Pittsburgh Rys 101

[Jim Holland]

Greetings!

	Student?  Do you know the definition of the term!  Think that I am 
going to learn more from this than I can contribute!

Charles Brown wrote:

> 1)  I read about the 1949 Lougee report in an old,

	Never heard of it - could you provide a source so I can check it out?

> 2)  On the 42 line, why was the PRW near Dormont paved?  Was it a former
> street?

	The specific section to which you refer is just outbound of the Wenzell 
Ave overpass to Potomac Ave in the center of Broadway wholly within Dormont.  
This section was sunk in cement up to the *bottom* of the railhead and was 
concave between the rails.  Doubt it was used as a street.  Don't personally 
know why it was paved.
	This section from Potomac in Dormont to Neeld in Beechview was 
apparently graded specifically for the streetcars.  The one way traffic on 
either side was not necessarily at the same grade even near Potomac.  And the 
streetcar passed over Wenzell on unpaved prw to the Neeld loop in Beechview.
	Early contour maps *seem to indicate* that Broadway in Beechview was 
center of the highway prw but I have been unable to confirm that at this point. 
 But that was paved, in street trackage while I grew up along the line from the 
late 40's.  I used to live half-a-block down from the line on Greenmount, the 
first stop inbound from the 42 DORMONT wye.
	The ERA, July 1952 *Headlights* publication on the interurbans 
indicates that the 42 line might have been part of the route into downtown very 
early on.  That was then changed to the 38 MtLEBANON line and shortly later to 
the Overbrook location.

> 3)  Is or was there any other system that had more bridges and trestles
> or more miles of track on them than PR?
> 4)  Speaking of which, I understand that the West end lines were
> abandoned due to the closing of the Point Bridge.

	Certainly other systems had more trackage but *probably not* as many 
bridges and certainly not the variety of operation common to Pittsburgh and 
PRCo.  Some will point out that PRCo was glad to get rid of the streetcars 
because the Point Bridge closed, but I am not totally convinced of that yet!  
And yes, the 55 & 56 lines, both with very colorful operation, were closed 
because of a a bridge.
	The 2 & 3 were closed because of highway construction and *possibly* 
the 94 because of a bridge on the outer end across the Allegheny.

> 5)  The block signaling system on the single track segments impresses
> me.

	*Some form of signalling* was there from the beginning but the Union 
Switch and Signal system was installed later; Ed can give us a date.
	The Overbrook portion has been described to me as absolute, permissive, 
sub-divided block system, at least since the mid 50's - it *might* have been 
slightly different before that.  When the interurbans were terminated at 
Library and Drake in 1953, two new sidings were added before and after the Bon 
Air siding.  Because flow of traffic is predominantly one-way in each rush 
hour, an opposing car could theoretically get stuck forever in one spot at a 
red signal.  There was a way for these cars to pre-empt this flow automatically 
but since I don't know the terminology it is difficult to describe.  But I 
understood how it worked!
	The only cornfield meet I personally know of is 1646? and 1261 on the 
dinky track between Mt. Lebanon and Castle Shannon (1963-1965?).  The motorman 
of the interurban car said that, knowing an accident was imminent when he first 
saw 1261 coming around the turn, it looked like that car was coming at him 
sideways.  This track section was protected by trolley pole contactor signals 
which *might* have failed; the other possibility was that the motorman failed 
to check the signal.
	Several of the 1700 series PCC cars had brushes mounted in the track 
brake to sweep the rails clean of debris, especially sand, and it was totally 
forbidden to use sand on the interurban lines because it could break contact 
for the signalling system (even the prototype had problems with contact, not 
just modellers - there is a prototype for EVERYTHING!) - unless there was a 
valid emergency!  A light switch like used in homes, complete with box that is 
sunk into the wall, was mounted on the right side of the operators dash to drop 
the brushes; a light outside the right front window indicated that the brushes 
were deployed.
	With the advent of LRVs here in SF, track switches went from overhead 
contactor to track segment operation.  A relay automatically shows indicator 
lights for diverge or straight thru every 10-15 seconds.  When the proper light 
is displayed, the operator moves the LRV or PCC into the track section 
immediately before the switch which sets that switch and then locks it out.  
Each following truck enters the block before the previous one leaves and the 
switch stays set properly for the whole train.  Just before the subway entrance 
on Duboce is a switch to take surface cars to Market Street.  I was coming 
outbound with my Judah LRV and sitting behind a J Church LRV that was sitting 
on the diamond of this junction waiting for an inbound 2-car Judah train to 
clear the intersection (1981-1982.)  It was a rainy day and the operator used 
sand all the way across the intersection.  This apparently broke contact and 
reset the switch so that the very last truck of the last car headed for Market 
Street and smashed into the Church car sitting in front of me!

