[PRCo] Re: PRMA/PTM Acquisition policy

[Fred W. Schneider III]

I apologize to Tom for not putting quotation marks around the statement
he copied.  Maybe we should instead point out that, in those days, there
were railway lines on which they still could have fun.  There were some
museum types who, judging from the conversations I've had, felt they
were being short changed.  And without pointing any fingers, no matter
what is done some people will always be unhappy that their favorite
object wasn't saved.  

I've told Tom off that I particularly am pleased that M-11 did get away
because 1138 is virtually identical, and probably isn't afflicted with
all the wiring modifications that happen the first time you make a new
car.  We have 1138 and it will be running.  If we had 100, it probably
never would run because the time and effort wouldn't be available to
convert it back to a passenger car.  It certainly would be a long way
from handicapped accessible considering the large box in the middle of
the car containing the accelerator.  

tompark at interchange.ubc.ca wrote:
> 
> At 19:34 28/02/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> >In the 1960s, the trolley museum people were more into running fantrips
> >than preserving cars, which is why 5432 and 100 (M11) got away.
> ---------------------------
> As a museum participant through the 60s (and PRMA President for a few
> years) let me assure you that museum acquisition policy was not secondary
> to our fund raising (and fun) fantrips.
> 
-- Trailing quotes stripped by Listar --