Old PRCo route numbers-car requirements

[Vigrass, Bill]

I now agree that the best guess is that the "transfer" lines did provide
through service in the peak hours jusst as 81-Atwood did in later years.
Not only did the through cars add capacity on the trunk lines, they did so
efficiently.  If PRCo added a tripper or two on each shuttle line, they
would have gained little productivity and there would probably have been a
lot of time paid for that was not productively worked.  By running them
through, the crews and cars hauled a decent load, often a direct one seat
(or one standing place) ride.  It makes a lot of sense even though someone
commented that there was other data that seemed to go against that idea.
Anyhow, until someone comes up with a better solution, I'll buy the through
service.  In those days there was LOTS of riding, needing the extra service.
Bill V.  

	----------
	From:  John Swindler [SMTP:j_swindler at hotmail.com]
	Sent:  Tuesday, November 23, 1999 9:16 AM
	To:  pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
	Subject:  Re: Old PRCo route numbers-car requirements


	>Donald Galt replied to Bill Vigrass comment (I can't think of
another 
	>reason that makes any sense.  Maybe it was just an error.)
	>
	>Don't think so. Six cars are likewise allowed for Library Street
(10-minute 
	>peak hour service over a round trip route of 1.4 mi,) and four for
Corey 
	>Avenue (quarter-hourly over 1.3 mi.) There's something going on
here that 
	>we don't understand. Whether peak hour through service or ?????, I
don't 
	>know.
	>
	>
	>

	Considering the accuracy of route vehicle requirement reports
submitted by 
	current transit operators to PennDOT, errors are a possibility.  But
also, 
	how were pieces of work put together and where/when were maximum
load 
	points.  In other words, a schedule department problem, and what you
see in 
	the Arnold report is their solution.

	The answer probably lies in records saved at PTM, and as Ed L. has 
	previously commented, anyone really curious is welcome to research
the 
	files.

	However, it was before my time, but didn't 81-Atwood run through to
downtown 
	Pittsburgh during rush hours, but only was a shuttle to Oakland
during the 
	off-peak?  If so, why?  Well, probably to provide additional
capacity along 
	the Forbes/Fifth corridor during peak hours.  Off-peaks, Atwood
riders could 
	transfer to less the full cars operating along Forbes/Fifth.  But
during 
	rush hours, that extra capacity didn't exist.

	Likewise, what was purpose of Corey Ave. and Library St.?  Take mill

	employees from their homes to the mills.  Single car shuttle during
most of 
	the day would suffice.  But what happened at shift changes?  Again,
just a 
	guess, but I suspect the records might show extra trips to the
mills, not 
	only in Braddock, but what about Homestead and E. Pittsburgh?  You
can still 
	see that today in Erie where EMTA runs extra buses over their routes
to GE 
	plant at shift change, and SEPTA and Altoona put extra buses out as
school 
	trippers.  When one looks at peak headways, cycle time, and vehicle 
	requirements, it doesn't make sense unless one knows the both the
existence 
	and purpose of the extra trippers.

	Again, this is just a guess.  The real answer might lie in the route
card 
	files at PTM.

	______________________________________________________
	Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com