[PRCo] Re: 4393 Versus 4366

[Phillip Clark Campbell]

Mr.Lybarger;

My apologies; my comments were tongue-in-cheek.  I was looking for
a similar response; I like your humor and wit!  Please do not feel
obligated.

Unfortunately Mr.Schneider shoots before he understands doesn't he.
He needs to keep the gun in the holster; better yet, lock it away some
where before he does himself damage.  I never wrote Mr.Lybarger is
an expert on car rosters did I.  What I did write is Mr.Lybarger is able
to face a challenge without preconceived notions, even if not an area
of expertise or even an area not of personal interest, and find the
answer to that challenge.  This is obvious from his recent Charleroi
foot work, isn't it, as well as many other instances in the archives.

This is the roster many refer to isn't it; the source seems to be that other
name you mention, Mr.Hamley, or the museum publication.  It was posted
to this list wasn't it as follows:


1952 Car Assignments.doc 18-Mar-2006 05:57   13K

1952 Car Assignments.txt 18-Mar-2006 06:04  6.7K
02-1952 Car Assignments.doc 18-Mar-2006 05:57 13K
Additionally Mr.Long confirms thAdditionally Mr.Long confirms the Westinghouse cars modified for Fineview
doesn't he:
http://lists.dementix.org/mlist/pittsburgh-railways/2012-02/msg00114.html

Mr.Schneider; are you motoring this Suv machine?
http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jan2006/TramBarrier.htm



Phil



________________________________
 From: Edward H. Lybarger <trams2 at comcast.net>
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:20 AM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: 4393 Versus 4366
 
I can check the car assignment books, but they may not have been kept
exactly accurately at the very end of a car's service life.  They would show
the car's last "official" barn assignment, but perhaps not a temporary move.

Maybe Tuesday; if not then it will be into March.  I am solid with contract
work through Monday, and we leave Wednesday morning for a week in Florida.

Ed




________________________________
 From: Fred Schneider <fwschneider at comcast.net>
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:25 PM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: 4393 Versus 4366
 
No it is not Ed's area of expertise.
Roster detail of Pittsburgh Railways belongs to another name that I mentioned earlier.  

The Westinghouse cars in Manchester were the 1400s that had
previously been at Herron Hill when it closed.   Make sense?  

Heavy
 overhauls were mileage based beginning in the depression.
You tell me
 how many miles were accumulated on a car?
And once we got into the 
1950s and the money was running out,
a lot of the work was done in car 
houses instead of sending cars to Homewood.  

The only revenue 
cars I ever photographed on Fineview were 1688 and 1689.
I don't 
dispute that you have a roster that shows Westinghouse cars at Keating.
I have no idea how authentic it is or who prepared it.   I never saw a 
Westinghouse car at Keating.  I only personally witnessed GE tens, 
elevens, 
sixteens and seventeens

In an entire 1/2 inch folder of 
Glenwood photos, three of them are 
GE 1400s on route 56 at unidentified 
locations on unknown dates by 
an unknown photographer.   They could have
 been taken in the two years 
after Glenwood closed and its routes were 
assigned to Tunnel.




________________________________
 From: Phillip Clark Campbell <pcc_sr at yahoo.com>
To: "pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org" <pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org> 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: 4393 Versus 4366
 

Mr.Schneider;

Car 4393 was scrapped in 1956 wasn't it.  Car 4398 was part of that
group which is possibly why it was saved; now or never time.

It was May and June when the high 4300s were scrapped.

On the matter of equipment, it shifted so much didn't it that it would
actually be difficult to pin down when a type was assigned any
particular location.  I am not finding fault with the listing in your PCC
book; I commend you for the effort.  My interest is not always piqued
by these details but someone wrote that Westinghouse PCCs were
the first ones modified for Fineview service.  The 1952 roster shows
this doesn't it; I found that roster in the files here.  Cars
 1669-1674 were
at Keating, the only cars of this class at that time.  These must have been
the ones modified for Fineview.  Cars 4219, 4366 and 4374 are shown
at Keating; photos reveal it operating on Evergreen so it must have been
moved to Keating.  This emphasizes that equipment moves are often
frequent and arbitrary from our perspective doesn't it.  But Prc had a purpose.


This sounds like an assignment for Mr.Lybarger doesn't it.  He alone seems
to look from the:  "What am I missing?" perspective to find the answer.


In 1952 Homewood was pure Westinghouse PCC.  There were 52-1200s!
Homewood only had 3-classes of PCCs; other two are 16s and 17s.  South Hills
at this time had 5-classes didn't it---11s, 12s, 14s, 16s, and 17s.  All the 16s
were Interurbans.


Manchester was a relatively small barn wasn't it yet it was assigned both
Westinghouse and Ge cars.

According to this 1952 roster Glenwood was strictly Westinghouse.  With half-
a-dozen car house closures following Glenwood then had a mix to include Ge
cars didn't it.  Craft at the time didn't have Ge but did later.  It looks like a small
barn but in 1952 had 109 PCCs and possibly received more!

I always 'assumed' the Ge 17s from Ingram went to Keating in 1959.  They didn't.
Many were in Homewood for a while.  Some time later Keating had all Ge-17s,
not long before it was closed!

Equipment apparently moved more frequently than one would assume.  "Maybe"
heavy overhaul is 'a' reason.  A car sent to Homewood for same would immediately
be replaced by another car.  This seems logical.  How often were heavy
 overhauls?


Phil