Re: Milan 1692 Downunder

IS Edit
Thursday, April 4, 2002 6:21 AM

The Milan Peter Witts I've seen in San Francisco are now double-enders but otherwise look original.

I don't know the car this guy refers to but I'd rather see a vintage tram refitted sensibly to allow it to be used in service than see it sitting dead on a track in a shed somewhere.

And the Milan car I saw at Bendigo eight months ago had been completely butchered by the Milano tramways people when they tried to get it ready for double ended operation. It was going to need major surgery.

I think it is entirely legitimate to convert those cars for double-ended operation if that is what that guy is referring to.

Bob Murphy

----- Original Message -----

From: nswtramways2001

To: [email protected]

Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 4:06 PM

Subject: [TramsDownUnder] Milan 1692 Downunder

From: "Avv. Luca M. Geoni" <GEONI@P...> Date: Wed Apr 3, 2002 10:11 pm Subject: ventotto spoiled [Copied from the "Milano Trams" group.] Hello! I perused the photos send from Australia of 1692. I thank the friend who mailed them. But: I just wonder which is the sense to completely modify a vintage car like this. It's not any longer a vintage car, but a new re-built car : that is not a Milan tram any longer! The same is for the ventotto in Santa Fe' If someone here would purchase red London double decker bus and make it a yellow single decker would not go around and say: look a typical London bus! I see people peeping inside 1692 and I know they are thinking: "so these are the cars circulating in Milan". But it's not the case. Better keep the car still indoor than making it circulating like this to comply with local rules. Regards What do TramsDownUnderers think?

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.