[PRCo] Re: 1700s vs. 1600s

[HRBran99 at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/3/03 3:36:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
fschnei at supernet.com writes:

> what was wrong with the 1600s?
> 

After having a brake failure on New Arlington Avenue (coming inbound or 
downhill) I decided I would much rather have spring applied brakes than air 
applied brakes. I had to use the hand brake to get the car slowed down enough 
so as not to derail at the Carson Street intersection. Lucky for me and 
everyone else the traffic signals at McArtle Roadway and Carson were green 
for me.

I really never noticed much difference between the inside temperature of a 
1600 or a 1700 on a hot August day. The fans did at least keep the air moving 
inside the 1700 series cars. The operator also had the only window which 
opened!

The 1600s also were smaller in height than the 1700s and just did not look as 
good. Perhaps it was the 1936 design as opposed to the 1945 design. The 1600s 
also made a lot of noise compared to the 1700s. The inside passenger seat 
fittings, stanchion bars, doors, etc., were getting worn and rattled a lot.

HrB