[PRCo] Re: Re :Fineview PCCs

[Barry, Matthew R]

Great to hear the hands-on stories, Herb.

-----Original Message-----
From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementix.org [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementix.org] On Behalf Of Herb Brannon
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 10:53 AM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Re :Fineview PCCs

As far as 1700s on Arlington Avenue there were always 1700 series PCCs on Arlington Avenue. I worked Rt 49-Arlington/Warrington many, many times.
Several "picks" I ran the 49 on a "late" run. If the operator I was relieving had a 1600 series I would ALWAYS trade out to a 1700 series. I never had a problem with a 1700 series on Arlington hill. The only problem I ever had was one time when the brakes went out on a 1600 series and I stopped the car with the hand brake then traded it out for a 1700 series.
This is not to mention that during the reconstruction of the tunnel all PCCs used Arlington Avenue at all times and never had a problem.
Also, I have the 1952 Car House Assignments. It does show 1669, 1670, 1671, 1672, 1673 and 1674 as assigned to Keating. My list is much easier to read than what was posted on The List by P.C.C. I guess I can post it, since it is easier to read.

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:39, Fred Schneider <fwschneider at comcast.net>wrote:

> The company did not seem to worry about what they put on FINEVIEW on
> fantrips.   I personally scheduled a fantrip using 1707.   Believe me, it
> was not suited.   The drum brakes would not hold it on Henderson Street and
> the grade was so steep that the track brake shoes lifted off the rail at at
> angle of several degrees.   But we got over the line.   The also ran 1700s
> over Arlington Avenue as the tunnel bypass and that was a little crazy 
> but that may have only been in the PAT days.
>
> Point is, PRC had a rational plan.   Yes it was not perfectly consistent
> over time because it could not be.  When you close barns and move cars 
> because you are contracting operations, there is no way the plan can 
> be preserved.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 16, 2012, at 10:46 PM, Dwight Long wrote:
>
> > Fred
> >
> > The 1 January 1952 Car House assignment list shows 1669-74 at Keating.
>  This was only a few months after they were converted for Fineview 
> service, so one must assume that they operated out of Keating at that 
> time, even though they were Westinghouse cars.
> >
> > The only other logical place to base them would have been 
> > Manchester,
> which would have had less stem time feeding cars on to Fineview but 
> more in taking them off.  Manchester at the time had a mixture of GE 
> and WH cars, but no 1600s.  Perhaps that tipped the decision to base 
> the Fineview fleet at Keating.
> >
> > Now comes a more pertinent question:  Yes, I too have seen and 
> > fotted
> cars other than the "Fineview Fleet" on that route.  Were these cars 
> also modified for Fineview service, or did the Railways later decide 
> that the mods were really not needed and used cars (other than 1700s, 
> which I never saw or heard of being used up there) indiscriminately on Fineview?
> >
> > Dwight
> >
> > From: Fred Schneider
> > Sent: Thursday, 16 February, 2012 21:25
> > To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > On Feb 16, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Phillip Clark Campbell wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Fred Schneider <fwschneider at comcast.net>
> >> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 9:34 PM
> >> Subject: [PRCo] Re: 4393 Versus 4366
> >>
> >> After 1953 ten cars were retained for a year or so for emergencies 
> >> that
> never happened.   Buses were easier.   They were the 4390s.   That's why
> the museum got 4398.  So after the end of 1953 I think we can assume 
> that
> 4393 was scrapped pretty fast.
> >>
> >> The person to ask would be Dave Hamley.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Feb 15, 2012, at 9:18 PM, Herb Brannon wrote:
> >>
> >>> That's all well and good, however, should fall under the subject 
> >>> of
> Control
> >>> Systems.
> >>> I want to know where 4393 and 4366 were assigned during their 
> >>> tenure at PRCo. I know where they were on January 1, 1952. Where 
> >>> were they after
> that?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 18:03, Fred Schneider 
> >>> <fwschneider at comcast.net
> >wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Funny thing, Herb.
> >>>> Normally cars were segregated to barns in Pittsburgh by equipment.
> We
> >>>> all knew which barns had GE PCCs and which had Westinghouse PCCs.
> >>>>
> >>>> The yellow cars had a similar scheme.   There were barns that had cars
> >>>> with K-35 or K-43 controls.   Then there were other barns that had
> cars
> >>>> with HL control.   Same as with the PCCs, the idea was to minimize
> parts
> >>>> inventory.   And, just like the PCC assignments, Homewood was totally
> mixed
> >>>> because it was right next door to the central parts room so it 
> >>>> didn't matter.
> >>>>
> >>>> What is HL?   For those unfamiliar, HL was a Westinghouse remote
> control
> >>>> system, meaning the motorman's controller did not physically 
> >>>> handle
> the 600
> >>>> volt motoring circuits, it instead told a separate controller, usually
> >>>> mounted in a case under the car, what to do.   Westinghouse used low
> >>>> voltage lines between the platform controller and the motoring
> controllers.
> >>>> In HL or AL, the L stood for Line voltage passed through a 
> >>>> dropping resistor to get a low voltage control circuit.  In AB or 
> >>>> HB, a
> battery was
> >>>> used for the control circuit.   The H stood for hand notching, a A for
> >>>> automatic progression.   Got it?   OK, now most Westinghouse schemes
> used
> >>>> pneumatic switches to control the actual 600 volt (or 1200 volt)
> circuits,
> >>>> and they we be mounted so that if you lost air, they would 
> >>>> naturally
> open
> >>>> by gravity.
> >>>>
> >>>> General Electric favored solenoid (magnetic) switches instead of 
> >>>> air (pneumatic switches). Almost all of the Westinghouse HL 
> >>>> installations
> in
> >>>> Pittsburgh were really knock-offs of GE type M control ... they 
> >>>> were
> low
> >>>> voltage (instead high voltage with GE favored) but they used 
> >>>> solenoid switches instead of pneumatics.  The only possible 
> >>>> exception (and I
> have
> >>>> never been able to prove this one way or the other), those 6000
> series late
> >>>> 1920s experimental cars might have been pneumatic.
> >>>>
> >>>> OK, which barns ... Keating was supposedly a drum control barn.   All
> of
> >>>> the single-end cars there in my memory were 4700s or 5500s in 
> >>>> later
> years.
> >>>>   I made a stupid assumption that 4366 was therefore a K35 car.
>  Ooops.
> >>>> I found a picture of it at 12 Evergreen and guess what?   I can see
> very
> >>>> clearly, the HL contactor box under the far end of the car.    What
> the
> >>>> blanket-blank caused them to mix cars at Keating unless it was 
> >>>> the
> only car
> >>>> they had available to put there?  In the period up until 1951-52 
> >>>> when
> route
> >>>> 9 also worked out of Keating, it used a 4200 and all those low 
> >>>> 4200s
> that
> >>>> were still active very late were HL cars also.  Roster pdf file
> attached.
> >>>> This roster also confirms that 4366 was a HL car; 4393 was a K-35 car.
> >>>>
> >>>> Might be when we got to the very bitter end, it didn't matter.   If it
> >>>> worked, put it there.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
> >>>> -- Type: application/pdf
> >>>> -- Size: 184k (188994 bytes)
> >>>> -- URL :
> http://lists.dementix.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/roster.pdf
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
> >>>> -- Type: text/plain
> >>>> -- Size: 2k (2269 bytes)
> >>>> -- URL :
> http://lists.dementix.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/ecartIFqFm8
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>


--
Herb Brannon
In Cuyahoga Valley National Park