Car Assignments -- 65/55 line --- Gleanings From *TrolleyFare*

[Jim Holland]

Greetings!

	That certainly made quite a nice little line!  Thanks for the update,
Matt!

	Don't know if any of you knew Isadore Reichert - operator who lived
along the 38A - think he picked up a run on the 55 after it came to
South Hills, unless he had signed into Glenwood (he usually worked South
Hills.)

	At any rate, I rode with him on the 55-line and we had a very nice
1600.  He opened it up along the side of the road prw to race a bus and
although we won, it was more like being on a very choppy ocean!  Never
remember a city car bouncing up and down so much!  Enjoyed the ride,
though!

mrb190 wrote:
> 
> I don't see where anyone answered your question here (LOTS of emails from the list
> to read!  This is great!  No complaints from me), so I'll give it a shot...
> 
> 65/55 was instituted after route 55's trackage from town to 8th Ave. and Amity was
> abandoned in July 1964.  So the 65's were then extended into East Pittsburgh from
> their usual loop near the Rankin Bridge.     I suppose with the private right of
> way in Braddock, PAT hung on to this route for a little longer + if route 65 was
> to continue, the only trackage it had to get back to any car house was via the
> Rankin Bridge.
> 
> Matt
> 
> Jim Holland wrote:
> 
> > Greetings!
> >
> >         Gleanings  From  *Trolley  Fare*
> >                 February--1965
> >
> >         "The Tunnel 1600's that had been at Craft for a while for use on 65/55
> > have now been partly  [??partly--which parts??!!]  returned to the South
> > Hills.  Only 1666, 1670, and 1673--1674 remain at Craft.  The reason
> > hasn't been any reduction in service on 65, but instead the application
> > of 65 signs to the rollers of most of the Craft original 1600s
> > (1601--1605, 1607, 1609, 1610, 1612) and to at least one 1500, namely
> > 1504.  1775 had also recently been working out of Craft, and had been
> > seen on 65/55 with a home-made sign stuck between the gladd and the
> > rollsign."
> >
> >         Was this an actual route at this time - 65/55 - or is it just a method
> > of stating 2-different 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/

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/