[PRCo] Re: PCC Question

[Herb Brannon]

I guess that will remain a mystery. It just seemed odd, to me, that cars
from the early 1940's had a more "modern" front end than the 1945-46 cars.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 18:50, Edward H. Lybarger <trams2 at comcast.net>wrote:

> I don't know that we know.  Certainly the angle affected reflection and the
> lack thereof, but all the car series had some angle to the glass.
> Maintenance costs?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
> [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org] On Behalf Of Herb
> Brannon
> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 6:41 PM
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Subject: [PRCo] PCC Question
>
> We may have hashed this out before, maybe not.
> Does anyone know the reason for the 1400-series and 1500-series PCC cars
> having the 30-degree slope to the windshield, then the 1600-series being
> delivered with the 1936 style flat windshield? Maybe PRCo got a reduced
> price for using up old parts.
>
> --
> Herb Brannon
> In Cuyahoga Valley National Park
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Herb Brannon
In Cuyahoga Valley National Park