[PRCo] Re: 1700s vs. 1600s

[HRBran99 at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/3/03 4:31:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
pghpcc at pacbell.net writes:

> 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.
> 
> 

I don't recall saying that. I really never liked the 16s. They were an older 
technology than the 17s and, if they had not been rehabbed, were near to 
falling apart. They rode rough, bounced a lot, and rattled. Everything inside 
(seats, stanchions, compartment doors, etc.) no longer had a tight fit and 
made noise. The operators seat was mounted at nearly the same height as the 
passenger seats, hence poorer vision ahead of the car. The 17s had a higher 
mounted operators seat and gave better vision to 'read the road ahead.' The 
brakes were the main drawback. Air applied/spring released was inferior to 
spring applied/electrically released brakes. The gang switches were more 
accessible on a 17 than on a 16. The circuit fuses in the 16s were inferior 
to the on/off circuit breaker switches of a 17. In fact, PAT would no longer 
allow operators to change fuses on a 16 if one went out. It was too 
dangerous. I was not issued a 'fuse puller' as PRCo and early PAT trolley 
operators were. Even the transfer cutter was more accessible in a 17 than a 
16.

As I did say, after the 'plunge' down Arlington Avenue one night I was a bit 
shy about a 16 and its air applied brakes.

HrB