[PRCo] Re: Route 40 1700's

[Edward H. Lybarger]

The Port Authority includes depreciation in its financial statements.  It
just doesn't have the same impact.  You're not talking about real invested
capital here; you're talking about taxpayer handouts.

-----Original Message-----
From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementix.org
[mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementix.org] On Behalf Of Fred
Schneider
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 3:52 PM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Route 40 1700's

Superficially it looks like PAT's policy was all about keeping the newest
cars.  

The state previously allowed companies to keep any undepreciated property in
the rate base so it paid to keep anything that had value.   I have been told
that motorman didn't like the 1200s because of their spring-applied,
air-release brake system.   But in a company that set fares based on the
value of its property, it made sense to keep cars that were not depreciated.
It is my understanding that 20 years was a normal depreciation cycle for a
streetcar.  If you had 100 cars built in 1940 for which paid about $1.9
million (crude guess) and 1/20th of that value was left plus whatever you
added through shop work -- paint, etc. -- you might still have had $100,000
to add into the rate base in 1959 by keeping the 1200s but nothing by
keeping the 1100s.   Therefore, it made more sense in 1959 to scrap
21-year-old 1100s and keep 19-year old 1200s even if you had 1100s that were
in better shape or better loved.   Then a year later, when the depreciation
runs out, you can begin scr!
 apping 1200s.   The depreciation was also a deduction from income and
reduced income taxes for Pittsburgh Railways.   

There was a very logical reason for that under Pittsburgh Railways
management to scrap the oldest cars and keep the new ones --- it was a
private corporation subject to rules of a private corporation.  

But the PUC regulated fares and rates for private utilities allowing a "fair
rate of return on investment."   The same rules did not apply for PAT.   So
they didn't have to keep any particular group of cars just because they were
not depreciated and it is clear that they didn't.   After the East End
routes were abandoned, all the remaining General Electric cars including the
1700s which were only 18 years old, were retired.   Westinghouse 1600s were
retained while GE 1700s were scrapped.   Different rules ... we apparently
keep what is easier to keep on the road.   There is no such thing as
depreciation.  If I am not mistaken, I remember seeing a note from Harold
Geissenheimer that he also liked the 1600s because they were cooler in the
summer and wanted to keep some of them.  So even personal feelings could
enter into the picture with PAT.  

The curious thing about your picture Bob is that it shows the brief
reassignment of some of those Keating cars in the interval between the
conversion of the North Side lines and their retirement after the East End
conversion.   I had forgotten that for several years, Tunnel was a barn that
had both Westinghouse and GE cars.    I'll bet the odds are really good that
I rode it home to Grandma's home on Perrysville Avenue.   Thanks for the
memories, Bob.  


On Feb 18, 2012, at 1:16 PM, Bob Rathke wrote:

> 
> 1700's were sometimes seen on route 40, at least in that route's last
year.  Attached is a photo I took of 1784 in regular service  - on Fingal
St. on Aug. 19, 1966.   
> 
> 
> 
> Bob 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> 
> From: "Fred Schneider" <fwschneider at comcast.net> 
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org 
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 10:49:35 AM 
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Re :Fineview PCCs 
> 
> 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 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
> -- Type: image/jpeg
> -- Size: 31k (32525 bytes)
> -- URL :
http://lists.dementix.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/PAT1784-40FingalNight081
966.JPG
> 
> 
>