Talk:PCC streetcar/Archive 1

Distinguishing Features?

The article is a little unclear about what features distinguish the PCC streetcar from other trams. -- 20:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Although PCC cars tended to bear a resemblance to one another, especially at the front of the vehicle, whether or not a tram was a PCC car was dependent on whether or not the tram was built with parts covered by patents controlled by Transit Research Corporation (successor to the Electric Railway Presidents' Conference Committee) resulting in the payment of royalties to the TRC. NorthCoastReader (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

All the various models of streetcar have articles.

PCC streetcars being one of the most numerous models however, would merit an article even if all the other models didn't. Geo Swan (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Can the template claiming contradictions in the article be removed? Alternatively, can the editor who posted the template state just what the contradiction might be? If it is just what distinguishes the PCC streetcars from other models, it seems that Geo Swan has answered that. DThomsen (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8

guage

I am curious. Those cities that bought old Toronto vehicles -- that didn't have previous systems -- did they change the vehicles to use standard guage tracks? Or did they stick with the TTC's non-standard guage?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 08:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Most have been refit with spare standard gauge trucks. To actually modify a truck to standard gauge is quite involved (and expensive). Here's one in service at the National Capital Trolley Museum: TTC 4603. n2xjk (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, Toronto had to change the bogies on streetcars it bought second-hand from standard-gauge U.S. systems. David Arthur (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, Belgian PCC trams were built under license with both standard gauge (for Brussels) and metre gauge (for Ghent and Antwerp). — Tonymec (talk) 02:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Tone and style

Lines such as "It turned out that the PCC streetcar was a very good design" and "because of their 1930s-era deco, streamlined design, quite aesthetically pleasing" (these are but a sampling) definitely qualify as POV and are therefore non-encyclopedic. While portions of this article are good, a lot of it does read like a fan page on the PCC and not an encyclopedia article.

As a side note, since I see no mention of them made here as of yet, I'm wondering if a section should be added on PCC rapid transit cars or if a new page should be made. I know Chicago had some, and some other eastern cities as well. (Some of Chicago's cars--the 6200-series and the 1-50 series--were rebuilt from PCC streetcars.) Lost on Belmont (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Chicago did, indeed, have PCC rapid transit cars as did Brooklyn, Boston, and Cleveland.

This is an interesting point and there is an interesting twist. As Carlson and Schneider pointed out in their book PCC: The Car That Fought Back, a PCC car was any railway vehicle on which Transit Research Corporation collected patent royalties. Although over half of the patents covered truck and wheel design, the other patents covered most of the remaining aspects of car design (not covered were parts of the propulsion and braking systems). True (as in absolute) standardization was not possible with the PCC car, but standardization of a sort was achieved by offering a set number of options from which a customer could choose. By the late 1940's, when TRC attempted to enter the rapid transit market, consensus was less easy to achieve on a total design package and TRC wound up concentrating mostly on the design and production of the trucks (bogies) on which rapid transit cares would sit. As time went on, royalty payment liability began to expire on PCC streetcar equipment. At least two properties attempted, with mixed results, to pay royalties on rapid transit cars voluntarily. It seems that payment liability on rapid transit equipment ultimately depended on whether the rapid transit car was delivered with new trucks designed by TRC (in which case royalty payment liability would accrue) or the property equipped the transit car with trucks salvaged from its (or someone else's) PCC streetcars (in which case payment liability might continue for at least some period of time depending on the age of the salvaged equipment) or from some other source completely, in which case royalty payment liability might not attach at all (with the result that the equipment in question would not be a PCC rapid transit car at all).

In my opinion, there should be a section added to this article on the PCC rapid cars - the rationale being that the rapid transit cars marked the last stage in the "evolution" of the PCC car and the "end of the line" for the Transit Research Corporation. I'm not sure just how easy a task this would be, but I think it would be justified. NorthCoastReader (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Tatra T3

Is it actually related? No PCC legacy noted on T3 own page, when T2 clearly resembles genuine PCC. (I live in Kiev, our fleet is mostly T3, I also remember T2, quite different.) --A194 44 217 5 (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Carlson and Schneider's book, not only was the Tatra T3 a PCC car, it was the version of the car produced in greater numbers than any other version in the history of the PCC car. NorthCoastReader (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Length and Width sources

Chicago Surface Lines, An Illustrated History by Alan R. Lind, published by Transport History Press in 1974 and Third edition in 1979, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 74-75870.

