Missing Blocks of Car Numbers

[Tom Phillips]

Some additional comments:

AND REMEMBER:- SPECULATION THIS IS -- NO BASIS IN FACT!

Jim Holland wrote:

>	There are too many consistencies in the life of PRCo to think that they
>would not use some system of car numbering, even if it seems elusive to us.
>And it thus does not seem unlikely that they would leave a block of numbers
>for *potential* interurbans.

I agree

Given the following:

1)	There was a known division between the "interurban" and "city"
	operations -- separate seniority rosters, separate barn assignments
	(even at Tunnel Car House, the separation continued through 1952,
	perhaps longer) and consequently separate numbering sequences.

	There were aberrations:  The 4200's (later 4300's) used on the
	Donora line and the 4300's operating in Washington -- these cars,
	all original "city" cars, appeared to me to be initially on
	"lease-purchase" to the "interurban" operation as they were never
	renumbered or returned 	-- and they did not follow any numerical
	sequence.

2)	The 3750's were purchased new, not converted, for service on the
	Charleroi line to replace the 3600's.  Thus the numbering of the
	3750's in the interurban scheme.

	They were apparently not reassigned to the "city" operation after
	downgrading as they continued to be used almost exclusively on
	37-SHANNON and tripper service to Library; i.e., the lines controlled
	and dispatched by and for the "interurban" operation.

3)	The 3750-3758 cars used on 23-SEWICKLEY, per Fred Schneider,
	continued to be maintained and operated out of Tunnel Car House.
	This could shed some light as to why they retained their original
	numbers as perhaps this may have been a reciprocity deal ala the
	4300's above (admittedly, however, PRCo showed little affinity for
	car renumbering).

	Question:  Was there a division between GE and Westinghouse Jones
	Cars such that only GE cars were located to the north and west like
	the GE PCC's were in later years.  This, too, may have some bearing
	as to why the 3750's (Westinghouse cars) were maintained at Tunnel
	Car House -- the PCC's subsequently used on 23-SEWICKLEY were GE's.

4)	The 3400's were purchased in 1905 and the 3500-3549's series in 1907,
	both prior to the "interurban" operation coming on line.  This lends
	credence to the argument advanced last week that the 4000 series (1910)
	were numbered thus because of a radical design change.  However, it
	could also be debated that now that it was on line, the "interurban"
	operation picked up with the 3600's (also 1910), that series grouping
	having been vacated by the "city" operation's order for the 4000's.
	Anyone have an explanation for 3556 (debatedly 1915)?

John Swindler wrote:

>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.

The 3750's preceded the 5500's by more than a year -- from an order date,
could
the 3750's have preceded the 5400's and thus be the "missing" 5300's?  Or
could
the original order for 5300's, had there been one, have been cancelled in
favor
of the 3750's?

I have always felt that the 3750's were indeed a "hedge" or, at least, an
experiment, a temporary expedient, to reduce the excessive operating costs
incurred by the 3600's. They had standard city car bodies with double-stream
doors when all other interurbans (PCC's excepted) had single-stream doors.
How much difference really was there between the 3750's and the 5200's,
for example?  We talk about differences in the trucks, motors, brakes, etc.
-- but was there a real difference here.  As Schneider mentioned earlier,
the gear ratios on the 3750's were for speed, not sprint, and that they was
changed early on -- to what?  Same as 5200's?  Does anyone know?

   Parenthetically, however, this was a time of turmoil for the interurbans
   as a whole:  UTCofI was ordering their heavy 427 series, FW&WV was about
   to order their 375's and 390's.  But others, such as KT&T, Stark
Electric,
   and soon-to-follow I&C were ordering Cincinnati Curved-siders.  PRCo had
   to decide whether to go with heavy weight steel cars (they were already
   displeased with the power requirements of the 3600's), to buy mid-weight
   steel cars (they had plenty of experience by then with the 3700's), or to
   try a lighter weight steel car -- they obviously decided to gamble on the
   latter -- but also to hedge the bet (or was it economy in numbers?)!

We have talked about numbering them as 3750's rather than 3800's, the next
logical series at the time when they were ordered.  Here again management
may
have signaled its "hedge".  If the cars didn't work out in interurban
service,
PRCo could transfer them to the "city" operation, downgrade them
appropriately,
and even renumber them (as 5300's -- uh-oh, where did that come from?) and
the
replacements numbered in the 3800 series!

John Swindler discussed Order Group Numbers -- 18 being for the 3700's and
19
for the 3750's.  The sequence here indicates that these orders were for
interurban service as there were several city car orders between these
groups.
The group numbers don't indicate such, but could the 3750's actually have
been
intended to be 5300's originally?  Were the 3800's Group 20?  I have no
knowledge of Group Numbers.

Renumbering the PCC's as 3900's is a whole 'nuther story worth debating,
about
4 years from now when we finally get the 3750's to bed.

NOTE TO EHL:  DO YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE CHAIR IN THE PTM LIBRARY?  IF SO, I
THINK I COULD USE IT!  ARE WE FLYING BLIND OR WHAT?  RIGHT NOW, I COULD USE
EITHER A TYLENOL OR A TEQUILA!

It would be nice to see a roster of cars with purchase dates from trailer
days
(1910), icluding the 3600's, through the 5500's and 3800's.  Does anyone
have
one that could be put on the screen?

Tom