[PRCo] Re: Beeses vs Trolleycars

[Jim Holland]

> John Swindler wrote:
 
> Your first sentence, Jim, was right on target:
>	question of relativity.

> For some reason, always thought/think of 42 as prw line.
> I tend to overlook Broadway street running.

	I wasn't so much talking about certain lines as being prw, but all the
prw on the system as a whole.  There was no small amount!  Probably only
Boston rivals PRCo for prw, and we might want to consider Boston ahead
of Pgh. because of the downtown subway - not a tunnel - but segregated
prw for the trolleycars.  Riverside came on line late - 1959 - but still
there was plenty of other prw around!
	Flipadelphia wouldn't even come close to Pgh. in amount of prw nor
would Brooklyn, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Baltimore, Wash-DC, Toronto,
Chicago, Detroit, San Francisco, LA, etc.  Most of these had some prw,
but nothing to compare to PRCo.

> But also consider 38 and 39 as street running.

	Yes, this is true - but they still had prw ala my point above - and the
39-line a considerable amount from SHJ to W.Liberty Ave; then on
Brookline Blvd center of the highway prw, double track, near the end, as
well as the single track section and loop!

> John Swindler wrote:

> Interesting differences in perspectives.
> So much PRW?????  Not in the east end where I grew up.  But then Jim hails
> from the Dormont area, and I feel so ancient talking with Derrick who is of
> a younger generation that only remembers the South Hills.

>> Jim Holland replied

>>       This has to do with Einstein's Theory--of--Relativity  --
>> it is all relative - relative to E. Pgh., the South had much prw.  It is
>> also Relative to other cities  --  like SF with a small portion on the
>> J- & K-lines and some center of the highway prw on the M  --  makes PRCo
>> look like the PRR mainline!!
>>      In 1978, a couple local--yokel SF trolleycar fans made a swing thru
>> several systems in the East including Pgh.  One had been before; first
>> trip for the other.  I could sense that the 'other' did not like Pgh.
>> and just found out within the last couple years that they took a ride on
>> the Interurban from downtown.  Tunnel was ok, but of course there was no
>> more street running!  And the 'other' said:  "Don't like this  --
>> streetcars are supposed to run on the streets!"

> John Swindler wrote::

> So from my perspective (as a post-war baby boomer), PRC was primarily a city
> streecar system serving numerous outlying communities, often based on the
> steel economy.  Oh, and it also had a bit of prw on a couple lines, such as
> 56, 10/15, 87, 42 and 35/36.  But 6, 8, 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, (I was too young
> for west end), 38, 39, 40, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 77/54, 55, 57, 58, 64,
> 66, 67, 71, 73, 75, 76, 82, 85, 88, 94, 95, 96, and 98 were city street
> lines.

>> Jim Holland wrote:

>>       Most definitely beg to disagree with the above.  Tunnel itself will not
>> be included as prw (even though it is prw) but certainly the ride down
>> thru the yard qualifies as prw, Yes??  How many car lines in Pgh. did
>> that - autos couldn't travel down there (with exception of PRCo shop
>> trucks - but then they can travel prw anywhere if they wish!)  Then
>> there is the long Palm Garden Trestle  --  1,000--feet  --  and the
>> trolleycar only ramp from W. Liberty Ave!  No autos on all this!
>>       So I  ADD  the following with prw - 38, 39 (which also had some center
>> of the highway prw, double track, Brookline Blvd., as well as a stretch
>> of single track prw at the end to the loop), 40-line leaving SHJ, also
>> 44-48, and 47.
>>       The 8-Perrysville had about 1/2--mile prw at the end down behind
>> Perrysville Ave which also includes the rush hour only 11.  The 55-line
>> had a 1-2--mile or better side-of-the-road-prw along Braddock.  You left
>> out the 65 above which had a short-block of prw shared with the 56- as
>> well as an off-street siding at this location so a Lincoln-Place bound
>> car could wait for the single track to clear.  And the 68-line had prw
>> beside Duquesne Blvd thru Kennywood Park.
>>     I think we have to say that 56-line had more than a *bit* of prw!(:->)

>>     I like to think of PRCo about 1950 when most everything was still
>> intact so we also have to include 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30!  So let's
>> revise the list::

>>     PRCo--PRW:::::::    8, 10, 11, 15, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, Castle
>> Shannon, Charleroi, Washington, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 47, 48, 55, 56,
>> 60 (when extended thru Kennywood), 62, 65, 68, 78?, 87.

>>     PRCo--Non--PRW:::::::    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17,
>> 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 32, 34, 49, 50, 53, 57, 58, 60 (when not
>> extended to Kennywood), 64, 66, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75, 76, 77/54, 78?, 82,
>> 85, 88, 94, 95, 96, 98.

>>     Granted, some sections of prw are short.  Still, a mighty impressive
>> showing of prw.  Relative to most other Streetcar systems, it  *seems* 
>> that PRCo had quite a bit, more than most!(:=>)

-- 
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/