[PRCo] Re: I Meant "Wye"

[John Swindler]

Wasn't 1672 a car that was never put through the overhaul program and scapped in mid-1980s still in PRC colors?
 
The cost escalated near the end due to Carter era inflation and deteriorating condition of cars available for rebuilding.  Those with less exposure to salt - such as the interurban 16s - were early candidates for the rebuilding program.
 
At least PAT was honest with the cost accounting, which is more then can be said for Boston.  The PAT rebuilding cost was around $25-30,000 per car at the same time Boston was consuming $300,000 per car for PCC rebuild.  Let's just say never trust an in-house overhaul program to be honest with the cost accounting in todays environment involving your federal tax dollars.
 
Without checking the state electric vehicle inspection sticker records. wasn't there a period in mid-1980s that a few ex. 16s were kept in service for route 49 (now 52)???  
 
John
 
 
> From: ktjosephson at embarqmail.com> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org> Subject: [PRCo] I Meant "Wye"> Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:36:50 -0700> > No loop at Dormont. It was a wye.> Sorry about that. Also, am thinking a couple of 1600s may have been running > in 1986-87, renumbered as 1700s, of course. ;-)> > Also, the two "flat front" 1600s I know of were 1779 and 1781, not 1976. I > believe at least one, if not both, were 1600 interurbans:> > http://www.davesrailpix.com/pitts/htm/pitt385.htm> > 1781 was damaged and sitting on the former Route 40 right of way when I > photgraphed it during December, 1976. You can see it was one of the cars > which was tried out as a double ender. I was surprised to find 1669 still in > Pittsburgh Railways color at that late date. By the time I returned in 1979, > former 1613 was redone as 1799, in Pittsburgh Railways red and white. I do > not know if any other 1600s lasted in Pittsburgh Railways colors during the > entire three years. I know 1713 was repainted to Pittsburgh Railways colors > before being repainted "T" white, black and gold.> > Was there a third "flat front" car renumbered as 1976? Or was that something > incorrect I read somewhere? Probably just my failing memory.> > > > K. > > > -- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --> -- Type: image/jpeg> -- Size: 66k (68072 bytes)> -- URL : http://lists.dementia.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/02-pat1779.jpg> > > -- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --> -- Type: image/jpeg> -- Size: 55k (56414 bytes)> -- URL : http://lists.dementia.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/02-pat1781.jpg> > > 
_________________________________________________________________
Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_video_072008