[PRCo] Re: Pittsburgh 7-Charles Street abandonment

[John Swindler]

Maybe 47S for South Hills Village via Overbrook.  And yes, maybe 
reincarnation of 42/38 and 38A as 42C would make sense to reduce the number 
of cars using the Broadway in Beechview.

Also, how about PAT instituting the bus rerouting plan as shown in the 
SKYBUS reports?  Under Skybus, South Hills routes would be changed to act as 
feeders to Skybus stations.  But with light rail, they have continued as 
competing transit service.

When going to college in late 60s, would take 41A to Dormont Jct. and 
transfer to 42/38 for trip downtown.  Was faster and more reliable then 
continuing through Liberty Tubes on 41A bus.  Thirty years later, PAT is 
still running competing transit services.  Something to keep in mind next 
April when those of you living in Allegheny County pay your county taxes.





>From: Jim Holland <pghpcc at pacbell.net>
>Reply-To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>CC: billvigrass at hillintl.com, ALLMANR at aehn2.einstein.edu, rwan at dejazzd.com, 
>   csiebert at paonline.com, elmerfry at desupernet.net, JacksoRE at STVINC.COM
>Subject: [PRCo] Re: Pittsburgh 7-Charles Street abandonment
>Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 20:36:36 -0700
>
>
> > Shirley Tennyson wrote:
>
> > . . .  Since LRT was modernized to keep SkyBus
> > out, the taxpayers are entitled to their stops. They are not entitled to
> > block two-car trains. If I were running Pat, I would turn single-car
> > peak trains at Mt. Lebanon every six minutes, to run i9n front of 42-S
> > two-car trains following by three minutes. This would provide 30 cars
> > per hour for 3,,600 passengers 7:45am to 8:45am and 4:45pm to 5:45.
> > That will cost less and increase revenue. Library as you point ot will
> > run via Ovebrook at 47-L. Maybe there should be a 47-S from South Hills
> > Village via Overbrook so that 42-S would have only one-car trains and
> > 47-S would get the two-car peak trains.
>
>	Because of the faster speeds through Overbrook, it seems that everyone
>from South Hills Village to Castle Shannon would opt to ride the Library
>car through Overbrook.  That is why it would seem that the 42S would be
>cut back to 42C--Castle--Shannon!!
>	Maybe we need another route designation  --
>45--Shuttle--South--Hills--Village--Castle--Shannon!!
>
> > . . .  In all my
> > life, P.Ry.Co and Pat running times from Greyhound Staion downtown to
> > Castle Shannon were 27 minutes inter- urban and 30 minutes local,
> > perhaps 14 miles per hour local and 15.5 mph inter- urban over some
> > single track.
>
>	Looking closer at a 1950.01.22 schedule for Charleroi reveals what you
>mention above with some longer running times in both the AM and PM
>peaks.  For example, the 4.24PM Riverview car took 33-min to Castle
>Shannon while the 4.30PM weekday run to Roxcoe took 31-min.  The 4.49PM
>Riverview car took 32-min; the 4.54PM car went to Charleroi Car House
>and took 31-min to CS.  The 6.00PM car is the first to return to 27-min
>Pgh. to CS.
>	The 1957.10.14 schedule does not list running times but it seems that
>28-min from Castle Shannon to Pgh. was common weekdays and Saturdays
>with 26-min on Sunday.  Sunday service on Drake and Library was still
>every 40-minutes with 20 minute headways inbound of Washington Jct.
>	But the running times listed on the 1964.04.26 schedule reflect what I
>remember from riding the interurbans  --  25-minutes from Castle Shannon
>to Pgh and same in reverse  --  about 1958--1962!  Sundays saw 1-hour
>headways on Library and Drake with 30-min service inbound of Wash. Jct.
>
> > . . .  With Stage II, it should  be
> > faster as there will be all double track (a waste) and fewer stops with
> > less curves, cutting off three minutes.
>
>	I can see where all double track is not absolutely needed because
>probably only the Library car will use this line (at least initially)
>but double track will not represent any increase in maintenance costs,
>or minimal increase.
>
> > The last time I rode 42-L in the rush hour, it arrived at Library five
> > minutes ahead of schedule which was obvioulsy set too slow.  P.Ry.Co
> > time-studied the trips using a supervisor to operate and allowing the
> > signed up regular operator to watch and file a grievance if any corners
> > were cut. I do not think Pat does that, but I am not sure.
>
>	Fascinating  --  first I learned of how PRCo set their schedules!  How
>often did they check this?  Wonder how much they did this by the late
>1950s; seems that running on all lines was quite liesurely when I rode
>the cars, and was boring to me.  The only time that cars really moved
>out is if there had been some kind of delay!
>
> >      To my knowledge, Routes  35, 36 and 37, now 42-S and 42-L  never
> > lost passengers after World War II when they carried 24,000 weekday
> > passengers in 1953 after the interurbans were gone. Mid-day may have
> > lost riders, offset by more commuters in the peaks.
>
> > E d   T e n n y s o n
>
>--
>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/
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com