[PRCo] Re: PCC Question

[Dwight Long]

Ed

That thought crossed my mind as well, but then I recalled that the 1500s were wartime babies--in fact with many substitutes account scarce materials.  So, unless there were a whole bunch of left over windshields from pre-war production, this scenario is unlikely.

Perhaps more likely that after experiencing the two designs, PRC simply preferred the original?

Dwight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Edward H. Lybarger 
  To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, 20 October, 2010 09:41
  Subject: [PRCo] Re: PCC Question


  There may have been wartime shortages of material needed for the castings a
  la 1400-1500.  The earlier design was simpler.

  -----Original Message-----
  From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
  [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org] On Behalf Of Phillip
  Clark Campbell
  Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 9:29 AM
  To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
  Subject: [PRCo] Re: PCC Question

  Mr.Brannon,
  The PRC 14s and 15s had a 24-degree slope to the front window; Boston had
  the same on most of their air-cars.  I never heard a reason for reverting to
  12-degree on the 16s.

   Phil
  Without  a   'coast'   but  not  a   'cause.'





  ________________________________
  From: Herb Brannon <hrbran at cavtel.net>
  To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
  Sent: Tue, October 19, 2010 6:41:06 PM
  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