1800 series

[John Swindler]

Sounds like 45 (1800-1844) TDH 3501 buses acquired around 1966 as part of 
the PAT's Phase II fleet replacement.  Old look style, three speed 
transmission.  Lasted into mid-1970s.  Several got PAT's "mod" paint scheme 
in early 70s.

Concerning 1600 rebuilding and renumbering into 1700 series, a railroad had 
repainted a locomotive into bicentenial motif in mid 1972.  Not to be 
outdone, when 1616 was rebuilt in late 1972, as promotion gimick, Harold 
Geissenheimer had it renumbered to 1776.  Have we forgotten Harold's long 
tenure with National Guard?
Work on 1600s was much more extensive then on 1700s, which had received 
overhaul during 1970-72 using Early Action Program grant funds.  Rest of 
1600 rebuilds just kind of naturally followed 1776.  But noting sacred about 
that:  don't forget that there was a car numbered "77/54".

And didn't the B&O commuter railroad cars receive numbers in 1600s?

John


>From: "Edward H. Lybarger" <twg at pulsenet.com>
>Reply-To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
>Subject: RE: 1800 series
>Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 11:03:07 -0500
>
>The 1800s were the little noisemakers from Generous Motors that rattled
>around Mt. Lebanon and McKeesport.
>
>-----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 11:19 PM
>To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>Subject: Re: 1800 series
>
>
>Greetings!
>
> > Bob Rathke wrote:
>
> > Why didn't PAT renumber the latest PCC rebuilds in the 1800, rather than
> > the 4000, series?
>
>	Was there an 1800 series motor coach?
>
> > 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?
>
>	This  *fits*  the  *rumor*  that I heard, although that rumor was
>debunked by JC Swindler.
>	The  *rumor*  stated that the Feds threatened to cut off all money if
>they didn't overhaul 100-cars of the 1700-series so 16s were overhauled
>and renumbered as 17s.
>
>	This was told to me by a ({[pat]}) operator almost 30-years ago.  I
>usually accept comments like this at face value and place a white-flag
>by it indicating that it should be confirmed or verified by other
>sources.  Welllll, I never got that confirmation  --  and I never got
>anything to contradict it.  So as time wore on, I just accepted it.
>	While your question specifically wasn't asked before, this topic was
>discussed before and John indicates that this rumor is unfounded.
>
>	But then we could also ask - why didn't they just overhaul the 16s and
>renumber them as is?  There would have been gaps in the numbering is all
>I can think of!
>
> > Could it be that they just didn't think of this alternative?
>
>	YES!! :->)
>
>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/
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com