[PRCo] Re: PCC Question

[Fred Schneider]

May also have been a problem getting rubber moldings for the glass.......


On Oct 20, 2010, at 1:26 PM, Herb Brannon wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
>