Page 102 refers to “At that time St. Louis was building all of the 200 PCC cars then on order from street railways all over the United States” and “the standard PCCs being built by St Louis Car for Brooklyn and Baltimore”. This can reference paragraph 9 (The first order…Brooklyn) of Origins. Page 102 also refers to “4’5” longer and 5” wider than the standard PCCs being built for Brooklyn and Baltimore”. The drawing on page 399, and the table below, refer to 50’5” Length and 8’9” Width. Math would come out to the standard being 46’ length and 8’4” (100 inches) width. This can reference paragraph 4 (It turned out… appearance.) sentence 2 (The standard car… wide.) and sentence 3 (Chicago, Detroit, Illinois…(15.4m)).

Traction Planbook New Second Edition, edited by Harold H. Carstens, published 1968 and 1975, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 68-59209 ISBN 911868-16-X.

Page 45 drawing shows “PITTSBURG 1000-1299 STANDARD PCC 1936-1942” as 46’ long, drawing on page 46-47 shows JOHNSTOWN TRACTION COMPANY PCC CARS SERIES 401-417 (delivered in 1947 according to the caption) as 46’ 5” long. Width shows 8’3 ¾” wide, close to the standard 100”. This can also reference paragraph 4.

TWIN CITIES by TROLLEY by John W. Diers and Aaron Isaacs, published by University of Minnesota Press in 2007, ISBN 13: 978—0-8166-4358-5

Page 109 infers TCRT standard at 9’ (108”), also a possible reference to paragraph 4.

Twin City Rapid Transit Pictorial by Alan R. Lind, published in 1984 by Transport History Press

Page 67, has “the Twin Cities PCC cars were nine feet wide.” That was 108”, the cars were delivered 1946-47. Another reference to paragraph 4.

A Source Monster (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Great! Now, does any of the sources distill this information down to a summary statement on the length/width combinations made available? I have read, and cannot find for the purposes of this article, that properties bought cars which were of: standard length and width, extra length and standard width, standard length and extra width, extra length and extra width. If you can find such a statement would you please consider editing the appropriate section of the article by adding the information (plus citation) so as to illuminate one of the several ways in which a property could "customize" the "standardized" PCC car? Doing so might help the reader come to understand how the ERPCC and, later, the TRC aimed for, and, to a large degree reached, the goal of standardization without getting uncontrollably rigid in the process. NorthCoastReader (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not have the ability to edit.

Traction Planbook has “Altho standardized to a great degree, the PCC was adaptable to a wide range of services. Since most PCC cars were single enders…use. Yet there were double end PCC cars built for Pacific Electric” and “Some cars, notably Shaker Heights, were also made wider than standard” in the text. A caption has “There were narrow gauge PCC cars, too, as these Los Angeles Railway units attest.” The drawings on page 45 of a 1936-42 car contrasts with the drawing on page 46-47 of a 1947 car, but this could also be evolution. “The PCC saw continual improvement. The small front bumpers…gave way to a wrap around…car. Recessed front windshields were a later development, as were standee windows…picture windows, and air conditioning”. The first three features are shown in the two drawings, as is the 5 and 3/8” increase in length post war (does that even matter?). A drawing on page 48-49 shows a double ended Philadelphia car at 9 feet, but these had different trucks, and are questionable as PCCs. Many patents relate to the trucks, which these cars do not share.

I’m not sure how good Traction Planbook is as a source, it’s a 99 page softcover from 1968 & 1975, and aimed at model railroaders.

I can source pre war Chicago cars at 50’5” by 8’9”, “4’5” longer and 5” wider than the standard PCCs being built for Brooklyn and Baltimore.” Some post war cars were “nine feet wide, three inches wider” than the pre war ones. Chicago cars were as big as they come, with lots of doors, source CSL by Lind. Minneapolis cars were nine wide, source TCRTP by Lind (he gets around).

Other than the Chicago cars, the double enders for P.E. and Illinois Terminal, the narrow gauge for L.A., and the possibly shorter cars for D.C. (source: the article), the main body option appears to be width. Both St. Louis and Pullman-Standard built them, but I can’t tell the difference. Lowest bid, not style?

A note on width. As an American truck/bus driver, feet/inches were the common measurements. Total inches may be legal, but were not used “on the street”. But Wiki likely has unit standards.

Running gear had differences, too. Motors by G.E. or Westinghouse, different controls, MU, and brakes (air/electric vs all electric).

