[PRCo] Re: I Meant "Wye"

[John Swindler]

Hi Ken
 
It was 70 PCC cars to be rehabilitated under the Early Action Program.  
 
Perhaps I should confess that I might have an unfair advantage over anyone who might argue otherwise.  They probably don't have access to the contract between PAT and the state for the state funding for Early Action Program.    
 
Don't know about fate of 1672, other then it was still on some of the later PAT rosters.  I think 1640 and 1613 were the last two to go through the shops.    
 
I have some pix of Harold Geissenheimer pointing out the condition of 1639 to several others.  This was during a fantrip in which two rehab cars were used part of the day, and two cars destined for the rehab program comprised the second half.  
 
John
 
 
> From: ktjosephson at embarqmail.com> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org> Subject: [PRCo] Re: I Meant "Wye"> Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:30:25 -0700> > I posted a photo of ex-16 1797 in the subway, on Route 52. It was from Peter > Ehrlich's collection.> > I believe you are correct about 1672, though I am not sure how often it was > run after the late 1970s. As I recall, it was very rough....but maybe I'm > thinking of 1640.> > I know 1613 was the last to be rebuilt under the "old" program, not Early > Action, but the follow up program.> > I seem to recall sources stating ninety cars were part of Early Action, but > you mentioned only seventy. So maybe what I read was a source which didn't > distinguish between Early Action and the subsequent program.> > Harold G. told me the Pittsburgh cars received new sheet metal. I did notice > the body work was much better than what I saw in Boston.> > K.> > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Swindler" <j_swindler at hotmail.com>> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 8:56 AM> Subject: [PRCo] Re: I Meant "Wye"> > > >> >> > 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> > > > 
_________________________________________________________________
Keep your kids safer online with Windows Live Family Safety.
http://www.windowslive.com/family_safety/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_family_safety_072008