[PRCo] Crossover between McFarland and Biltmore --- & PRCo Safety

[Jim Holland]

> tsquare at toad.net wrote:

> Re: The crossover between McFarland and Biltmore --

> All true -- but since there existed nearby another way to allow service cars
> to clear, wouldn't it have been better (and I use this word cautiously) to
> have used one crossing and one turnout instead of three turnouts at this
> location?  This would have eliminated the possibility of an outbound 38
> "splitting the switch".  (Occurrence thereof at this location was a
> possibility that PRCo apparently ignored.)

	Yes - in this sense it would  *seem*  to be better.  38-line cars
really rolled through that outbound, facing--point turnout, too!!
	Hard to tell who was thinking what.  The layout used by PRCo allowed
much more versatility as outbound 38-line cars could be diverted into
the wye if necessary as opposed to backing across McFarland Avenue.  But
to get such a car facing the right direction, it would then be necessary
to wye it and back it across McFarland, at least partially!
	I still believe that PRCo had a keen eye for safety from all that I
have personally observed and from all that has been mentioned on this
list.

	First of all, the ERA maps show all the derails which existed in
low-floor days  --  most but not all of these were removed by the early
to mid-1950s.

	PRCo protection on trestles is Outstanding - NO other property
protected their riders and equipment as well as PRCo.  PRCo had an 18"
high barrier to prevent derailed cars from going over the edge.  I have 
NOT  seen that type of barrier on any other trestle.  Look at the photo
on pg.185 of  *The Interurban Era*  by Middleton - this bridge is higher
than the interurban bridges on Charleroi (156-feet as opposed to
144-feet) and there is virtually no protection!  Also check pgs.400,
352, 319-upper, 309-lower, 292-293, 270-271, 172, 151-top, 124-125,
118-119, 112-113.  In most of these cases a wheel could easily climb
right over the wood barrier, or even split it in two!!
	Now check PRCo in  *PA Trolleys in Color*  pg.80-bottom which is
Typical of PRCo construction on trestles.  Also pg.101 of the Kennywood
trestle which looks to be a trolleycar--only  trestle originally.  Also
pg.111.
	Lind's  *From HorseCars to Streamliners - History of St.-Louis Car
Co.*  pg.157 shows in detail the excellent barrier that is standard
construction on PRCo trestles.  The 18" barrier is in two parts - 6"
base topped by 12".  I have plans for several bridges which detail
this!  Also pg.159-top.
	Pg.81 of Harold A. Smith's book  *Touring Pgh. by Trolley*  shows the
Palm Garden Trestle and this same type of construction.

	Then remember the discussions we had about how PRCo electrified 
*some*  downtown turnouts which were revenue runs in only one
direction.  No matter what the operator did when going thru the overhead
conc=tactor, the turnout would throw for or remain in the revenue
position; the point would have to be moved by switch iron for the
non-revenue run.

	There are many examples of PRCo and safety which I just can't remember
now.  But no matter how hard we try, we just won't cover all bases all
the time!

> Tom

>>> Fred W. Schneider III wrote:

>>> Is it not possible that many of the crossovers were installed to permit
>>> service cars to either turn back or to get out of the way of regular
>>> cars?

>> Jim Holland wrote:::::::

>>         FRED::  Think you might be missing the point of our discoveries.  Seems
>> that the vast majority of X-Overs (of which there weren't many) were for
>> regularly scheduled terminals for double-ended equipment.
>>         This particular one which Tom inquires about is on W.-Liberty just
>> inbound of the 42-wye.  The 42-wye connected to the 38-line in
>> 2-different places:::::::
>>         1)--McFarland Road for the 42/38--owl
>>         2)--leg of the wye.

>>         In the latter case, an inbound 42-car could turn onto the outbound
>> 38-line and be heading the wrong direction on the outbound track.  The
>> X-Over is needed to get the car back on the right track.

> tsquare at toad.net wrote:

> Adding comment to yours:

> I could never figure out the utility of the crossover on the 38 line
> between McFarland and Biltmore.  Yes, it permitted an outbound 42 to
> utilize 38 inbound in an emergency -- but an outbound 38 couldn't
> utilize it to go inbound on 42 (that operation would have had to be
> via the specialwork at McFarland and West Liberty (about 300' further
> south) -- and then with two backup moves!  So what was the intended
> purpose of the crossover?  Was there at one time cut-back service
> on the 38 line at this location?

-- 
James B. Holland