Monessen Junction

[EDWARD H. LYBARGER]

The rationale about signal 140 being at milepost 14 on Rt. W is what I was
speaking to.  Signal numbers on Rt. W were not based on mileage.  They went
100, 101, 102, etc. (consecutive).  Rt. C numbers were mileage-based, and
therefore not consecutive (8.3, 8.8, etc.).

The fact that Rt. W photos were used in an article about Rt. C doesn't
surprise me; those guys used whatever they had and figured you wouldn't know
or care.  The author took a ride and enjoyed it and wanted to recount it,
but just didn't have the right pictures!  Accuracy was not demanded in those
days.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Holland <pghpcc at pacbell.net>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 1999 12:03 AM
Subject: Re: Monessen Junction


> Greetings!
>
> EDWARD H. LYBARGER wrote:
> >
> > Signal numbers on the Washington Route were consecutive from Washington
Jct.
> > They were indicative of mileage from/to Grant & Liberty on the Charleroi
> > Route.  Signal 140 was at Morganza and faced timetable south.  Signal
105
> > was/is at Brookside facing north.  The photo IDs are correct but the
> > rationale is not!
>
> I don't understand your last sentence.  It is nice to know that my ID of
the locations is
> correct, but what rationale is wrong?  I couldn't see the signal number in
the Brookside shot but
> know the location *very well* from memory.  In the Morganza photo, while I
don't distinctly
> remember the location, I do have other photos in the same area.  I then
surmized that signal 140
> might fit that location mileage wise.
>
> This is what is confusing about both photos:::::::  The article is about
the Charleroi
> interurban  ONLY  --  but the photos used are from the Washington
interurban line.  One would
> naturally expect that photos included with an article on the Charleroi
line would be photos from
> that line.  Being uncertain about the second location because of no
particular memory of this
> section and then rationalizing that the mileage indicator on the signal
mast has to fit Morganza
> and  NOT  Charleroi because the latter is still double track 14 miles
south of Pittsburgh seems
> like good rationale!  *******I don't have signal mast information but
would gladly accept such if
> you wish to send it!!!!!!!*******
>
> > The photo at Morganza is part of a series shot by Union Switch & Signal
soon
> > after they installed the system
> >
> > A company stop list from the late `30s/early `40s reads:
> >
> > Black Diamond
> > Glendenning
> > Eldora Park
> > Log Cabin
> > Eldora
> > Summit
> > Bridge 3 NE
> > Bridge 3 SE
> > Bridge 2 SE
> > Bridge 1 SE
> >
> > The map in the INL piece appears to be a company map, perhaps from a
tariff?
> > It shows the fare zones and the track features.
> >
> > Ed
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Jim Holland <pghpcc at pacbell.net>
> > To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, June 05, 1999 2:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: Monessen Junction
> >
> > > Greetings!
> > >
> > > Don Galt wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But, then, Lockview station was on the hillside right smack above
Old Lock
> > > > 4, and just north of the Lock 4 School. Yet my maps show Lockview
itself
> > > > farther up the road (and, undeniably, more remote from the
interurban
> > > > line.)
> > >
> > > Many times I have noticed that *stop names* seem to have no
relationship to the immediate
> > > surroundings, but can't come up with a good example right now.
> > >
> > > > Were there stops at Bridge#1, Bridge#2, Bridge#3? Barring these, I
see no
> > > > note of any stations between Lockview and Eldora.
> > >
> > > YES - that linear map you have shows stops on the south side of each
of the Bridges with
> > > Bridges #3 and #2 having telephones - the underline shows telephones.
> > >
> > > > >From Jim Holland:
> > > >
> > > > >> I have an absolutely super photo from John Brinckman <<
> > > >
> > > > Certainly sounds super, from the description.
> > > >
> > > > Those of you with photographs, of course, are singularly blessed.
> > >
> > > YOU  can purchase these photos as well; there are some super ones out
there.  Another
> > > excellent source of photos are the calendars put out by PTM.  They
might have some for 1997 and
> > > 1998 yet but all other back dated calendars are gone.
> > >
> > > > Parting shot: what is the location of the photo on the first page of
the
> > > > 1944 INL article by Ira Swett, showing a car just beyond a section
of
> > > > double track?
> > >
> > > The photo of a 3800 approaching a siding actually *appears to be*
entering Brookside siding
> > > with the car heading south on the Washington line even though the
article itself deals only
> > > with the Charleroi line!!!!!!!  And the snow photo on the page with
the map appears to be along
> > > Morganza Road on the Washington line with the car heading northbound.
If the direction is
> > > correct the signal mast indicates a location 14 miles south of
Pittsburgh which would make
> > > Morganza possibly correct.
> > > Fourteen miles south of Pgh on Charleroi should be north of Lanks yet
and that would still be
> > > double track as Lanks, the beginning of single track on Charleroi, was
16 miles south!  (But it
> > > looks like the scenery along 88 near Mingo or Crookham on the
Charleroi line.)
> > > --James B. Holland
>        To mail a personal reply *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/
> National Model Railroad Association (NMRA) Life member #2190;
http://www.mcs.net:80/~weyand/nmra/
>