[PRCo] Re: 46--line vs 49--line --- & 47--line

[Jim Holland]

>> On 9 Jun 01, at 2:54, Jim Holland wrote:

>>  Many  THANKS  to Tom, John-F, and Don who all chimed in to
>>  give direction and clarification.

> Donald Galt wrote:

> Except, of course, that Don's contribution seems repudiated.

	Don::	You gave the best information you had.  The list is like a
Committee - the individuals do not necessarily have all the information
(Ed might have it all at his fingertips - just doesn't have enough
fingers!) so each member puts forth the information he has.  This can
then be compared, contrasted, compiled, and reasonable conclusions might
be reached.

	Thus, Again,  MANY  THANKS  to all above who have contributed.  I feel
that real progress has been made and it couldn't be made alone!!

> (In answer to Ray's caution about switches [and curves] at
> Arlington and Warrington: none whatever, according to any map I've
> seen. Not even so much as a crossover on Warrington - surprising,
> I'd say, since that surely put PRCo into an operational
> straightjacket at this busy intersection.)

	Pittsburgh was not big on crossovers and the amount of double ended
equipment from the mid--1920s on (and even earlier, actually) was rather
small as compared to some other cities.  The absence of a crossover here
certainly suggests that the 46-line had to go to Gearing and at least a
stub before it returned!
	The only crossover on the 38-, 39-, and 42-lines was on the 38 on W.
Liberty Avenue just inbound of the 42-line wye.  And the wye connected
to the outbound track.  I saw a PCC use this once when its reverser
would not work (a 1200-series)  --  went inbound on the outbound 38-line
and took the crossover and went back to the barn.
	There may have been more crossovers in earlier days but as Fred has
noted, revenue track was subject to taxation so those earlier crossovers
were removed to save overhead costs.

> Okay, this from an article by Roy G Benedict written to
> commemorate the closing of the last of the Hilltop lines (ERA
> Headlights, Nov/Dec 1970) with the word order slightly changed:

> "Originally, the route number 49 designated the Beltzhoover via Mt.
> Washington Tunnel service ... with the service via Arlington Avenue
> being designated 46 Brownsville. Except for the first two outbound
> cars beginning in 1968 in order to save a second early weekday
> car, the Mt. Washington Tunnel routing was dropped on Jan 11,
> 1940 with the introduction of PCCs to the line and the 46
> Brownsville designation was changed to 49 Beltzhoover on
> September 30, 1946 with no change in routing."

DON::	SHOULD  "1968"  ABOVE  READ  *-1938??-*

> I can't help being mildly surprised that the Beltzhoover branch
> could have generated enough traffic for two services.

> Several years ago Jim H sent me a list of car assignments as of
> July 1929. Compiled by ????, giving route cards as its source.

> The combined requirement for the 46 and 49 was three cars base,
> six cars peak. Would three cars have been enough to provide a
> credible service to Beltzhoover up New Arlington (Brownsville)
> Avenue and another through the tunnel? Or would the 49 have been
> a peak hour route? Just wondering.

> Don

-- 
James B. Holland