[PRCo] Re: Louisville PCCs

[Phillip Clark Campbell]

Mr.Brannon;
Your opening word is  'If;'  I do not hate you as you state.
Written evidence from you suggests just the opposite doesn't it.
Why are you choosing to have such a complex on this?


 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 8:53:55 PM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Louisville PCCs

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.'