[PRCo] Re: SLPS/SHRT/PTC/MUNI PCC Question

[Dwight Long]

K

You might not have enjoyed riding in a PRC 1700 on the hottest days of summer, particularly at rush hours and if there had been a light rain!

Dwight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ken and Tracie 
  To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org 
  Sent: Sunday, 21 November, 2010 00:30
  Subject: [PRCo] Re: SLPS/SHRT/PTC/MUNI PCC Question


  I remember discussing the StLPS 1600s and 1700s outer appearance with Fred 
  the Third some years ago. I stated they appeared "bloated" in appearance 
  from the front end, especially when using a smaller sealed beam headlight.

  Fred countered that the wider body was appreciated by the riding public due 
  to the increased interior room.

  Too me, the best looking post war cars with standee windows were the last of 
  the Philadelphia cars, the Johnstown cars, the TTC cars and the Muni Baby 
  Tens.

  I also like the looks of the Pittsburgh 1700s and the Boston Picture Window 
  cars.

  I prefer the Boston war time cars without the added roof monitors. I like 
  any pre-war body St. Louis Car Company body with vents in the trolley base 
  cowl.

  Just my personal visual  preferences...I enjoy riding any of them.

  K.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: "Bill Robb" <bill937ca at yahoo.ca>
  To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
  Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2010 8:29 AM
  Subject: [PRCo] Re: SLPS/SHRT/PTC/MUNI PCC Question


  >I also thought the pre-war cars were more graceful, but during the last 
  >years of
  > the PCCs I came to appreciate the post-war front end was almost as 
  > graceful when
  > walking by stopped TTC 4300s at Yonge and Queen. Unfortunately the post 
  > war back
  > end drops straight down from the roof line. The tapered pre-war rear end 
  > is my
  > favorite. I remember MU cars as having a less graceful profile than the 
  > non-MU
  > variety because the couplers cut the lines off abruptly.
  > Bill