[PRCo] Re: SLPS/SHRT/PTC/MUNI PCC Question

richard allman allmanr at verizon.net
Sat Nov 20 11:23:37 EST 2010 

Fred-I may have seen a LESS controversial statement than :"The 1936 PCC was 
a lot more stylish than a Barber car, wasn't it!"
I am just not sure when!!!!

----- Original Message ----- 
 From: "Fred Schneider" <fwschneider at comcast.net>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2010 10:33 AM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: SLPS/SHRT/PTC/MUNI PCC Question


> Ah so ... the argument that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.   The 
> 1936 PCC was a lot more stylish than a Barber car, wasn't it!   But the 
> manufacturer of the Barber car touted his product as being very practical. 
> After accident, anyone who could build a chicken coop could repair that 
> vehicle.
>
>
> On Nov 20, 2010, at 10:07 AM, richard allman wrote:
>
>> my preference had less to do w/ presence or absence of standee windows 
>> than
>> the graceful shape of the pre-war cars-and the wartime cars, as opposed 
>> to
>> the somewhat more sculptured lines of the post-war cars-not that I like 
>> one
>> and despise the other, just a mere preference, though I have modeled more 
>> of
>> the post-war stuff, more due to availability than anything else!
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Fred Schneider" <fwschneider at comcast.net>
>> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>; "richard allman"
>> <allmanr at verizon.net>
>> Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2010 8:57 AM
>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: SLPS/SHRT/PTC/MUNI PCC Question
>>
>>
>>> And you were not the only one who didn't like standee windows.
>>>
>>> Remember Powell Groaner's statement, "I will not have those little
>>> apertures in my cars."   And so the Kansas City cars came without 
>>> standee
>>> windows.   So did the Red Arrow 11-24 series bodies which didn't qualify
>>> as PCCs because of the trucks.  Illinois Terminal also didn't go with 
>>> the
>>> flow.   Dallas didn't either but their cars were probably designed much
>>> earlier.
>>>
>>> If we had continued to buy equipment like Germany did and if TRC had
>>> remained viable, can you imagine what a PCC would be like today?
>>> Probably a low-floor car, air-conditioned, huge windows, ugly looking as
>>> sin, with AC motors.   Probably not much different than what you see out
>>> there anyway but it would have been standardized instead of every 
>>> property
>>> having its own reward for consultants.  That might knock a few hundred
>>> thousand dollars off each car.
>>>
>>> Of course we would still have the French Canadians arguing that they 
>>> have
>>> the right to support Bombardier even if it does violate Canadian federal
>>> law.
>>>
>>> Oh well.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 20, 2010, at 1:06 AM, richard allman wrote:
>>>
>>>> oops, you're right, but I stand by my preference for the air car body!
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>> From: "Fred Schneider" <fwschneider at comcast.net>
>>>> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
>>>> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 11:16 PM
>>>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: SLPS/SHRT/PTC/MUNI PCC Question
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> No.   The St. Louis 1600s were not air cars.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ever single car in St. Louis was an all-electric.   The 1500s were the
>>>>> first all-electrics built but they had a pre-war body.
>>>>>
>>>>> Go back and read the PCC books again, Rich.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill Rossell moved from Brooklyn to St. Louis after B&QT was sold to 
>>>>> the
>>>>> city in 1940.   Apparently because of B&QT's involvement with the PCC
>>>>> between 1929 and 1935, and Bill's intimacy with it as management in
>>>>> Brooklyn, he wanted to continually improve the car.   In essence the
>>>>> test
>>>>> bed for improvements moved from Brooklyn to St. Louis in 1940 along 
>>>>> with
>>>>> Bill.
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember the first standee window car was in Brooklyn in 1935.  The 
>>>>> next
>>>>> one was in St. Louis in 1941.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those car full lights over the headlights ... remember them from
>>>>> Brooklyn?
>>>>> They turned up next in St. Louis because Bill went there.
>>>>>
>>>>> And the major change was the all-electric design in 1940 with the 
>>>>> 1500s,
>>>>> 1600s and 1700s.   There is a TRC bulletin comparing the St. Louis 
>>>>> 1500s
>>>>> with the Pittsburgh 1200s built at the same time which concluded that
>>>>> you
>>>>> couldn't run one of those St. Louis drum brake cars on Pittsburgh's
>>>>> hills.
>>>>> I think I moved that book along with all my other PCC archives to the
>>>>> PTM
>>>>> library.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 19, 2010, at 11:03 PM, richard allman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Very plausible explanation, Fred!
>>>>>> ok-time to stir the pot a bit-I've a tough couple weeks!
>>>>>> I have always liked the St. Louis cars, (though have only ridden them
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> San
>>>>>> Francisco and Shaker Heights) because they were very graceful in 
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> lines. I have a general preference for air cars because of their
>>>>>> appearance-somewhat more pleasing to me than the all-electrics-which 
