[PRCo] Re: Gaps in Numbering

[John Swindler]

Likewise (never thought to ask those sort of questions in my teen years - and even later)
 
> From: fwschneider at comcast.net> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Gaps in Numbering> Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 20:15:02 -0400> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org> > 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> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 
_________________________________________________________________
Make Windows Vista more reliable and secure with Windows Vista Service Pack 1.
http://www.windowsvista.com/SP1?WT.mc_id=hotmailvistasp1banner