Old PRCo route numbers (was: Route 9, 8, PHB&NC)

[Edward H. Lybarger]

There were attempts at through routing...22/85 comes to mind immediately; I
think there was another.

Yes, 10 and 15 changed signs in West View.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
[mailto:owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org]On Behalf Of Donald Galt
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 2:14 PM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: Re: Old PRCo route numbers (was: Route 9, 8, PHB&NC)


On 11 Nov 99, at 11:54, Derrick J Brashear wrote:

> That's still Pittsburgh practice [signing only for a route name, not a
> destination]

The pecularity of Pittsburgh is that there were no interlinings through the
Triangle. If the 38 had been through-routed with the 13, for instance, the
signs would have been changed at the termini, i.e. it would have been
exactly as Jim describes for Vancouver, which similarly uses very minimal
route designations in big, easily-read form.

Wolfgang Auer, who has written an extensive treatise on the Vienna route
numbering system, was fair astounded when I pointed out to him that the
car on the cover of "Touring Pittsburgh by Trolley" is heading AWAY from
West View.

Which brings up another point: I assume that 10 and 15 cars changed signs
at West View terminus, right?

D2