1800 series

[Jim Holland]

Greetings!

> Tom Phillips wrote:

> That's like asking why didn't PRCo number the 3750's as 3800's

	This one makes  *some*  sense.  Although the 3750s were one of the
latter groups of low-floors purchased, they were built specifically for
interurban service on Charleroi for train service.  So the numbering was
unique rather than following in sequence of the low-floors.
	PRCo could have started the 3750-series at 3715 but that would  *hint*
that cars c700--3734 were identical when they were distinctly different.
	So 3750  *seems*  somewhat logical  --  or if not logical, reasonable!!
:->)

>> Bob Rathke wrote:

>> I have a very obvious question, one that HAS to have been asked before:

>> Why didn't PAT renumber the latest PCC rebuilds in the 1800, rather than
>> the 4000, series?

>> Better yet: back in the 70's, instead of the confusing renumbering of
>> 1600s to the 1700 series, why didn't PAT simply renumber those rebuilds
>> in the 1800 series?

>> Could it be that they just didn't think of this alternative?

>> Bob 1/4

James B. Holland

        Pittsburgh  Railways  Company  (PRCo),   1930  --  1950
    To e-mail privately, please click here: mailto:pghpcc at pacbell.net
N.M.R.A.  Life member #2190; http://www.mcs.net:80/~weyand/nmra/