[PRCo] Re: Louisville PCCs

[Derrick Brashear]

On Nov 21, 2010, at 8:54 PM, Herb Brannon <hrbran at cavtel.net> wrote:

> 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 m�s.
> 
Donde esta la biblioteca?

> 
> 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
> 
>