1800 series

[Tom Phillips]

I always felt that the 3750's were a "hedge".  Yes, they had some 
interurban features such as a lavatory, smoking section, special 
seating, etc., when built, but other features such as MU also 
appeared on City cars (5200's, for example).  The dead giveaway on 
the 3750's as "hedge" were the double-stream front and center doors, 
a feature not found on the 3700's or 3800's.  Therefore, I suggested, 
tongue-in-cheek, that they might well have been originally numbered 
either as the 3800 series (as interurbans, in which case the 3800's 
would then have been numbered as 3900's) or as 5500's (as the next 
series of City cars, in which case the 5500's would have been 
numbered as 5600's).

PRCo started with a clean slate when the three experimental cars 
arrived in 1929 -- but why wasn't 6002 numbered 6100?  It was quite
different from 6000-6001.

This could lead to speculation that perhaps the PCC's should start at
6300 (100), 6400's (1000's), etc. or even 7000 and 7100's,etc., 
respectively.

And lastly, who in PRCo's manangement was so superstitious as to skip 
the 1300 series of PCC's?

Tom


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
[mailto:owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org]On Behalf Of Jim Holland
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:57 PM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: Re: 1800 series


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/