Missing Blocks of Car Numbers

[John Swindler]

>Jim Holland further commented:
>
>Greetings!
>
> >> Jim Holland asked:
> >>      Where's the 3900s?.....
> >>              Where's the 4500s?.....
> >>                      Where's the 4600s?.....
> >>                              Where's the 5300s???????
>
> > John Swindler wrote:
>
> > So they got to the 3600s, which just happened to be for interurban 
>service. But when first steel car orders arrived, perhaps a decision was 
>made that this warranted a new sequence starting at 4000s and 4100s.
>
>	Sounds Good  -- 3600s as interurbans so some blocks of numbers were saved 
>for future interurbans.
>	PRCo assigned 'Group Numbers' to its cars and the 3700--3712 series was 
>Group--18 and we know that these cars arrived in 1917--1918.  The 
>3750--3769 series (built specifically for use on Charleroi) is Group--19 
>and these cars did not arrive until November of 1925, almost at the end of 
>the low-floors for city service!!
>	So I do not think it was steel vs. wood but interurban vs city!
>
> > Rather then mingle a small group of interurban cars among the growing 
>ranks of low floor city cars, the next interurban car order got the next 
>block above the 3600s, or 3700s.  And when you order a group of 20 cars for 
>interurban service, do you number them as next group of low-floor steel 
>cars or group them with other interurbans?  Maybe just for convenience, PRC 
>ended up with a 3750-3769 series, and not a small 5600 series.  So maybe 
>there was no "plan" to keep the interurban cars as a group in 3600s-3800s - 
>it just happened that way over time.  And thus no 3900s.
>
>	I think that 3700, 3800, and 3900 series were left for the interurbans 
>following 3600.
>
>	But by the time that they got to the PCCs, this numbering system was 
>forgotten or ignored.  The 1600--series cars converted for interurban
service should have been 3900s  --  but then, where would the 17s be 
numbered?
>	The 3750s were sort of kin to the 3700s - similar trucks, control, body, 
>similar operation.  I personally see a big difference between air-electric 
>and ALL-electric PCCs, but maybe others don't.
>	The 1600--series interurbans could have been 3900--3911 (this includes 
>1644 which was semi-interurban until the advent of the 17s) and
>1700--1724 could have been 3950--3974!!
>



Hi Jim.

Quick "off the cuff" comment:  I worry that we are looking back as railfans, 
and not struggling to put ourselves into role of PRC office employee in 
1910; 1925; 1940, etc. and see the world - and specifically PRC car number 
assignments - as they would see it.   For if PennDOT can be a guide, any 
"standardized" roster system would be subject to annual revisions - (because 
we don't remember what we decided to do last year!!!)

Car numbers are everything to "us" railfans, but really just an 
insignificant bookkeeping entry to PRC staff.  And perhaps that can be 
somewhat painful.

Frankly I would be shocked if, in 1910, PRC deliberately left a block of 
numbers in high 3000s for interurban cars.  Instead, I'd call it just dumb 
luck, and a convenient place fifteen years later to place the 3750s and 
3800s.  (Are we saying the same thing, Jim, that the interurbans occupied a 
block of numbers, but just placing different emphasis on cause?)

My "bureaucratic" guess is that PRC view of world in 1903 was PRC purchase 
vs predecessor companies; in 1910 it was steel vs wood, and in 1936, someone 
made a conscience decision to "let's number these new fangled PCC cars in a 
separate series."  Beyond that, I would venture a suspicion that anything 
else was somewhat of a spur of the moment decision rather then following a 
well established policy.

Again, just a guess.  After all, based on 27 years Army experience and 29 
years state government experience, why would there be any obligation to 
follow any such policy anyway? (I'll cross swords with Fred the third over 
PUC-West Penn controversy by asking whether that was an isolated instance in 
1918 (maybe new administration) or a continuing PUC policy to require 
filled-in annual reports?)

The group numbers is interesting, but would that have come later?  
Otherwise, the 3750s would have a much higher, rather then next consecutive, 
group number from the 3700s.  Again, a later bookkeeping entry???  Anything 
further on group numbers???

Just a quick attempt at a "bureaucratic" viewpoint.

John

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