RE: RE: (erielack) Lackawanna Lightweight Coaches

["Tupaczewski, Paul R (Paul)" <paultup_@_lucent.com>]

The Susquehanna got their hands on two of the former Erie heavyweight coaches, and even had one beautifully redone in NYS&W paint. I think it ran on one trip, then both cars were put out to pasture (and I forget the reason why). I also think that one of these cars eventually did get used as an art gallery or some such use in Cooperstown, NY?

	- Paul


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Janet & Randy Brown [mailto:jananran_@_mymailstation.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 8:32 AM
> To: erielack_@_lists.railfan.net
> Subject: Re:RE: (erielack) Lackawanna Lightweight Coaches
> 
> 
> Ed -- The main difference was the number and type of seats.  
> The Erie cars had Heywood-Wakefield "Sleepy Hollow" reclining 
> chairs which were specifically designed for overnight runs, 
> and they had no more than 52, spaced on a 44" pitch, in most 
> cars.  The Lackawanna lightweights had 62 seats, spaced much 
> closer together.
> 
> The Erie cars were heavier and seemed to me to ride smoother. 
> Have any of the Erie heavyweights survived?
> 
> Randy Brown
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> LAST NIGHT I REMEMBERED WHERE I GOT THE IDEA THAT THE 
> LACKAWANNA LIGHTWEIGHT COACHES HAD PROBLEMS.  IN THE SPRING 
> OF 1972 WILLIAM D. MIDDLETON WROTE AN ARTICLE IN "TRAINS" 
> ABOUT RIDING THE ERIE AND ERIE-LACKAWANNA BETWEEN CHICAGO AND 
> JERSEY CITY HOBOKEN.  HE MENTIONED THAT HE WOULD BE ONE OF 
> THE FEW PASSENGERS WHO WOULD MAKE THE END-TO-END TRIP.  HE 
> COMPLAINED THAT AFTER THE MERGER THE OLD ERIE REBUILT COACHES 
> WERE REPLACED WITH THE LACKAWANNA CARS WHICH HE DESCRIBED AS 
> DESIGNED MORE FOR DAY-COACH PASSENGERS.  HE MENTIONED THAT 
> THE ERIE CARS WERE BETTER FOR OVERNIGHT TRAVEL.  ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT?
> 
> ED MONTGOMERY
> 

------------------------------