[PRCo] Re: 1700s vs. 1600s

[Jim Holland]

Good Morning!

> Fred Schneider wrote:

> Interesting ...

> what was wrong with the 1600s?

> I know from an operator's view point, a 1700 is a nice car to run
> (if you don't mind being in an inferno).    Was it justy simply an
> air car?    Was in the fact that there is always a delay between
> dynamics fading and air coming on?

	Herb had said Here before that Operators liked the 16s better esp.
for the 49-line or its modern day equivalent number because the air
cars stopped better on the hills.

	The 16s were very similar to the 17s electrically and had
extended-range dynamic braking so fade out point was theoretically
0.75-mph which leaves little for the drum brakes to do.

	*As--A--Passenger*  the 16 interurbans seemed more difficult to stop,
but the 16-city cars were ok.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

James B. Holland

Holland  Electric  Railway  Operation....... 
___"O"--Scale St.-Petersburg Trams Company Trolleycars and...
______"O"--Scale  Parts  mailto:pghpcc at pacbell.net

______Pennsylvania Trolley Museum http://www.pa-trolley.org/
___Pittsburgh  Railways  Company  (PRCo),   1930  --  1950
N.M.R.A.  Life member #2190; http://www.nmra.org

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>