mon, April 12, 2010 7:57:21 PM
> > Subject: [PRCo] Re: Streetcars in D.C.
> 
> > Hi Phil
> 
> > There are no Pittsburgh Railway people left at PAT. 
> > That was 46 years ago.
> 
> > 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
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Mr.Swindler;
> 
> The U.S.A. is part of the world; San Francisco and
> Boston converted from conventional trolley systems
> as San Diego operated the first new rail system.
> Toronto in Canada was also converting to 'light rail.'
> There were plenty of examples here on our soil
> of systems which used simple overhead construction.
> 
> There seems to be much false information in emails
> here. Write to Mr.Holland in San Francisco; specifications
> for everything from overhead to track to new equipment,
> both rail and rubber tire, come from within. Yes; consultants
> are 'consulted' but they are not the final authority.
> 
> I stand on what I have written; the overhead system in Pgh.
> 'is' a travesty that could have been avoided. Shame on Pat
> and the consultants for such an abysmal system.
> 
> 
> Phil
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> > * 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
> > ________________________________
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> > 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 is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2