> 6)  In Jim's tape, he shows the interurban PCC's merrily bouncing along
> passing stop after stop.

	Oh yes - Sundays and holidays were light but weekday commutes were 
extremely heavy (I also turned off the battery powered movie camera at stops 
to preserve battery and film!!)  Sunday schedules were hourly on Library and 
Drake giving Castle Shannon half hourly service in the 60s.  As late as 
December in 1957, 40 minute headways were common on Sundays thus giving 
Overbrook riders 20 minute service.  The Library car had owl service until the 
mid or late 60s!  Commute schedules were every couple minutes at peak times 
with 37 Shannon trippers.

> 7)  And speaking of which, would there be any justification today to
> re-extend the interurbans to Washington and Charleroi . . . For that
> matter, have any physical obstacles been built since their abandonment
> 8)  Oh yeah, on a video (can't recall which one) it shows an interurban
> in Charleroi battling against one-way traffic. . .And on the Washington
> end, did they have anybody to stop traffic when the PCC's backed out of
> the wye station?

	Oh yes - I think you would have a difficult time moving the 
Pennsylvania Trolley Museum off its location on the County Home Siding of the 
Washington line!  Don't know about justification but bus service still exists, 
or did a number of years ago!
	It was near the end that Charleroi made the street one-way; it wasn't 
always that way!
	NO back-up controllers in Pittsburgh PCC cars.  The 3700-3714 and 
3800-3814 series had back up controllers but from photos I have it *appears* 
there is a trolley pole contactor in the backup wire of the wye that *might* 
set a traffic signal for traffic - probably installed for the PCCs - but I 
can't see the traffic signal.
	In the TGM tape of Pittsburgh's South *Side* (should read South Hills) 
lines, it shows a 3750 class car backing into the Canonsburg wye across 
traffic, motorman at the front controls, no traffic signal.
	The 42 DORMONT wye was on prw but there was a tremendous amount of 
pedestrian traffic, and us kids, in the area and they backed from the front 
seat--without any help from anyone else!

> 10)  Was Geissenheimer responsible for the bizarre paint schemes in the
> 1970's?

	Believe so!  At first I wasn't too keen about the change but it did 
bring about a positive public image - many riders knew the cars by name and 
number!
	The ({[PAT gray]}) paint scheme is symbolic of everything evil in PAT 
and is akin to *devil red* as far as I am concerned.  Even now to be confronted 
by a car painted as such causes me to react with horror and anger as though 
confronted by a poisonous snake!  ({[PAT]}) was forced into keeping the 
trolleys and Geissenheimer's attempts restored some respectability to the 
trolleys for the public and the railfan - even the dash lights came back on 
much of the equipment!
 
> 11)  I just read that while PR favored streetcars, the city hated them
> and tried to eliminate them as far back as 1933.

	Anne X. Alpern (sounds like the devils temptress) was city council 
member who avidly hated the streetcars, but don't know why.  She hails from the 
late 40s or early 50s.  At this time, PRCo was going through a second or 
possibly third reorganization following a bankruptcy declaration.
	There has been much debate about the *National City Lines* being 
responsible for the demise of streetcars in a variety of places.  But by the 
50's, most of the populace thought streetcars were old fashioned, the 
automobile provided keen competition, and Railway Companies found it cheaper to 
buy new buses than new streetcars AND rebuild the deteriorated infrastructure 
of track, bridges, and overhead!  These three would be an horrendous capital 
expenses at a time of drastic reductions in yearly patronage so little if any 
return could be projected for such a large expenditure.
	Quite honestly, many of the light rail systems today are being built as 
me-too systems following a *fad return* to light rail - streetcars are once 
again an *in-thing* but they won't always be such!  It will be interesting to 
see what happens to these rail lines then!

	Found a hot-dog laying on the front sidewalk - 400 miles from Long 
Beach?!--naw, couldn't be!

-- 
James B. Holland
       To e-mail *off-list,* please click here: mailto:pghpcc at pacbell.net
              PITTSBURGH RAILWAYS COMPANY (PRCo), June of 1949 -- June of 1953
      Pennsylvania Trolley Museum (PTM) member #273; http://www.pa-trolley.org/
N.M.R.A.  Life member #2190; http://www.mcs.net:80/~weyand/nmra/