[PRCo] Re: Louisville PCCs

Sun Nov 21 21:14:22 EST 2010

>
>
>
>
> 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 mï¿½s.
> >
> 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 ï¿½possession is nine points of the lawï¿½ 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.ï¿½"
> >> 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
> >
> >
>
>
>

-- 
Herb Brannon
In Cuyahoga Valley National Park