From: gl4317@yahoo.com   
      
   In article <4f61865d-5a97-4f18-b67d-3c63f4335b1d@googlegroups.com>,   
    hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:   
      
   > On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 1:56:49 AM UTC-4, Glen Labah wrote:   
   >   
   > > Tearing into an existing car that has been retired and using it as a   
   > > demonstrator car to prove the system could result in a prototype car   
   > > much faster than starting from scratch.   
   >   
   > It would seem that way.  However, the PATCO rebuild program--where its 45   
   > year old Budd cars were sent out to be completely rebuilt--is a disaster,   
   > taking far, far longer than anticipated.  (I don't know the reason, and   
   > apparently they haven't given any.)   
      
   For a prototype car, however, you don't necessarily want to have to   
   develop both a new carbody and a new set of traction equipment at the   
   same time.  The first experimental unit of any sort is going to have a   
   lot of stuff that isn't going to be desirable.  Colorado Railcar sank a   
   lot of money into their prototype car, and in the end the prototype car   
   had issues that are the nature of a first time build.   
      
   If you are going to build something like that, then why spend the huge   
   amount of money Colorado Railcar did on both a new carbody design and a   
   new traction control system, when a cab car that is already slated for   
   the scrap yard is already available?   
      
   --   
   Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam due to e-mail address   
   harvesters on Usenet. Response time to e-mail sent here is slow.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)