[PRCo] Re: comparison with Cleveland

[Ken & Tracie]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James B. Holland" <PRCoPCC at P-R-Co.com>

> THAT    IS   A   ({[pat]})   CAR    ----    *NOT*    PRCo.       Yes,
> PRCo had its dings, dents, faded paint, fresh paint  *spots*  but I
> never saw a  PRCo  PCC  look like the  ({[pat]})  1619!

I never indicated this car was still under PRCo. ownership when this photo 
was taken. There is a photo of this same car taken in 1963-64 and it looked 
quite nice.

The air pollution was certainly a part of the harsh environment. Fred and I 
have discussed that previously on this list.

C.D. Palmer did mention in a 1969 interview with Harre Demoro that when 
money became tight, maintenance priorities began leaning towards the 
mechanical side of things.

PRCo. certainly did not want to settle for less than they could receive from 
the PAT takeover, so I don't imagine they would intentionally let the fleet 
deteriorate. Wasn't the final settlement delayed until 1967?

If anybody wishes to discuss intentional neglect of PCC cars still in 
service, we can always discuss Baltimore. :-)

K.