[PRCo] Re: PCC Question

[Herb Brannon]

I am going to do some research on other PCCs built during the same time
frame to see what body style was used. That could shine some more light on
the subject. Will have to do that later tonight. Have to go do the
"railroad" thing on the CVR right now.
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 13:16, Bill Robb <bill937ca at yahoo.ca> wrote:

> Maybe it was just a shortage of materials (which were common during the
> war).
> The sloped windshields might not as have been as readily available and it
> was
> quicker to get the 1600s with the standard windshield. After the war
> transit
> systems were often anixous to replace worn out equipment or increase the
> size of
> their fleets quickly to deal with much heavier traffic loads brought on by
> war
> time conditions.
> Bill
>
> In 1944 and 1945 we were still under War Production Board guidelines.  They
> may
> have had permission to experiment with one order of cars but not with the
> next
> order.  On the other hand, as Ed speculates, the company was very conscious
> of
> money spent on maintenance.  I do not see how the greater slope would have
> increased maintenance because those windshields with a lesser slope usually
> opened and were more costly to maintain.  I might be more likely to go with
> WPB
> restrictions during the war.  It might be easy to get permission from
> Washington
> to build one all-electric as a demonstration car (1600) but not 100 of them
> in
> 1945 so that we had a whole fleet and not a hanger queen.  Got my point?
>
> But the people I might have asked in 199-1981 when I was doing those books
> on
> the PCC are dead.  In those days I could go have a chat with Dave Gaul in
> his
> home down in Bethesda, Md.  Wasn't all that far from here.  Dave was not
> only
> the last paid employee of Transit Research Corporation and a paid employee
> of
> the Institute for Rapid Transit in Chicago before he retired but he had
> been,
> back in the 1930s, a teenage railfan in Brooklyn.  He understood our crazy
> questions.  But today I would have to dig him up.
>
>
> Did you read Sy Kashin's book?  While Harre Demoro edited it, Sy actually
> got to
> know Tom Conway well enough to have periodic lunches with the old man
> before he
> died.  Maybe it sheds some light.
>
>
> There were improvements and disimprovements too.
>
> Remember how it was thought we can make the doors better on the 1400s by
> eliminating the long hinge shaft ... that way the clear opening is wider
> for us
> fat people.  However it was a failure because without a bottom hinge, the
> doors
> flopped all over the place.  Every door we every designed had advantages
> and
> disadvantages ...
>
> The Blinker door took too much space in the stairwell and confused people
> if
> they had to open it ... think of the Chicago fire.
>
> Inward folding doors had a similar problem.
>
> Outward folding doors worked well with the public instinct but didn't work
> when
> a motorman needed to check clearances on a narrow street.
>
> Outward plug doors ... just ask San Francisco and Boston how well they
> worked on
> those Boeing cars.
>
> Pocket sliding doors ... work well but they take up seating space.
>
> No doors?  People fall out and sue you.
>
> The PCC was, in general, a pretty good car.  Compared to the Philly
> Kawasaki
> car, not nearly as good.  The Kawasakis have run 30 years with virtually no
> maintenance.  No PCC ever did that but we did not build for no maintenance
> in
> 1935 or 1945; we need to do that today because we can't find mechanics in
> our
> cities.
>
>
>
> On Oct 19, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Herb Brannon wrote:
>
> > I guess that will remain a mystery. It just seemed odd, to me, that cars
> > from the early 1940's had a more "modern" front end than the 1945-46
> cars.
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 18:50, Edward H. Lybarger <trams2 at comcast.net
> >wrote:
> >
> >> I don't know that we know.  Certainly the angle affected reflection and
> the
> >> lack thereof, but all the car series had some angle to the glass.
> >> Maintenance costs?
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
> >> [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org] On Behalf Of
> Herb
> >> Brannon
> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 6:41 PM
> >> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> >> Subject: [PRCo] PCC Question
> >>
> >> We may have hashed this out before, maybe not.
> >> Does anyone know the reason for the 1400-series and 1500-series PCC cars
> >> having the 30-degree slope to the windshield, then the 1600-series being
> >> delivered with the 1936 style flat windshield? Maybe PRCo got a reduced
> >> price for using up old parts.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Herb Brannon
> >> In Cuyahoga Valley National Park
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Herb Brannon
> > In Cuyahoga Valley National Park
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Herb Brannon
In Cuyahoga Valley National Park