[PRCo] Re: Louisville PCCs

[Herb Brannon]

You are the dream and I am the dreamer. It's time to wake up now.  ;-)

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 21:57, Phillip Clark Campbell <pcc_sr at yahoo.com>wrote:

> 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.'
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Herb Brannon
In Cuyahoga Valley National Park