Old PRCo route numbers

[Fred Schneider]

I think transfer was a strange local term.  I'm not sure I ever heard
shuttle used in Pittsburgh, at least not in my lifetime...but that isn't
quite 60 years.  The public maps in the 1930s used the word "transfer."

-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Galt [mailto:galtfd at att.net]
Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 5:45 PM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: RE: Old PRCo route numbers


On 22 Nov 99, at 11:53, Fred Schneider wrote:

> Shuttle when the Bion-Arnold report was printed often
> indicated a route that matched the 1950 definition in the off peak but
> which ran into the city in peak hours.

This certainly does seem the most obvious explanation for the disparity.

It would help if there were some explanatory text to the table in the
Arnold 
report. The distances shown for the "transfer" routes obviously are
those for 
the isolated shuttles, but that needn't preclude peak-hour service
downtown.

It would also help to know whether the numbers of cars shown would 
correspond to those necessary to provide through services at those
intervals 
and at those distances from the Triangle. Library Street, for instance,
is 
much farther from town than is upper Charles Street, but the car 
assignments shown are the same.

Another question: "tripper" is frequently used for such rush-hour
services. 
There are trippers shown on the table, including a number grouped
together 
without further identification. Does this work against Fred's
hypothesis?

That word "transfer" - was it in use for such services in other cities,
or is 
that a Pittsburgh peculiarity? And was "shuttle" ever used in
Pittsburgh.

D2