[PRCo] Re: Fw: Streetcars in D.C.
Phillip Clark Campbell
pcc_sr at yahoo.com
Sat Apr 17 11:39:04 EDT 2010
I forwarded this thread to Mr.Holland for his comments below.
What parallels his comments about each person possessing
a part of the whole picture reminds me that no one has mentioned
the trade journals / magazines, the incessant bombardment of
literature from manufacturers, the different meetings and/or
conventions within the industry. 'If' Pat is/was an island unto
itself without communication with other systems then their
situation is all the more 'weird' isn't it. One could also make the
observation that the railways in the 1920s were far better
informed and aware of different systems than those of the 1970s.
I do not accept that Pat was unaware of other systems both
nationally and internationally. What is more disturbing is the adamant
defense of this 'alleged isolation' onlist. This defense is far more
revealing of character while seriously undermining the credibility of
posts.
Phil
________________________________
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: "-> PRCo-- Holland James B. <-" <PRCoPCC at P-R-Co.com>
To: Phillip Clark Campbell
<pcc_sr at yahoo.com>
Sent: Thu, April 15, 2010 12:28:47 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Streetcars in D.C.
Hi Phillip;
My apologies for not replying sooner;
busy time of year with Uncle
Sam's Taxis!!
While PRCo was absorbed into ({[pat]}) 46-years ago from 'now,'
that is Not The Issue. It was only a
decade+ after ({[pat]})
formation that plans were started for the
lrv
system, once the
sky-gutterliner issue was dead. Certainly
within
15-years of
({[pat]}) formation the current Ugly Overhead was in
final design
if not complete and construction started. Its not
only
possible
but Probable that many PRCo employees were still at
({[pat.]})
While before the Inet even then people were highly
conscious of other systems.
Yes. Muni engineers do a
tremendous amount of specification
writing. I know some of these engineers
personally;
additionally,
I was part of the Overhead Lines Subcommittee as well as
the ETI
TrolleyCoach testing and acceptance program for many
years.
Engineers, budget people, Operations and Drivers,
Street supervisors,
Overhead Lines Crews among others attend these
meetings.
ETI
(who built our most recent Skoda TrolleyCoaches) were quite
confounded by Muni engineers, their testing program, and insistence
on
performance according to the specs they wrote. I don't doubt
consultants were employed for the ETI but they worked to meet Muni
demands. The battery propulsion system is one facet of these
coaches
where Muni staff wrote specifications for performance; they
were quite
demanding of results as well. Two vehicles
were tested for several
years before production models started
delivery; this long testing program
even frustrated Muni insiders.
Muni specifiedAC
motorsfor the artic Flyer
TrolleyCoaches; this definitely
from internal engineers.
Health
hazards
from brush dust in DC motors
is cited as a reason; don't know the
validity nor if there were other reasons
for the change. (The
Breda cars may be AC motors as well; I don't keep
current as this
is
not really of interest to me.) The ETI TrolleyCoach is
a
DC motor; don't know why the AC experiment was not
successful.
Many of these Flyer artics are now out of service
for
cracking of frames
near the artic joint; reportedly, one coach
broke
in two in revenue service.
Yes, as already mentioned and as you say, 'Consultants are
consulted.'
I am
sure such was the case for subway overhead; if consultants were
used
for surface overhead conversion to pan // TrolleyPole is unknown.
The only difference with surface overhead Now From Then is to
accommodate pans; otherwise, it is simple span of the same design
used
for simple TrolleyPole operation before. Super heavy
duty
supports Are
Not Needed And Are Not Used. ALL other overhead
construction is strictly
from Muni engineers; consultants are not
employed. We have a multitude
of TrolleyCoaches with complex
special work every 10-blocks or less.
All
this is designed in house; so is replacement. Major
rebuilding of the overhead
is often contracted out. However,
renewal of subway overhead from
West Portal to the Embarcadero and
back
was done completely In House;
this was a Major Undertaking.
Muni has regular contact with Seattle and Dayton
because of TrolleyCoaches,
Dayton in particular because of ETIs
there. I am surprized that John denies
({[pat]}) has
knowledge
of other systems, even international. I am constantly
amazed
by
knowledge Muni insiders have of other systems, items I thought only
railfans would know. That may not be the case with every system
but I find it
difficult to believe and comprehend that ({[pat]})
employees are unaware a world
of transit exists outside of
Pittsburgh.
Boston and Philadelphia are often
mentioned by staff but our time
doesn't allow for lengthy discussions of other systems;
current
Muni
issues are the focus. Muni staff were also aware of the plight
of
Edmonton. Many other cities are often cited for various
reasons and Muni staff
is able to make informed comments about these
systems as well.
Some blame consultants, some blame the Fed involvement, some blame
Muni,
others blame
Boeing for 'those' lrv problems. Seems to be the Feds who
stated
they designed the modern lrv and pushed this car as the standard
design
for the states; I personally place the bulk of the blame
with the Feds. It has
been some time since I studied this so I
don't
specifically remember Muni's
involvement; I am not now encouraged
to
go through Muni books for their take on
the problem. Please
notice my my comments here: the books are Their
Understanding of
the
situation -- the Feds, Boeing, and Consultants might say
otherwise. So it is with the email list; each individual has
AN understanding But
Not One has the complete picture ---- I
emphasize this ----
NOT---ONE---OF---US has the whole
picture. Please note the pronoun US is
Inclusive for Each
And Every One Of US.
I made comments onlist about the ugly ({[pat]}) overhead being
designed by intent to
denigrate light rail transit; your comments
seem
to add to that. As you say we cannot
prove this. I also
felt
that IF Overbrook was rebuilt that the rail lines would revert
to
the old PRCo routing or very close to it. I was highly criticized
on list for such
comments; it came to pass, however. Derrick
Brashear was bold enough to step
up to validate my comments onlist;
those who harshly criticized were silent.
This happened with
any number of items I posted.
May I ask a favor, Phillip? I went on vacation hold from the
Pgh-list in the summer of
2007. I may have made a few posts
after
this but I have remained on vacation-hold ever
since. I am not
overly interested in list writings; could you please not forward these
items?
While there are definitely other reasons for the
Vacation the main one is that the list seems
to have run its course
about PRCo interest. Off-topic items were the rule back then; it
can only be worse now. These don't interest me. [cut]
Hope this answers your questions.
Jim
Phillip Clark Campbell wrote:
>
>
________________________________
> 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
Phil
More information about the Pittsburgh-railways
mailing list