I was the one who guessed Washington. For Montreal, somebody must have regauged the trucks somehow.
The trams did not look too bad at that time, especially the Duwags ex Copenhagen which were then more or less in original condition. The control gear for them would not have been too complex for their workshop staff to maintain.
Unfortunately I have no photos of the K35 type controllers, but if my memory is correct, they were mounted leaning backwards to make it easier for the driver sitting in the PCC seat to reach the handle.
Perhaps most interesting at that time were the double deck/single deck coupled sets, probably both cars powered but the trolley poles were both on the single deck car of each set to have more vertical clearance from the overhead.
Unfortunately getting photos in Egypt at that time was difficult. I think they were still somewhat edgy from the 6 day war which was 8 years earlier.
Photos were almost certainly taken by me ex-wife as I was running the move camera.
January 1975.
Regards,
> On 10 Aug 2017, at 23:29, 'Dudley Horscroft'transitconsult@... [TramsDownUnder] TramsDownUnder@...> wrote:
>
> Someone thought they were ex Washington trams. I am pretty sure they were ex-Toronto. They were painted a shade of dull blue -
> perhaps because by the time I saw them the blue had had years to fade. A great contrast to the new brand new Duwag trams ex
> Copenhagen, which were near spotless, rode well were fast and well patronized.
>
> Regards
>
> Dudley Horscroft
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mick Duncankitbuny@... mailto:kitbuny@bigpond.net.au [TramsDownUnder]" TramsDownUnder@... mailto:TramsDownUnder@yahoogroups.com>
> To: TramsDownUnder@... mailto:TramsDownUnder@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 7:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [TramsDownUnder] [OT?] PCC controller video
>
> > Gday Tony
> >
> > Your right, Alexandra probably would have kept the 300V motors in series
> > pairs and then you would have series,series parallel control
> >
> > Not hard as the K35 can be used as a 2 motor comtroller and each pair
> > would be treated as one motor as far as the controller wiring is concerned
> >
> > I guess the arabs wouldnt care about the excessive current in the half of
> > the reverse barrel in use.
> >
> > No dynamic brakes.
> >
> > Cheers, Mick
> >
> >
> > On 10/08/2017 10:14 AM, Tony Gallowayarg@... mailto:arg@aapt.net.au [TramsDownUnder]
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 10 Aug 2017, at 9:57 am, Richard Youltressteleg@... mailto:tressteleg@yahoo.com.au
> >>> mailto:tressteleg@yahoo.com.au <mailto:tressteleg@yahoo.com.au> [TramsDownUnder]
> >>> TramsDownUnder@... mailto:TramsDownUnder@yahoogroups.com
> >>> mailto:TramsDownUnder@yahoogroups.com <mailto:TramsDownUnder@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> As for the definition, would a car still be considered a PCC if
> >>> controlled by a K35 type of controller? This is not fantasy. In 1975
> >>> in Alexandria Egypt at least some of their (?ex Washington) PCCs had
> >>> been downgraded in such a manner.
> >>>
> >>
> >> It would be interesting to see how the 300v motors were wired to the
> >> K35 - series would have required all motors in series, while parallel
> >> would be series-parallel. Normally it’s the other way around, with
> >> series meaning series-parallel and parallel meaning just that.
> >>
> >> 300v motors were used to increase the range of dynamic braking. If the
> >> original wiring on these cars was junked to the extent that a K35 or
> >> similar controller could be used they could have replaced the motors
> >> with 600v items, and had a conventional K35 traction circuit, with air
> >> brakes to do the stopping. I’m pretty sure Washington PCCs were
> >> air-electric.
> >>
> >> Egypt - the Innovation Nation……
> >>
> >> Tony G
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>