The Government -- Westinghouse vs GE equipment

[Jim Holland]

Greetings!

	Thank you - but I did read it!  I was just using it as an example - it
was no reflection on you relating the material.  I didn't mean to
misquote the exact identity of the individual who related it to you but
that wasn't important.  I was using it in conjunction with the dynamic
brake loss, and this from a person who  REPAIRS  PCCs, to indicate that
not all information is valid, even when it comes from someone who  IS  a
very credible source.  It is simply hand-me-down information which is
accepted as such until verification is made.

>> In a message dated 06/09/2000 5:49:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>> pghpcc at pacbell.net writes:

>> << The information from the pat supervisor of the 1970s that
>>  claims that the Feds required a split between WH / GE is
>>  *-*Non-Verified-Information-at-this-time*-*   I personally want a quote
>>  from a periodical - paper - newspaper etc. etc. etc. that I can
>>  personally verify by going to the library before I even  b-e-g-i-n  to
>>  believe such a claim. >>

> HRBran99 at aol.com wrote:

> That is why, in the last line of my post, I said that further study would be
> needed to verify the reason for the two types of electrical equipment. Also,
> it was not a supervisor, but the Division Superintendent, who had many years
> with PRCo. and was there when many of the PCCs arrived.

> Please read!

> HrB

James B. Holland

        Pittsburgh  Railways  Company  (PRCo),   1940  --  1950
    To e-mail privately, please click here: mailto:pghpcc at pacbell.net
N.M.R.A.  Life member #2190; http://www.mcs.net:80/~weyand/nmra/