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

[John Swindler]

>Donald Galt comented:
>
>Except, of course, that Don's contribution seems repudiated.
>
>In answer to John-F's attempt at mediation, all I can say is that my
>map definitely does show the 46 running on Arlington Ave between
>Warrington and South 18th, and definitely shows nothing except 49
>along Climax and Gearing.
>
>That said, the map appears to be wrong by all other evidence.
>


Or is it?  The PUC docket for Agreement to run and operate streetcars 
through South Hills Tunnel from 1923 mentions that only service on 
Brownsvile Ave. (now Arlington) was a shuttle from Carson St.  to top of 
hill.  South 18th St. would make for a good terminal for double end 
equipment and provide transfer connection with Carrick cars.  I'd like to 
see a 1924 Plat map for this area for existance of crossovers.

Perhaps 46 Brownsville routed to Beltzhoover was a later attempt to find a 
loop for single end equipment.

Just a guess.  Again, something else to look for in the PTM files.

John




>(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.)
>
>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."
>
>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
>
>

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