[PRCo] Re: Gaps in Numbering

[Fred Schneider]

One might suspect that they blocked the 5300s for more MU cars.

The missing 4400s and 4500s suggests that they really had not ruled  
out more double end cars in 1917 when they ordered the 4700s and that  
they were leaving space.   Logical?

The conversion to single-end cars was never completed before all the  
routes were converted to bus operation.   Some like Spring Hill,  and  
Beltzhoover, Ardmore, Arlington got loops in the PCC era and others  
very late in the low-floor era.   Unfortunately, none of the railfan  
reference works on Pittsburgh Railways have every dug deeply enough  
into the what was happening between the Railways Company, the Mayor's  
and the Department of Public Streets to tell us how those people all  
interacted and my hunch is that is where you will find the answer.    
Someone needs to read a lot of newspapers and look for yellowing  
department minutes in city archives.

Sadly I could have asked those questions of a lot of knowledgeable  
people when I got into this crazy hobby.  However, back in those days  
I was a 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 year-old and I was out taking pictures  
and riding trolleys and buses.   I didn't have enough sense to ask  
WHY something happened.    None of us ask why until someone lays the  
question out in front of us on a plate, then we want to know the  
answers.

But there are hints written all through the route cards such as ...  
"We are extending this line back to 6th Street for 90 days to see if  
automobile and wagon traffic at loading points isn't excessive."    
You can read a lot into those kind of statements ... and maybe too much.

You can also look at how places like Dallas with those wide streets  
got away with double end cars all the way through the PCC era.     
Cars turning back in the middle of streets in New Orleans were never  
a problem because they had some of the widest streets anywhere.   Los  
Angeles never had single-end cars until they bought off-the-shelf  
PCCs in 1937.   Same with San Diego.  Wide streets again.   I think  
Chicago's only single-end order before the PCCs were the Sedans in  
1929.   Same situation.

But Pittsburgh had streets where the trolleys scraped the parked cars.

On May 14, 2008, at 5:18 PM, Phillip Clark Campbell wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: John Swindler <j_swindler at hotmail.com>
>> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:03:54 PM
>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: MU service on Frankstown
>>
>>
>> ....... By the way, you never asked the question of why there were
>> no 5300s??   It might be the same answer as to why there were no  
>> volume
>> purchases of 4400s, 4500s and 4600s.  (the low 4400s that did  
>> exist were an
>> afterthought)  Or am I the firt to notice this???
>> John
>
>
>
> Mr. Swindler!
>
>
> There are a number of gaps in the numbering aren't there.  I  
> remember seeing something about this in the archives but I forget  
> the details now don't I.
>
> 3600s
> 3700s
> 3750s
> 3800s
>
> Then jump to
> 4000s - SE
> 4100s - SE
>
> 4200s DE thru
> 4400s  DE
>
> then gap to
>
> 4700s SE thru
> 5500s SE
>
>
> One could guess that 3600 thru 3999 were reserved for Interurbans  
> couldn't one.
>
>
> It would seem that the intention of the heavy high floors was for  
> trailer pulling thus SE equipment was necessary.  Then the  
> numbering continues with DE equipment, gap, then back to SE  
> equipment doesn't it.
>
> 3700s were presumably built from what was learned with the 3556  
> experiment.  While the 3750s were otherwise identical to all the  
> city low floor cars they were purchased for Charleroi service  
> according to Mr.Baxter weren't they and they are kissing cousins to  
> the 3700s so are numbered in this block.  Thus the listing here for  
> 3750s rather than numbering consistent with other low-floors.  The  
> PCCs were so distinctly different from other equipment that it  
> could be guessed that Interurbans and City cars
>  were numbered with the PCCs but could otherwise have been  
> something like this:  1601s for Interurban usage as 3900s and  
> 1700--1724 as 3950s!!!
>
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>