[PRCo] Re: PCC Multiple Units

[John F Bromley]

Would a company buy MU and not use them.  Sure, look at TO.  Every CLRV is
an MU car, but other than tests never operated as such and never carried a
passenger on a train.  Then they took them off because too many people were
getting slammed by streetcars and being hit upside the head by the coupler
as they went under.  Thus the pitiful Shiner shrouds.  The ALRVs even have
them on the back, no doubt to prevent a potential suicider from trying to
catch the car to run under it!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred W. Schneider III" <fschnei at supernet.com>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 9:05 PM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: PCC Multiple Units


>
> Yes.   The 3750s, 5000s, 5100s, and 5200s were all MU cars.  That said,
> my question was, do we have any evidence that the 3750s were ever
> operated in trains?  To the best of my knowledge, the 3750s were always
> based at Tunnel.  I thought they served very briefly in interurban
> service ... perhaps only two years until the 3800s came on line, and
> thereafter were assigned to Shannon or Library trippers and to
> Sewickley.  I was not aware of any MU assignments on any of those
> lines.
>
> Would the company have bought MU cars and never used them as such?  Why
> not.  Nearly half of all corporate decisions are faulty.  Lancaster,
> Pennsylvania, for example, had eight MU cars for service to Coatesville
> but they never ran in trains.
>
> Now was the picture in the supermarket clearly 3750s?  Were they in
> scheduled service?  And was the picture taken at an identifiable
> location on the interurban line?
>
> tsquare at toad.net wrote:
> >
> > Weren't the 3750's essentially copies of the 5200's.  I thought that
> > this had been discussed previously.
> >
> > Seems to me that there was an enlarged (maybe 4' x 6') photograph of
> > a 2-car train of 3750's in a super-market in Charleroi until about
> > four years ago - the photo is gone now.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
> > [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org]On Behalf Of Fred
> > W. Schneider III
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 10:35 AM
> > To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> > Subject: [PRCo] Re: PCC Multiple Units
> >
> > Jim Holland wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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!
> >
> > What is your evidence that the 3750s were ever run in trains?
> >
> >   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/
>