[PRCo] Re: Louisville PCCs

[Herb Brannon]

They are Cleveland Transit System cars. Thus, ex-Cleveland, not
ex-Louisville cars inasmuch as Louisville did not use them and Cleveland
Transit System took ownership of them from St Louis Car Company.
You must have worked all day to prove me wrong. But I'm not wrong. They are
Cleveland Transit System cars, ordered by Louisville Railway, and given up
for US Currency and several buses. Common law did not and will never come
into play here. Good try though. :-)

Si usted me odio como parece que haces, por favor tenga en cuenta el
sentimiento es mutuo más.


On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 17:41, Phillip Clark Campbell <pcc_sr at yahoo.com>wrote:

> Mr.Brannon;
>
> It was Prc 1253 that saw 'demonstration' service in Louisville
> wasn't it  (pg.194 PCC Fought Back.)   The text does state
> 'demonstration' but that does not mean it did not run a
> schedule and collect fares.  The latter determine whether or
> not it was 'revenue' service.  Are verifiable facts available as
> evidence one way or the other?
>
> Prc 1264 was shipped to Buffalo but it simply sat there for
> display;  it obviously was not 'revenue' status.
>
> Actually, the majority of the 'Louisville-PCCs' were shipped
> directly to Louisville;  only the last 10 were shipped directly to
> Cleveland----pg.194 as mentioned above;  also pg.369 in Lind's
> history of St.Louis Car as well as pg.189 of Demoro's book
> on the PCC.
>
> Demoro,  Lind,  Carlson/Schneider all list a job number  --  1648  --
> for the Louisville Cars.  The first 15 were delivered to Louisville.
>
> "The saying “possession is nine points of the law” is an old
> common law  precept that means one who has physical
> control or possession over the  property is clearly at an
> advantage or is in a better possession than a  person
> who has no possession over the property."
> .......
> Clearly Louisville has an advantage in possession of the cars.
> .......
> "One in possession of chattel has a greater right to it than one
> who  lacks both possession and title. Yet, one who has title
> maintains a  greater right over the chattel than
> 1) one who simply has possession and
> 2) one who has neither possession nor claim of ownership. Id.
> Indeed,  it can be said that the title owner has the greatest
> rights to the  property. With that greatest right comes the
> power to negate the  authority of those with lesser right.
> Similarly, those who stand in the  lesser position lack the
> power to override or negate the rights of the  title owner.”"
> http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/possession-is-nine-points-of-the-law/
> .......
> From the picture caption pg.236 of Young and Provenzo's
> history of St.Louis Car is this quote:
> "The Louisville cars never ran in that city, owing to a sudden
> change of policy.  They were transferred to Cleveland,
> in exchange for buses and cash."
> .......
> It would seem that the Louisville Rwy or its creditors had title
> to at least the first 15-PCC cars if not all of them.  Money /
> tangibles  [buses]  changed hands for Cleveland to receive
> the cars.
>
> The order with St. Louis Car was from the Louisville Railway.
> While the cars never operated in Louisville, 15-PCCs were on
> the property and they certainly appear to have been 'owned'
> (possession by Title)  by the Rwy or its creditors.  Cleveland
> would need to satisfy the needs of the Louisville Rwy or its
> creditors to receive the PCCs, not St. Louis Car.
>
> Appendix XIV pg.192 of Demoro's book is titled:
> "North American PCC Surface Operators/Owners"
> "Louisville Railway Company" is clearly listed with the qualifier:
> "No Revenue Operation."  It seems clear that Louisville
> owned 25 PCC cars.
>
> While short and brief, Louisville owned all 25-PCC cars, 15 of
> which it took actual physical possession.
>
> It can therefore be said that Louisville Rwy owned PCC cars
> but never ran them in service.  Louisville Rwy then sold the
> PCC cars they owned to Cleveland.  This is a valid statement
> until facts are produced to prove otherwise.
>
>
>  Phil
> Without  a   'coast'   but  not  a   'cause.'
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Herb Brannon <hrbran at cavtel.net>
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Sent: Sun, November 21, 2010 11:28:11 AM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: HO Ex-Louisville PCCs
>
> While a few of these cars made it to Louisville, they never ran in that
> city. No PCC ever ran in Louisville in revenue service. The majority of the
> 25 cars were shipped  directly from St Louis Car Company to Cleveland
> Transit System, Cleveland, Ohio. They are ex-Cleveland cars, not
> ex-Louisville.
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 00:35, Phillip Clark Campbell <pcc_sr at yahoo.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Mr.Allman;
> >
> > Beautiful models;  excellent overhead as well!
> > Could you please share some more model photos?
> >
> > Mr.Robb----All Electric PCCs had slight angle of rear window
> > above the belt line;  below the belt line was vertical,  at least
> > on St.Louis Cars.  Air Cars had the same slope from above the
> > windows to the floor, 8-degrees/30-min on Pgh cars.  I'll send
> > you a scan of the Prc 17s rear elevation off list.
> >
> >
> >
> > Phil
> > Without  a   'coast'   but  not  a   'cause.'
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Herb Brannon
In Cuyahoga Valley National Park