[PRCo] Re: 4393 Versus 4366

[Phillip Clark Campbell]

Current comments below, please


 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;
snipped


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: Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:25 PM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: 4393 Versus 4366
 
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.  

________________________________
 
Mr.Schneider,

May we approach this from a different perspective?  These comments concern
"Only DE-Low-Floor Cars" -- not PCCs, not any SE car, not any "M" car.

>From the Jan-1952 roster we know that DE-car 4393 is at Glenwood don't we.
With so few DE cars in service the need to keep them segregated in groups
has almost or has evaporated hasn't it.  Prc tried to keep as much equipment
active as possible; this is just another way of saying Prc didn't want its equipment
sitting idle isn't it.  "Let's assume" car 4393 is ready for its Homewood overhaul.
In light of these statements a Glenwood hostler takes 4393 to Homewood and
within hours returns to Glenwood with 43AA.

A week or so later, Keating 43BB needs an Homewood overhaul so the car is
taken over; the same day the hostler returns to Keating with now overhauled 4393.

This is a logical "possibility" isn't it.  We are searching for reasons that a low-floor
car would be moved aren't we.  What are other reasons which might account for
moving equipment?  This could involve more than just DE-cars.

Another possibility -- Millvale closed in 1952 didn't it; equipment had to be shifted.
This certainly affects the main revenue group -- PCCs -- but low-floor cars need moved
as well.  Need for DE cars was minimal; I don't see this as a reason to switch barns for
all DE cars but it is "possible" isn't it.


My apologies for asking about frequency of heavy overhauls; this masked the real
purpose of my comment.


Phil