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> just a wee tad less. Yeah, yeah, the SLPS 1600's were air cars, but 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> 1700's had the basic air car body w/ standee windows and both series
>>>>>> were
>>>>>> wider(9'). Some ancient sage   said :
>>>>>> De gustibus non disputandum est - which means taste cannot be 
>>>>>> disputed.
>>>>>> One
>>>>>> more time-I really like the air cars! Let the battle begin!!!!
>>>>>> RICH
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>>>> From: "Fred Schneider" <fwschneider at comcast.net>
>>>>>> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 8:03 PM
>>>>>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: SLPS/SHRT/PTC/MUNI PCC Question
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because the 1500s were largely assigned to the Broadway line at the
>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>> and it was the first PCC line to go bus.    In 1940, before the 
>>>>>>> second
>>>>>>> order of PCCs, Delmar was being serviced with motor cars (about the
>>>>>>> age
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the Pittsburgh 4100s) pulling trailers.   The city may have still 
>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>> Birneys ...  I have pictures of them in the 1930s.
>>>>>>> By the late 1940s there were still Peter Witts on some routes, some
>>>>>>> incredibly ancient stuff still running and the 1600s were running on
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> county lines out to Kirkwood which were much more picturesque than
>>>>>>> following 1500s up and down Broadway through industrial districts.
>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>> would be a question like ... would you rather photograph cars in
>>>>>>> Pittsburgh on Butler Street or running to Washington PA or in the
>>>>>>> middle
>>>>>>> of Ardmore Blvd.   You know what is going to win.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have pictures of the 1500s.   Steve Maguire had one good negative
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> printed years ago but I don't know if he took it ... just found it 
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>> sand box and rewashed it.   He traded a lot and you never really 
>>>>>>> knew
>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>> was his and what came from others.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bill Janssen had a quite a number of the 1500s ... he grew up in
>>>>>>> Peoria
>>>>>>> and I think he still had a sister (a nun for that matter) who lived 
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> that area ... which gave him a reason to go back.   Today his
>>>>>>> collection
>>>>>>> is at the East Troy museum.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Might also have something to do with an ideological thing .... 'When
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> have one the last midwest interurban network at your back door, 
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> waste your Saturdays or Sundays on PCCs or would you go out and
>>>>>>> photograph
>>>>>>> the Illinois Terminal?'  I think the ITS would win.   The Broadway
>>>>>>> line
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> St. Louis was abandoned in 1955; the Illinois Terminal was still
>>>>>>> running
>>>>>>> trains from St. Louis to Peoria until 1956.   You would ignore those
>>>>>>> (and
>>>>>>> I'm quoting Andy Maginnis) "steel wheeled buses" in the hope that 
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> ITS
>>>>>>> would be forced to substitute an ancient orange interurban car for 
>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> newer stainless steel cars this weekend.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 19, 2010, at 6:48 PM, richard allman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> as long as we're on the subject, there a a ton of great shots out
>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>> excellent photographers through the PCC era in St. Louis, but 
>>>>>>>> hardly
>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the 1500's. Wonder why?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>>>>>> From: "Fred Schneider" <fwschneider at comcast.net>
>>>>>>>> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 6:10 PM
>>>>>>>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: SLPS/SHRT/PTC/MUNI PCC Question
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK ,,, so you guys are quoting what Steve and I put in the PCC
>>>>>>>>> books.
>>>>>>>>> No
>>>>>>>>> way I can remember every detail we put in those books three 
>>>>>>>>> decades
>>>>>>>>> ago
>>>>>>>>> nor would I even try.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's much more fun keeping up with the new systems today.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 19, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Fred Schneider wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OK, I see what you are talking about.   Perhaps SLPS did have 
>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>>> in-house radio system.   It shows up best in color against a dark
>>>>>>>>>> background.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 19, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Ken and Tracie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please view these photos:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.davesrailpix.com/stl/htm/stl018.htm
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

More information about the Pittsburgh-railways mailing list