1711 -- 1713 -- 1613

[Jim Holland]

Greetings!

	Clarification::  --  My statement below is Not to imply that ({[pat]})
was working against PTM in the possible acquisition of 1713.
	PTM obtained 1711 in the late 1980s so it is possible that ({[pat]})
wanted to keep 1713, which they had overhauled, for service needs. 
Apparently 1711 had not received an overhaul to the same degree as 1713,
at least not as recently as 1713 which had been upgraded and repainted
to be similar to that of delivery in 1949!
	And of all the choices available at the time 1711 was received, it is 
*possible*  that other interurban cars may have been in better
condition.
	But 1711 has very definite historical value as the last car to serve
Washington, the last PCC to operate in revenue service through County
Home Siding, present PTM Museum site, so I definitely do not fault the
decision to save this car.  It most definitely Does fit in to the Museum
theme on an historical basis.
	Interurban--1711 does operate and it has received cosmetic touches in
addition to a like-new paint scheme from a generous donor.

	And if, after all the confusion on numbers, the upgraded air car now
numbered 1799 is actually 1613, this is most definitely of historical
significance as well, being the PCC chosen to debut interurban service,
and to make that debut on the Washington interurban!

> Jim Holland wrote:

>         Believe it was ({[pat]}) who prevented PTM from getting 1713!
 
>> Kenneth Josephson wrote:

>> . . . there will
>> be some members mumbling under their breath about the decision to save 1711 instead
>> of say, 1713 which went elsewhere.

James B. Holland

        Pittsburgh  Railways  Company  (PRCo),   1930  --  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/