I have neither of Carlson & Schneider’s books, nor Kashin. I will be looking. Unless one of them have your tables, I will slowly try to make one, but it would have many sources. A Source Monster (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Woops, just noticed, side door location varies, five or seven windows back. Appears to relate to standee windows. A Source Monster (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

In a photograph, it's sometimes difficult to distinguish between an extra wide PCC and a standard width PCC. Your best chance of spotting the difference would be to find a photo (head-on portrait shot of two cars side-by-side [sure hope there's one to find in the public domain - that would be a great illustration for this article]) dating from the time just before GCRTA (Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority) took delivery of its Breda LRV trainsets. At the time, GCRTA was still using the extra wide Shaker Heights cars (maybe extra long, too?) and it was using some cars (née Cleveland Street Railways/Cleveland Transit System) repatriated from Toronto (to which they were sold when Cleveland went out of the streetcar business in the early '50's). These ex-Toronto cars were standard length and width (but with a raised roof line to accommodate ventilation improvements). And thanks for pointing out the other main options to the standard design. NorthCoastReader (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I have pre and post war standards, most noticeable in the windows. Pre's have 5/door/5+ 1 wide, post's have 7/door/4+2 standard with standee windows. Pre's have flat windshields, post's recessed (sometimes retrofitted to pre’s). The post’s extra 5” length was in the front taper. Pre’s windows are 2” wider, post’s doors are 6” wider. So far I have Shaker Heights “wide” and Twin Cities at 9’, I expect there are other wides, too.
Chicago's are all long, with extra doors. Pre's and some post's are 8’9”, later post's are 9’. They are also offset on their trucks, for clearance between tracks.
St. Louis Car delivered double enders in 1949 for Philadelphia and Illinois Terminal, these have pre style side windows. Phil’s have MCB trucks, and are 9’ wide, IT’s have PCC type trucks, if the bodies were the same, IT’s would be 9’, too.
Schneider & Carlson (’80) appears to be the hot source, it’s on order. I’ll keep at this, but it will probably be a week or two, I’m out of sources for now. Thank you. A Source Monster (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

More sources

Origins: “with later models 46.5 ft (14.2 m) long and 108 in (2.74 m) wide” could be Carlson-Schneider (80), pp 74-75, 98, rear foldout 3. “Chicago, Detroit, Illinois Terminal, Pacific Electric, and San Francisco had longer cars, as long as 50.5 ft (15.4 m)" could be Carlson-Schneider (80), p 91 and Lind (79), pp 102, 399 “The first order of 99 cars was built in 1936 for Brooklyn, New York, by the St. Louis Car Company.” could be Carlson-Schneider (80), p 57, supplement. “The second order built (27) was for Baltimore and the third order went to Chicago, all by St. Louis Car Company.” Could be Carlson-Schneider (80), supplement and Lind (79), p102. "Clark Equipment Company built only one PCC, #1000, and the only aluminum PCC at that" could be Carlson-Schneider (80), p 88. Manufacturing: “Clark Equipment built the only aluminum-body PCC as well as all narrow gauge B1 trucks for Los Angeles, all the standard and wide gauge B2 trucks both air- and all-electric, and the B2B trucks used under PRCo 1725–1799 and Toronto 4500–4549.” Could be Carlson-Schneider (80), pp 123, 127, 129, 131, 135. A Source Monster (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

North American body variations

Anyone interested? Word document w/table, I can not format.A Source Monster (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction? Or ambiguity?

Under license to use the designs patented by TRC thousands more PCC and partially PCC type cars were produced in Europe through the last half of the 20th century. The cars were well built and many hundreds are still in operation. The majority of large North American streetcar systems surviving after 1935 purchased PCC streetcars; those systems which eventually closed down streetcar operations often selling their cars to the surviving operators. Several dozen still remain in public transit service in Boston, Philadelphia, and San Francisco following extensive overhauling. All other functional surviving PCC cars today are operated by museums and heritage railways. (near the end of the Origins section). I think it would be clearer to say All other functional surviving PCC cars in North America today are operated by museums and heritage railways: the mention of European cars "still in operation" is a couple of sentences away and it is not immediately obvious that the adjective "other" refers to them too and not only to Boston, Philadelphia and San Francisco. For instance in Brussels where I live, PCC cars were put into service starting in 1951; these single-body cars have now been retired (the last one on 12 February 2010) but before that, 2- and 3-body articulated PCC cars were added to the fleet, and most of these are still in service. Of course, I don't know other European streetcar companies as well as those of my hometown, but a PCC car in active non-historical service is by no means a rare sight in Europe. — Tonymec (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW, the photo of a Brussels tram (next to the section "7700-7900 series") is a single-bodied 7000-series tram, a model first built in 1951 in preparation for the Expo-58 and which has last since service (other than as "museum tram") on 12 February 2010. Series 7700 2-body and series 7900 3-body articulated trams, built since approx. 1965, are still in active service. I suggest adding 7000 to the section title (since the 7700 and 790 weren't yet built in 1951 and for decades thereafter) and adding the picture File:L9731.JPG of a 3-body articulated PCC tram from Brussels.

