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

[Herb Brannon]

I agree with your comment of the "bloated" appearance of the 1700 series
SLPS PCCs.It gave the appearance of a half-sized destination sign and a
flashlight for the headlamp. Also the PTC PCCs from the last order and the
Johnstown cars looked good. Excellent looking PCCs were the PRCo 1700
series, Cleveland Pullman-Standard cars and the Boston picture window PCCs.
The Birmingham cars looked good, but would have looked better with the
addition of the roof monitor.
Also, as an addition to my comment of operating PATransit 1700s in the
Summer rush hour. If It were really warm, and I was operating one of the
"interurban" 1700s, I would open the extreme rear window on the car. That
made a great difference inasmuch as the warm air was then exhausted out the
rear window. That could only be done if the rear window opened at all and if
the adjustment device were still in place on the window to allow the window
to be locked down. If the lock-down device were not in place the window
would open and close with the movement of the car and became a safety
hazzard.

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 00:30, Ken and Tracie <ktjosephson at embarqmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>
>
>


-- 
Herb Brannon
In Cuyahoga Valley National Park