[PRCo] Re: Pantographs

[Bob Rathke]

On mainline railroad electric locomotives, the second pantograph was a 
back-up for the first. I always heard that PRR GG1 locomotives ran with the 
rear pantograph up, the reason being that if it became disabled and 
separated from the locomotive it wouldn't damage the front pantograph which 
could then be used to continue the trip.

Bob 5/2/06

-----------------------------
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark McGuire" <macmarka at netzero.net>
To: <Pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 10:50 AM
Subject: [PRCo] Pantographs


>  I'm not very knowledgeable on technical things but something has been 
> bothering me lately. I have been looking over a few pix and slides and 
> noticed the pantographs on both the 1700s and 4000s.
> In the beginning(the LRV era) the 1700s seemed to have pantographs
> in the front with trolley poles still on the back for not so obvious
> reasons(we'll get to that later).
>  I noticed that in the later years to last days of PCC cars, the
> 4000s seemed to have 2 pantographs attached, one on the front, and one on 
> the rear. Was there a reason for 2 pantographs?
>  Also noticed a few cars(both 1700s and 4000s) with pantograph only
> on the rear. Did PAT keep the pantographs on the front of the 1700s
> until they were decommissioned?. When did they add them to the rear?
>  Now getting back to my earlier statement.  I have a few photos and
> slides from 1982-84. Why did they use trolley poles when pantographs
> were installed? I have seen one particular photo that puzzles me.
> 4003 and a car following(either a 1700 or 4000 series car in final
> white paint scheme-can't read the number) at the Bon Air stop on the
> old Overbrook line. Second car is chartered(anyone on this trip?).
> First car is signed 47L West Library via Overbrook and has 2 pantographs. 
> Second chartered car only has one pantograph on the rear.
> Don't know the exact year but has to be 1993 or earlier. Why did
> some cars only have one pantograph while others had 2? And why
> weren't the pantographs used in the 1982 era and not the poles?
> I used to think that poles were used on the Overbrook cars but this
> photo shoots that theory down. This is all very confusing to me.
>  If anyone can clear this up, I'd appreciate it.
>
>
>
>