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

[Dwight Long]

K

True, but her personal hygiene issues were offensive to the personnel around her!

Dwight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ken and Tracie 
  To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org 
  Sent: Sunday, 21 November, 2010 01:34
  Subject: [PRCo] Re: SLPS/SHRT/PTC/MUNI PCC Question


  Personal, not personnel.

  K.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: "Ken and Tracie" <ktjosephson at embarqmail.com>
  To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
  Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2010 10:27 PM
  Subject: [PRCo] Re: SLPS/SHRT/PTC/MUNI PCC Question


  > On July 4th, 1982, my girlfriend and I were sitting behind the motorman on 
  > a
  > 1700. His girlfriend had been occupying the "fan seat", but got up and 
  > stood
  > next to him. She bent over with her butt near our faces. To put it 
  > politely,
  > she had personnel hygiene issues and we retreated further back into the 
  > car.
  >
  > Perhaps too much information, but I can imagine one of these cars packed
  > with sweaty steel workers who came off duty and were riding home on a hot
  > summer day.
  >
  > I took this photo from the back of the car after we looped Downtown and 
  > were
  > returning to Mount Lebanon:
  >
  > And yes, that's his girlfriend seated up front, in the dark blue shirt.
  >
  > http://www.davesrailpix.com/pitts/htm/pitt408.htm
  >
  > K.
  >
  > ----- Original Message ----- 
  > From: "Dwight Long" <dwightlong at verizon.net>
  > To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
  > Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2010 10:04 PM
  > Subject: [PRCo] Re: SLPS/SHRT/PTC/MUNI PCC Question
  >
  >
  >> 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
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >
  >