[PRCo] Re: PRCo___Tax___Licenses_-&-_Car___Assignments

[James B. Holland]

Fred Schneider wrote:

> From the number of people who have shown me these car licenses, and 
> from the occasional one that surfaces on e-Bay, I suspect the practice 
> was wide spread and may account for why many companies assigned cars 
> to specific routes.       Afterall, if I need a license for Pittsburgh 
> city, one for Washington, one for Donora (hypothetical, guys), one for 
> Charleroi ...       I'd sure as hell restrict the 1600s to Washington 
> and put the licenses only on them, I'd split the licenses on the 1700s 
> and have may five cars that have both licenses and I'd assign them to 
> Tunnel, well you get the picture.


Very Interesting!       We have discussed similar before.       Does 
seem that 3700s were Washington, 3800s Charleroi, 1600s Washington and 
we can trace certain 17s being assigned to Char, Tylderdale, and South 
Hills.       Exceptions exist, of course, but it adds more meat to the 
argument of  *-Segregation-*  or  Dedication of equipment to certain 
lines // districts.

> I have no clue why West Penn did what they did; I can only observe 
> that they did it.
>
> I was told that they disliked running mainline cars in reverse because 
> their engineering department was convinced that motor brushes lasted 
> longer if the commutators always turned in the same direction.
>
>
>> Fred Schneider wrote:
>>
>>> Assignments [on WP] may have had a lot to do with what tax licenses 
>>> might have paid on which cars in which boroughs and we have records 
>>> of which towns had taxes and which cars were licensed, if any. But 
>>> this could have been a consideration.
>>
>> Jim Holland wrote::
>> Did PRCo have any such considerations? The McKeesport line could be 
>> considered Interurban since it ran between two cities, Pgh. and 
>> McKeesport - did McKeesport require any special tax license?
>



Jim__Holland


I__Like__Ike.......And__PCCs!!

down with pantographs ---- UP___WITH___TROLLEYPOLES!!!!!!!