The Brussels trams described above use standard-gauge tracks. In addition, metre-gauge PPC trams are in active service in Antwerp and in Ghent. For more details, see fr:Tramway de Bruxelles#Les PCC (and the pages linked from there) and nl:De Lijn (vervoermaatchapij)#Trams. The Dutch equivalent of this article also has a lot of valuable information (with photos) about PCC streetcars in Europe. Tonymec (talk) 06:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Help! Largest fleets section

I have just attempted to add Melbourne to this table but somehow I have deleted the whole table. Can someone please assist in restoring it? --Albert Isaacs (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Cancel panic! All done thanks to Sammy D III. --Albert Isaacs (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

"One" is not many people's ideas of a "large fleet." 18:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you need the word "Largest"? Someone just put all that "one" stuff up, and may care. Maybe if you made the notes as text, then put it at the end of "Manufacturing: Europe"? Both "Manufacturing" and "PCCs still in service" have North America and Europe sections, should the fleet list, too? Sammy D III (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect that only mentioning significant fleets is important. Anmccaff (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Almost everyone who stops by would like to see their town. Can 18 be a fleet? If the list is broken into parts somehow each one would be more readable? Sammy D III (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that is not a reason to add non-notable trivia. The PCC and its derivitives was the dominant streetcar design from '38 or so right up almost to the present. That's a lot of towns. Anmccaff (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, no problem here. Sammy D III (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Junk PCCs?

Should "File:Unrestored PCC streetcars at Marin Division, October 2007.jpg" be here? Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sammy D III: It's always a balancing act as to how many images to put into an article. If these images are all from Commons, a {{Commons}} template might suffice to replace many of them. - Denimadept (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry that I am not clear. My question related only to the content of one image already in the article. Does it show anything useful? I am not editing, just asking. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Question

Were there any North American streetcar lines operating after 1960 that didn't run PCCs, other than New Orleans? Useddenim (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Just adding a question - I noticed that the link for Baltimore in the large table goes to the generic page for the city of Baltimore and not the transit agency. I am not sure how to fix it. But here is a link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Transit_Company

Recent reversion

Knowledgekid87, even though you allege WP:BRD, you didn't actually follow though with the "discuss" portion, so I'm assuming that your only objection is WP:IDL. In fact, looking at the revision history, it appears that there may be an WP:OWNERSHIP issue, too.
Aside from the added content that you deleted, the flags are completely unnecessary. MOS:FLAG: "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality." In these tables the city and the model are the subject, NOT the country. MOS:FLAGCRUFT: "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason … Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things."
The tables themselves are inappropriate, given that there is much more prose than tabular data (excepting the Tatra models, which I intend to flesh out later). In this instance they are also extremely wasteful of space, especially in mobile view. (See MOS:TABLES.) Useddenim (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you joking right now, you made major changes to the article which I felt were not an improvement. This isn't WP:OWNERSHIP, this is a discussion on if your changes are an improvement or not. As for MOS:FLAG, I responded on your talk-page with "I read WP:MOSFLAG by the way I don't see how any of the criteria against inclusion would apply per "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself". The flags do not serve as a nationalistic purpose as many of them are former countries." could you address my stance on the matter? You also cite MOS:TABLES, but do not go into detail other than how you feel on the subject. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

To recap, cutesy flag icons add nothing to the article. Besides, they are direct contravention of MOS:FLAGCRUFT ("Do not emphasize nationality without good reason"). I'm not going to copy WP:ICONDECORATION into this reply, but using flag icons instead of text to identify countries is definitely in the "inappropriate use" category. You claim "the flags do not serve as a nationalistic purpose as many of them are former countries", but using obsolete and/or obscure images to identify places without accompanying names helps no one.

With regard to the tables, besides the aforementioned waste of space, MOS:TABLES specifically says:

• "Avoid cramming too much detailed information into individual table entries"; the "Historical", "Active" and "Models" table contain 20, 108 and 73 words respectively in the "Notes" cells, compared to single names or numbers in the other cells.
• "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context"; and
• "If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice."

An argument can certainly be made for including a sortable summary table of quantities at the start of each subsection, which I would be amenable to.

Now let's look at WP:BRD: your reversion was invalid because it hits at least three of the six points of WP:BRD-NOT. (• BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view. • BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. • BRD is never a reason for reverting unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense.) Furthermore, "revert only when necessary …[and]… be specific about your reasons in the edit summary": "these are major changes" is woefully inadequate. And telling me to go away because you don't link my comment is not productive discussion.

As for the suggestion of WP:OWNERSHIP, I'd suggest reviewing the%20revision%20history: you've made more than half of the last 100 edits, 60% of the edits in the last year, and nearly 20% of the last 500 edit (and you don't bother with an edit summary more than 20% of the time). So just apply the WP:DUCKTEST. (Also, in that period you've removed more content (-24,836 bytes) than you've added (+16,824 bytes), so I'm not sure that there's been any real improvement.)

Substantiating myself to you has taken up an inordinate amount of my time the last few days. Useddenim (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Flag icons are important, because they allow quicker identification of locations. -Mardus /talk 00:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)