[PRCo] Re: Louisville PCCs

[Dwight Long]

Fred

That was my point.  The post-war cars did operate under their own power in Louisville, but to the best of my knowledge Herb is correct in saying they never operated in revenue service.

Dwight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Fred Schneider 
  To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org 
  Sent: Sunday, 21 November, 2010 18:05
  Subject: [PRCo] Re: Louisville PCCs


  I have a picture of the car in Louisville on the street.   Whether or not fares were collected is a another question.  fws


  On Nov 21, 2010, at 5:41 PM, Phillip Clark Campbell 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.'
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  >