I don’t really know. Looking into the linked report there were no crashworthiness standards before 1952.
So I assume that the PCC streetcars were designed just for the mechanical stresses during operations. Each structure can provide some crashworthiness even if it was never calculated. I think the amount is not known.
It is just an opinion perhaps someone knows more.
Regards, Volker
They should save the tax payer’s oodles of money by firing that Public Relations IDIOT Pasquale Dion…he’s been the cause of morte of SEPTA’s problems than he’s worth. he was the moron who decided on the “subway car” Silverliner Vs against the objections of the crews who wanted a more conventional rail car like the GE Silverliner IVs
Doug
I would opine that the PCC cars were subject to the same over-engineering that buildings were - better to build too strong than too weak, and the computers that today allow rapid calculations down to the nth degree didn’t exist.
Thus, instead of building the cars to just meet X, they were built to meet X+, providing a greater margin of safety…
The PCC car looked revolutionary, but its car-body design was anything but revolutionary. They began with a test car, a sample Twincoach (bus manufacturer) body, a car the B&QT subsidiary of the BMT system had bought as a sample in the late 1920s. But this body design closely followed that of the single-end Brill “Master Units” and the similar 6000s and 6200s that were already running on Brooklyn’s streets. This was the PCC A car, on which various trucks designs and mechanical designs were tried, along with acceleration and deceleration tests. This evolved into the more streamlined Pullman (Worcester, former Osgood Bradley plant) B car, where second-stage PCC componants were tried, with some test revenue service. At the same time the pre-PCC “Magic Carpet” cars were built for MUNI, with a similar, but double-end, body, and 20 similar single-end cars were built for Capitol Transit, all capable of revealing any real problems that might occur in the production run of PCCs. So when the first PCCs started revenue service in Brooklyn and Pittsburgh, the design was free from problems.
The extensive test and development program was very parallel to that the PRR undertook 20 years earlier in the development of the E6 Atlantic.
Structurally, it was an evolutionary, not revolutionary, design. Pullman and St. Louis, and GE, and Westinghouse, and Clark Equipment were all involved. Brill dropped out at one point to pursue their own design, resulting in the Brilliner, the cars similar to PCCs that gave excellent service in Atlantic City for many years and cars 1-10 for Red Arrow, but conventional drop-equalizer outside-frame trucks.
Outside of Philadelphia Suburban Transportation, most Brilliners were orphans on their transit systems. Brill also attempted to use the PCC resilient wheels without paying royalties, which got them hauled into court by the Transit Research Corp.
Could someone answer a few questions about the PCC cars for me? Someone on an automobile forum asked a question about them and I posted what I understood, but it made me wonder if I really know anything at all. Corrections to my understandings are welcome and appreciated.
My understanding is that several (or was it all) major urban transit systems got together with streetcar manufacturers when they realized the automobile was taking away their customers. The intent was to come up with a comfortable vehicle which would be attractive to customers and reasonable in cost due to economies of scale, and could be manufactured by any participating manufacturer. Correct?
When did the process start, and when did the first PCC car enter service? When was the last one made?
Thanks for your help.
Perhaps this Wikipedia article answers your questions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCC_streetcar
Regards, Volker
For your consideration: “PCC: The Car That Fought Back” by Stephen Carlson and Fred W. Schneider, published by Interurban Press. It covers the development and evolution of the PCC in all of its various iterations in extensive detail.
Thanks.