[PRCo] Re: More Thoughts on 1600s versus 1700s

[HRBran99 at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/9/03 1:30:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
kjosephson at sprintmail.com writes:

> 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.
> 

The 17s were almost all painted into the 'new' PAT gray and white with red 
trim after the PAT takeover. The 16s mostly remained in PRCo Red and Cream 
with rust trim. The rust was, in my opinion, the reason for the fast decline 
of the 16s. Many of the 16s running in 1974 were in such condition that I 
sometimes felt embarrassed to operator one of them on the public streets. The 
exteriors looked more like the oxidized beams in the US Steel building than 
the original red and cream colors. The interiors had large areas where paint 
had peeled away leaving the bare wallboard. Rust had taken over the painted 
metal parts and seat frames. Lack of proper maintenance by PRCo had left them 
in this condition. PAT started with the newest cars (17s) and worked their 
way down to other series with the repainting and upgrades. PAT did, of 
course, repair/repaint other fleet series (16s/15s/14s) ,at the beginning, 
but not in a wholesale lot as with the 17s.

HrB