PRCo PCC 1613 -- Musings!

[Jim Holland]

Greetings!

	I have often wondered - sometimes out loud, sometimes by 
electrons - why PCC 1613 was chosen as the experimental interurban, and 
why a PCC was taken from Craft Avenue Car Barn and not South Hills.  I 
have come up with a *theory!*

	A little background is necessary at this point.  I have assembled 
a sizeable collection of PRCo photos and I targeted photos of 1950 as 
this is my favorite period in PRCo history - virtually everything ever 
owned by PRCo was still in service with the newest PCCs in the 1700 
series making interurban runs to Charleroi and Washington and some of the 
oldest equipment converted to work horse use!  It is difficult to track 
down rosters of equipment but collecting photos is one way of doing it.  
I have virtually nothing on 1600 series cars in South Hills (outside the 
interurbans) until I stumbled across one collection and found 1620 and 
1621 were there.  Later, retired operator Pat Healy confirmed that 
1620-1629 were in South Hills about 1950.  At least two of my photos 
confirmed part of this.
	When 1613 was chosen as the experimental interurban, some pretty 
distinct plans must have already been thought out.  With a mid-day 
running time of almost 1'40" each way Pittsburgh to Washington, it would 
take seven cars to hold down the base service.  Let's see  --  1613, 
1614, 1615, 1616, 1617, 1618, and 1619  --  by gum, that's seven cars!  
PCC 1620-1629 were already at South Hills making 1613-1629 South Hills 
Cars!  So their experimental interurban was already at Craft and that is 
why it was pulled from there.
	Now, when they wanted spare 1600 series interurbans (1644-1648), 
why didn't they they get 1608-1612 - the most logical - or 1630-1634?  In 
the pullout in the back of *PCC The Car That Fought Back,* Fred Schneider 
indicates that 1630 got the B-3 trucks from 1648 after the 1955 Homewood 
fire.  I have been unable to confirm this but it is interesting that 1630 
ended up in South Hills after the closure of Highland and that it might 
have gotten B-3 trucks for a spell.  All pictures I have are about 1960 
and a little later and the car sports B-2s; other photos I have about 
1955, the trucks can't be seen!  One of these photos has the car in 
service on LIBRARY - so maybe it did have the B-3 trucks!

	Another thought - 1613 is now at PTM.  (That is, the 16 
renumbered as 1799 is thought to be 1613 - there has been some confusion 
about this.)  Since it was an experimental car for interurban purposes - 
first, its original Clark B-2 trucks had weight added to them for 
interurban service, then 1613 got the experimental B-3s from either 1230 
or 1278 (1613 never had standard B-3 trucks nor did 1614) - and since PTM 
has spare all-electric trucks (presumably Clark B-2B's - trouble is, when 
the original rubber bolster springs wore out, I don't know if they 
replaced the bolster assembly with a swing link or just bolted it to the 
frame) - why not restore Clark B-2B's upper framing only (*H* frame of 
two longitudinal tubes held together by two motor mounts with a rubber 
spring bolster in between) to the original condition and place this under 
car 1613.  This way a unique truck design is preserved.  Only the upper 
frame is needed and useable - The B-2Bs were built for all-electrics and 
the control package on 1613 would not recognize this so it has to keep 
its own motors and air brakes.  Car 1644 that was briefly an interurban 
had the experimental B-2A trucks which were never mass produced.  They 
were very similar to the B-2B in that the bolster was mounted on rubber 
springs rather than a swing link so there is justification in doing this 
conversion!

James B. Holland
------- -- ---------
        Pittsburgh Railways Company (PRCo), June of 1949 -- June of 1953
    To e-mail *off-list,* please click here: mailto:pghpcc at pacbell.net
N.M.R.A.  Life member #2190; http://www.mcs.net:80/~weyand/nmra/