[PRCo] Re: Re :Fineview PCCs

[Fred Schneider]

There was a document issued by Transit Research Corporation in 1940 comparing the St. Louis 1500s with the Pittsburgh 1200s.   The basic premise was that an all-electric car at that time was ill-suited for Pittsburgh's hills and TRC wasn't recommending the St. Louis 1500 type for Pittsburgh.   
I do not know how the drum springs were changed over time.   I do know that the ones on 1707 were inadequate for Henderson Street.   That also implies they were inadequate for route 40 because part of Grandview Ave. was also 12%.   I would have to believe that was an issue of spring tension and not worn shoes.  It stopped fine all day on lesser grades.  I ran it on lesser grades and had problem stopping it that day.   

We also understand that all springs weaken with time and need to be replaced and I have no idea what replacement interval, if any, was specified for the application springs for the drum brakes.   Maybe none.   They were only intended to stop the car from 1 to 2 miles per hour (a slow walk) and to hold it.   But I do recall from that one example in 1958, it did not work on Henderson Street on a 12 percent grade.   I don't recall any similar problems on lower Perrysville Avenue or Federal Street with 1700s which I rode frequently (my grandmother lived out that way).   

The only other all-electric brake failure example I can cite was near the end of PCC service under PAT.   I saw a car stop at Washington Junction and roll backwards.  I watched the operator push the break pedal all the way down to energize the track brakes to stop the car.  The operator made a comment to me that they were not fixing what they did not have to fix.   In that case the gradient was so minor that I suspect PAT simply was negligent in replacing the brake shoes.   Some of my contacts at PAT at the time suggested that parts were not ordered until they ran out.   Maybe they couldn't fix it because they had no parts?   I don't know whether it was a random failure, a lack of parts, or simply we aren't going fix cars that are due to be scrapped if we can avoid it.   

Herb:   Always 1700s on Arlington or always during PAT regime when you worked there?  If I go back to the early 1960s before PAT, my recollection was that the 1700s were common on 35, 36, 37, 38, 42 but not the hilltop lines (40, 44, 47, 48, 49, 53..   I have pictures of 1700s on Carrick but they were all after the white PAT decal appeared on the flanks of the cars.   I also have an image of 1600 on Arlington but that sucker wound up all over the system - probably making enemies everywhere.   Even my earliest pictures under PAT (May 26, 1964) show nothing but air cars on the hilltop lines.   

Was this this accidental that PRC was not running 1700s up there when I was there?   Or was it a deliberate policy to keep the air brake cars on the steepest lines?   

The steepest grades on route 40 ranged from 10.89 to 12.00 percent.   

John St. on the Arlington line (route 48) was 9.64 percent

New Arlington Avenue reached 9.15 percent above Carson St.  

Now, Herb, that said, route 31/34 used 1700s.   There was a portion of Steuben St. that got to 10.06%.  And Perrysville Avenue was was 9.58% and they used 1700s.   So it blows the theory doesn't it.


-- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
-- Type: image/jpg
-- Size: 800k (819994 bytes)
-- URL : http://lists.dementix.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/60703.jpg


-- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
-- Type: text/plain
-- Size: 11k (11536 bytes)
-- URL : http://lists.dementix.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/ecartUbof7b