[PRCo] Re: comparison with Cleveland

[James B. Holland]

Ken & Tracie wrote:

> ----- 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.


Hi Ken!

I know you didn't say that but you did say you were including a photo of 
a nasty looking 16xx  --  not exactly those words.       And since the 
issue was dirty__PRCo  --  not dirty__({[pat]})  --  it clouded the 
issue and I wanted to make that distinction.


Jim__Holland


I__Like__Ike.......And__PCCs!!

down with pantographs ---- UP___WITH___TROLLEYPOLES!!!!!!!