[PRCo] Re: Headways Route 12 versus Route 9

[Bob Rathke]

I rode 12-Evergreen from North Avenue out to the end of the line.  I still have
transfers that I picked up in the back ends of the cars, so I might have an
early 1950's timetable - I'll have to look.

I also recall seeing double-end cars stopped at the end of the line, and the
motormen looking like they were not in any hurry to
return downtown, so there may have been extended layovers out there.

Bob 5/25/01

-------------------------------------

John Swindler wrote:

> >
> >
> > > Fred W. Schneider III asked to
> > >
> > >Jim Holland wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > John Swindler wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Why 15 minutes service:  Because "custom to operate the service as
> >frequently as could be operated with one man".
> > > >
> > >So why did Pittsburgh Railways run route 12 every hour and let the
> > >motorman sit at Evergreen Road for 20 minutes or so every trip?
> > >Different schedule writer, different logic?
> > >
> >
> >
>
> Must be different route 12???
>
> Route 12 Evergreen was not a shuttle route between East Street and Harpen
> St./Evergreen Rd.  It was a through route to Penn Ave. and Seventh Ave.
> using double end equipment.  At least according to the PUC abandonment
> docket. (help - anyone have access to public timetable??? information from
> earlier days???)
>
> At application A-79997 filed by Pittsburgh Railways in 1953:
>
> para. 4:  applicant desires... to abandon streetcar service over following
> route: Beginning on Evergreen Road at its intersection with East St., then
> northwardly along Evergreen Rd. to a point approx. 390 feet north of Harpen
> St., all in the City of Pittsburgh.
>
> Reason:  discontinue operation of 12 Evergreen street railway service which
> operates from a point approximately 390 feet north of Harpen St. to Penn
> Ave. and Seventh.
>
> In lieu of streetcar service, applicant proposes to substitute motor bus
> service along that portion of route 12 on Evergreen Rd. which cannot readily
> use number 10 cars.
>
> Proposed abandonment required for modernization of services furnished by
> PRC.  Because of lack of street railway turning facilities, it is necessary
> to use old type double end equipment.
>
> Signed, C. D. Palmer, notarized 20 April 1953
>
> (note: testimony from public hearing not included on microfilm)
>
> Order by the commission dated 9 Nov. 1953
>
> 1.  Currently the applicant (PRC) at A-76720, folder 46, seeks approval to
> amend common carrier certificate for Brighton Rd.-Perrysville Ave. feeder
> route so as to extend bus route and provide substitute service for 12
> Evergreen street railway service
>
> 2.  Applicant's Director of Traffic Promotion testified that there is a lack
> of turning facilities, requiring old type cars.
>
> 3.  Witness testified that proposed bus service will be more economical and
> acceptable to public.
>
> 4.  Witness further testified that little use made of existing street
> railway service, which averages 61 passengers per day.
>
> 5.  Applicant's Engineer of Way testified that street railway service will
> be abandoned on 1.14 miles of double track.
>
> 6.  Applicant's Superintendent of Ways and Structures testified that the
> applicant will burn off the rail heads and cover the existing paving of
> track area with 2.5 inches ID-2 type bituminous concrete.
>
> 7.  Engineer from Penna. Dept. of Highways testified that department is in
> accord with applicant's resurfacing plan
>
> 8.  Four users protested against applicant's proposed substitution due to
> need to transfer between bus and streetcar for trips to downtown Pittsburgh.
>
> 9.  Upon full consideration, request to abandon street railway service
> granted.
>
> (end of file)
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com