[PRCo] Re: PCC Multiple Units

[Jim Holland]

> Kenneth Josephson wrote:

> Incidently, another late nighter who doesn't belong to this list wants to
> know why PRCo never equipped some of their PCCs for M.U. operation. (Yes,
> he's a TTC fan.) Was multiple unit operation with PCCs ever considered
> other than Mr. Swift's back to back plan of the 1960s?  Ken J.

	Probably  NOT.  The Brill and St.-Louis interurbans had couplers, but
didn't operate MU.  The  3750--3769  series low floors were built for
Charleroi, were built for MU, and were absolutely disliked in MU
operation by both passengers and crews!  Some of the low-floors were
intended for MU operation and that was actually done until the 1937,
even in the South Hills.  See photo bottom of pg.11 in PRMA  *Streetcars
in the Golden Triangle, 1859--1985.*

	Passenger density is not as great as Toronto!  It is more advantageous
to have more frequent single cars than less frequent MUed cars!

	AND  PRCo actually ran PCC cars back to back between Castle Shannon and
South Hills Junction during dismantling of an overpass near Linden
Grove.  I copied that out of a past  *Trolley--Fare*  and posted it
right on this list!!

	Those pain pills have affected you, 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/