[PRCo] More Thoughts on 1600s versus 1700s

[Ken & Tracie]

We all know the PCC car continued to evolve during it's sixteen year
production run as a street railway car (and beyond as a rapid transit car.)
The 1700s definitely represented an advanced design and were superior in
most respects over the preceding offerings.

That said, one would think the 1600s, despite their older style bodies,
would not be much more worn out than the 1700s. They were only three years
older, their basic "platform" was in production for nine years by the time
they were built, meaning most of the "bugs" should have been worked out
(i.e., rattles, loose parts, etc.) by the time they were built. By the mid
1970s, the 1700s were doing most of the work, while the 1600s were usually
used as tripper cars. I am not doubting Herb's assessment. I am simply
wondering if three additional years of service would make that much
difference or if the 1600s simply didn't receive as much TLC during the PAT
renovation period.

I remember asking Herb if the few 1600s with B-3 trucks rode any better than
the rest which had B-2 trucks. I seem to recall him replying there was a
much better riding quality on the P.R.O.W. sections with the B-3 equipped
16s as opposed to the B-2 equipped 16s, but all the 17s were better riding
than the best of the 16s.

It is interesting to note that the 1700s rebuilt into 4000s had a seating
arrangement in the front half of the car which was very reminiscent of the
1600 and earlier PCCs.

K.