Finleyville -- Single vs Double Track

[Jim Holland]

Greetings!

From: Jim Holland <pghpcc at pacbell.net>

       Agreed that the sign could be *used* - but Finleyville on a 3800
could
also confuse the passenger.  They, too, know where cars can and cannot
turn!  And would the car just deadhead from Finleyville to Riverview
--  deadheading was not one of PRCo's beliefs!:>)

**John Swindler wrote:

*  Hmmmm.  A question that would require too much time to research, and
is
 * probably lost to ages anyway:

	True - won't know the PRCo thinking unless we find a document stating
such.  Maybe it is in that PRCo coursebook that Ed copied for us.
	But brining up the various possibilities might help us to stumble on a
reasonable explanation.  It is interesting to surmise!

*  Why did PRC spend money to double track to
 * Lanks in the first place???  After all, single track was ok for
Washington
  *line service.

	Wasn't Washington built after Charleroi.  The W&C started to Canonsburg
and when the rest of the line was built the Charleroi line was already
operating.  Was it double track to Lanks from the beginning - or was it
initially single and converted to double?

	Why did PRCo put in a second track across Morganza Road on the
Washington line?  Hopeful planning that never materialized!
	The double track on Charleroi was hopeful planning for traffic density
that never materialized.
	Or maybe their crystal ball told them that the railfans of the 1950s
needed both single and double track interurban lines!

James B. Holland

        Pittsburgh  Railways  Company  (PRCo),   1930  --  1950
    To e-mail privately, please click here: mailto:pghpcc at pacbell.net
N.M.R.A.  Life member #2190; http://www.mcs.net:80/~weyand/nmra/