Is this at the museum?

[Jim Holland]

Greetings!

> > Jim Holland wrote:

> > concerning 1138:
> >         The only other difference might be a conductors stand but from an
> > internal shot I have of one of the 11s, I don't see a difference in
> > seating arrangement, PRCo did not make any body changes (except to make
> > full width anti-climbers on many 10s and 11s - don't remember what 1138
> > has now).

> Kenneth and Tracie Josephson wrote:

> I saw it in September and took several pictures of it. It does not have the full
> width anti-climber.

	But what makes its 1950 condition of 1138 so different from its 1937
condition?

> >         What do you consider early?

> I consider less than ten years early, especially when some cars remained in service
> for twenty five or thirty years with their Golden-Glo lights.

	The 10s and 11s in Pgh kept their golden glos close to 20-years; the
12s about 15-years.

> >         The name of the headlamp kind of gives them away - the Golden Glo
> > identified the trolleycar but provided little illumination for the
> > operator as compared to a sealed beam headlamp.

> This makes sense. The liability factor could outweigh the cost of retro-fitting four
> hundred cars with better equipment. But I do wonder how the pre-PCC interurbans ever
> made the trip at night without a naval surplus spotlight attached to the roof? :-)

	I have often thought the same.  Apparently the 16s didn't receive their
roof lights until the arrival of the 17s!

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/