3750s etc.

[Tom Phillips]

Hi Jim:

I agree with much of your response (and subsequent corrections).
But what has always puzzled me is the numbering of the 3750's --
why start in the middle of the 3700 series?  I don't recall that
having been done on any other occasion.  I have no problem in
the fact that they were numbered in the interurban scheme of
things.  And, also, the one-of-a-kind 3554(?) -- it obviously
was an add-on to an existing group of cars.

Another thing that always bugged me was the paint:  3554(?),
3700's, and 3800's were red -- the 3750's yellow (were they
always so? -- I don't know).

What color were the 3600's?

The 3600's preceded 3554(?) by several years -- again a play with
numbering -- should the 3554(?) have been numbered 3650?

Jim this excercise has been fun and purely one of speculation --
another fascinating aspect to this hobby. NONE OF THIS IS MEANT
TO BE CREITICAL OF PRCo -- JUST A MENTAL EXERCISE OF SORTS!

Tom




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
[mailto:owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org]On Behalf Of Jim Holland
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 4:52 PM
To: -->- PRCo -- WP -- JTC -- The Big *3* -<--
Subject: 3750s etc.


Greetings!

        You make some excellent points, Tom;  guess a good case can be
made for either side.  Seems the numbering of 3750--3769 was decided
upon because of the original  *intention*  for the cars as Charleroi
interurbans.  Trucks were similar and geared for higher speed as
compared to the city low-floor cars.  And the body style was  *similar*
except for the doors and roof.

	Looking back as railfans we tend to expect an extremely  cut--and--dry
system for whatever:  car numbering, painting details, control systems,
etc.  The Reality is that everything is open to modification, testing,
enhancements, etc. so there will be some variation to the numbering
system, controls, motors, etc.  Still, in spite of this, I think that
PRCo is amazingly consistent in its operations practices, even
numbering!
	And when the PCCs arrived and were used for interurbans, they
maintained their original numbers (16s), and the 17-series was simply
divided between interurban and city  *use*  cars.  I say  USE  because
it can hardly be said that the 1700--1724 series were interurban cars
beyond the definition that they did travel between 2-cities.  The
17-interurbans certainly had different equipment and appointments but
that didn't enhance their speed nor operation!  Other cities used
*many*  all-electric PCCs with B-3 trucks as regular city cars - JTC,
Detroit, Chicago, and SF and this is the only big difference between the
city and interurban cars!

HERE'S ANOTHER PLACE WHERE CAR NUMBERING MAY HAVE GONE AWRY.  PERHAPS
1700-1724 COULD HAVE BEEN NUMBERED AS 3900'S AND 1725-1799 AS 1700-1774.
UGH -- I'M GETTIG A HEADACHE


	While it can be claimed that PRCo PCC interurbans were hardly
interurbans in the classic sense like North Shore, Pacific Electric,
C&LE, etc., there are many cases of pre-PCC city equipment being used
for interurban service.  West Penn would be a good example - outside of
the 700s, the other equipment was essentially city cars used for
interurban service.  Many New England systems would be similar and even
the Atlanta interurbans come to mind.
	The Hocking-Sunday Creek Traction Company between Athens and
Nelsonville, OH, operates what looks like Philly nearside cars on their
interurban system.
	The San Mateo interurban of Market Street Rwy had a separate class of
cars but otherwise they looked like regular city cars and didn't have
performance characteristics above and beyond city cars which would
really set them apart!

SOME OF THE MOST UNLIKELY APPEARTING INTERURBAN CARS WERE, AS YOU SUGGESTED
IN YOUR REFERENCE TO ATLANTA, THE EARLY CINCINNATI CURVERD-SIDERS SUCH AS
THOSE USED BY KT&T.

TOM

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/