South Hills Junction

[Jim Holland]

Greetings!

Dietrich, Robert J. wrote:
> 
> Folks:
> 
> Bob apologizes:
> I apologize for running the comments together on my last message.  My mail editor
> indents things very nicely, but by the time it came back everything was run
> together.

> >>Jim said:

> >>From your comments and pictures I've seen I believe this map is all wrong.
> >>This map shows the turnouts for the 38-39-40-42 from the interurban track
> >>down past the shelter.  Pictures show they should be near those stairs,
> >>where the turnout for the single line to 40 is.  One picture shows it to be
> >>about one car length (3800 car) from the turnout to the loop.

	Jim has checked a couple of his past letters and he cannot find where
he said this!!  If you could please specify the subject and date for
such letter, I would appreciate it!

	Please let me emphasize  --  I  N-E-V-E-R  said your map was all
wrong.  There may be some confusion over maps that Don and I refer to
that we have in our personal possession - a 1927 map and *supposed 1950*
map.

	I think the map on your website, Bob, is excellent - I have no qualms
with it.  But the strange connection to the outbound 40 line from near
the tunnel portal begs defining.  This was just a stub track in the
1950s but the Harold A. Smith photo PI-0303 (if I remember the number -
it is quoted in past letters) shows the rails to this track in place
with an outbound 3800-type interurban in the photo approaching its
stop.  I would say that this map might best show 1935 but is an
extremely good representation of 1950 if the strange connection to the
40 line is made into a stub.  Please, also see comments later.  Photo
#22 from the North Jersey Chapter of the NRHS dated 1956.08.29 clearly
shows the 40 line stub track.  I'll scan and send you a copy, Bob!

An excerpt from the above quote which Jim did NOT say:::::::

> >> This map shows the turnouts for the 38-39-40-42 from the interurban track
> >>down past the shelter.  Pictures show they should be near those stairs,
> >>where the turnout for the single line to 40 is.  One picture shows it to be
> >>about one car length (3800 car) from the turnout to the loop.

	Coming *inbound* on the 38-39-40-42 and joining the interurban - this
is  NOT  one car length between this junction and the turn into the loop
around the admin building.  EVIDENCE:  the switch contactor to set the
switch for the loop was in both sets of wires - the Dormont lines and
the interurban lines - cars had not cleared this junction before they
had to set the switch.  This is something that I was aware of at age 10
and is a detail which is extremely important to me as far as modelling
this location.  So I  N-E-V-E-R  would have said something like this! 
While the writing style looks similar to mine, maybe the paragraph is
shortened, cropped or whatever, but it is definitely misleading!

> Speaking of the loop, my pictures show very little distance, about a half
> car length, between the two turnouts on the 44-48 side.  This would make the
> loop closer to the Admin building and/or a larger radius curve.  It also
> begs the question; is the single track behind the Admin building in proper
> alignment on my map?

	I would say *way* less than 1/2 car length.  Railroad Avenue Enteprises
photo #PN-12647 dated 1952.07.03 shows 5028 inbound at this location and
it appears that the two switches almost touch or they do touch.

	Additionally, the lead into the loop around the admin building from the
inbound interurban was tangent once leaving the point to and/or through
the frog before going into the turn.  While PRCo predominantly used
spiral easements to prevent the back end of a streetcar from fouling
opposing traffic when turning into a switch, this is a tangent at a low
angle from the switch to accomplish the same purpose.  (In some
locations where streets were too narrow, standard switches and turns
would be used and the turn would be *NC*  --  No Clearance  --  so two
cars could not pass on turns; rulebooks generally forbid that, anyhow!) 
I would assume that the turn after the tangent might be as low as a 35
foot radius but don't know.  It is difficult to tell from pictures.  It
is also difficult to tell if the trailing and leading switch on this
loop on the 44-48 use spiral easements.

> >>  Don said:
> >> As you mention, the loop around the admin building is not present but
> >> the admin building is in the center of a triangle formed by the rail
> >> lines you mention - a triangle with curved sides.  In the 1927 map, the
> >> single track that runs behind the admin building is from the
> >> i-n-b-o-u-n-d  38-39-40-42 to the outbound 44-48 o-n-l-y.

	Don did not say the above  --  JIM  DID!!!!!!!

> Bob Asks:
> 
> Is it possible that this was all configured for Double End cars?

	NO  --  the 48 was DE - don't know about the 44.  The 38 and 42 were
single end equipment.  Maybe  T-H-E  V-E-R-Y  O-R-I-G-I-N-A-L 
configuration was completely for double enders but that changed rapidly.

> Since the
> Interurbans were housed at Castle Shannon they would only pass through.  You
> are questioning the omission of crossovers in the available maps.  Could it
> be that some more crossovers existed and they didn't need to turn cars at he
> junction/car house, just get them onto the proper track?

	Apparently you are running way behind in your email, Bob, as these
answers have been found!
	The above is the reason why I believe that your website map is most
representative of about 1935 - the interurbans had been moved to South
Hills and that strange 40 line track *might* have still be in place as
such.  Certainly the rails were evident from the Harold A. Smith photo
of 1936.
	Your website map is a very good representation but not a scale drawing
from items previously discussed.

> 
> >> Jim Said:
> 
>         6-- That weird track from the outbound 40 line is shown to connect
> to
> the mainline well south of where the interurbans branch off suggesting
> that this is also south of the restaurant.  But a turnout exists from
> the outbound mainline well north of where the interurban branches off
> and the rails for this track run mysteriously parallel to the track it
> branches from for quite some distance as evidenced in the photo PI-0303
> from Harold A. Smith.  This particular track will probably remain a
> mystery!
> 
> Bob said:
> 
> I have one picture on my web site that has this track, I can see it on the
> original but it may not be visible on your browser --
> http://www.voicenet.com/~dietrich/SHJ/bv6.htm.  If you save the picture then
> open it in a graphics editor you may be able to see the track and get a
> better idea if its alignment.
> 
> Don offered:
> 
> To post a jpg of one of his maps.
> 
> Bob says:
> 
>  I would really like to see it.  I know you sent it once before but I can't
> locate it, I fear it go lost in my last mail outage.
> 
> Thanks for the information.
> 
> Bob Dietrich
> Member East Penn Traction Club (EPTC).  They started me building trolley
> modules then keep me from it helping to run the club.

James B. Holland
------- -- ---------
        Pittsburgh Railways Company (PRCo), June of 1949 -- June of 1953
    To e-mail *off-list,* please click here: mailto:pghpcc at pacbell.net
N.M.R.A.  Life member #2190; http://www.mcs.net:80/~weyand/nmra/