Missing Blocks of Car Numbers

[Fred W. Schneider III]

Regarding the cars assigned to Washington and Donora shuttles, note that
PRC did the same thing with low-floor cars that they did with PCCs ...
they tended to split cars to barns according to apparatus.
This varied over time just like the PCCs did.  Charleroi and Tylerdale
barns generally had cars with Westinghouse HL control, really a knockoff
of General Electric type M form K in that the PRC cars used solenoid
switches instead of pneumatics. Without looking, I don't know how many
other HL DE cars they had in the 1940s and 1950s.  Glenwood had 5400s
and the ten high speed 4350s ... all K35 control with high speed
motors.  Keating, in my life, had all K43 control 5500s and two cars for
Evergreen, probably also K control. Ingram had 5200s (HL) and probably
the same apparatus on double end cars for Thorndale and Schoenville. 
Bunkerhill had a lot of 5200s (HL).  At the end, I remember 5000s at
Tunnel (HL) and I've seen pictures of similarly equipped double end cars
at Tunnel, and the 3750s were the same.   And just like Homewood was a
mixed bag for PCCs, it also was for low-floor cars.  

Problem is this changed over time as car needs varied.  I'm remembering
what I was in the early 1950s. 

The company was naturally reducing parts inventories by car assignments
(and they did a lot better job than other cities).  


John Swindler wrote:
> 
> >Tom Phillips commented: 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.
> >
> 
> Question with answer below:  When it comes to rolling stock or equipment,
> there were two districts within the Car House Section of the Equipment
> Division.  What were these two districts??????
> 
> District One was the six east end car houses with 466 cars assigned in 1937.
> 
> District Two was everything else with 384 cars assigned in 1937.
> 
> And that should tell us something about the relative importance of the
> interurban lines within PRC management.
> 
> And as for the "two separate lists" at Tunnel Car House, this involved
> employee seniority within the Traffic and Transportation Department: one for
> city service and one for interurban service. But is that two lists at Tunnel
> Carhouse or is that a Tunnel Car House seniority list and a Castle Shannon
> Car House seniority list which has been transferred to Tunnel Carhouse?????
> 
> Since I don't have a copy of a ATU labor contract, here is a question for
> Dr. Jim:  What would happen at MUNI to your seniority for picking runs if
> you were to transfer to another depot, such as Geneva?   Does it go with you
> or do you start at the bottom of the seniority list for run picking at the
> new garage????
> 
> But the real question is, who has a copy of the labor agreement between ATU
> div. 85 and PRC from 1930s or 1940s?   And what does it say about seniority
> and picking of runs?  Because I'd bet a value meal at McDonald's (ok, so I'm
> cheap!) that seniority for picking runs was why Tunnel maintained a city and
> a interurban seniority list.
> 
> >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.
> >
> 
> Fred the third and I got into a "discussion" this morning concerning low
> floor car assignments.  (actually more like a raid on Fred's memory) One of
> the questions involved why only partial conversion to one man operation and
> HL control for DE cars, primarily starting in 4200s.  So I asked following
> questions:
> 
> What type of single end cars were at Keating?  K-control.  And double end?
> K-control.
> 
> And what was at Tylerdale?  HL control.  And 3700s-3800s?  HL control.
> 
> And at Tunnel?  HL control (look at Bob Dettrick's site:  those are 5000s at
> South Hills Jct.)
> 
> And what was at Ingram?  I think Fred said it was a K-control barn.
> 
> >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)?
> >
> 
> Didn't have car roster handy, so went to Bob Dettrick's South Hills Jct.
> site for following:
> 
> 4000 ordered in 1909 and were first group of steel cars
> 3600 ordered in 1910 and are listed as wood interurbans.
> 4100 ordered in 1911 and were second group of steel cars.
> 
> Looks like PRC used 3550s for "one of" cars for few years.  Then changed
> their mind and used 6000-6002 for experimentals.  Then changed their minds
> again and used 100 for first PCC.
> 
> >
> >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.
> 
> Might be because Bethel Park, Mt. Lebanon and Castle Shannon were beginning
> to develop as suburban communities.
> 
> Also, what is life expectancy of wooden interurban cars?  Perhaps, rather
> then rebuild two-man 3600s, the one-man steel 3800s were purchased. Just a
> (wild) guess.
> 
> And one final question for the trivia fans.  So what were the initial cars
> assigned to Charleroi-Pittsburgh service???
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com