[PRCo] Re: 4393 Versus 4366

[Fred Schneider]

Phillip:

As stated in one of my prior messages, overhauls since 1930, based mileage.  This allowed the company to close South Hills Shop and concentrate all maintenance at Homewood.    I am not sure when Manchester Shop closed ... maybe earlier, perhaps about the same time.  Point was, about 1930 they decided it was highly impractical to send all cars to the shop every so many months and instead changed it to a mileage based interval.   That would mean the newest cars that worked 24 hours a day, probably several trips a year.   Those that work shuttles or only the rush hour might see Homewood every few years.   Interurban cars ... well they could accumulate twice as many miles in an hour as a city car so their shop trips might have been the most frequent.    

You tell me how many miles are accumulated on a car and then maybe we can tell you how often an overhaul is scheduled.   The overhaul frequency was published in the trade press about 82 years ago and was republished by by one of the fan groups perhaps 20 or 30 years ago. 

For a car running something like 9 CHARLES, it might be years between overhauls.   For a car that simply shuttled a mile from the outer end of route 12 to East St. except in the rush hour, accumulating perhaps 2 miles an hour compared to 9 miles an hour on a car going downtown, the interval between trips to Homewood would be very long.  


On Feb 18, 2012, at 9:46 AM, Phillip Clark Campbell wrote:

> 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
> 
>