[PRCo] Re: Pittsburgh seating

[Fred Schneider]

The standard configuration for the low floor yellow cars was the same as the
early PCCs.   The cross seats began behind the center door.  Remember that
these were built as pay as you enter cars with the conductor at the center
door.  The front door was used for egress until they were converted to
one-man cars.  However, there were some that were fitted with bucket seats
in the rear. Those 5200s were based at Ingram ... probably a futile attempt
to take passengers back from the bus companies.  As those of us with ample
dimensions understand, bucket seats don't work for everyone.
Someone who has ridden in one should correct me ... I think the high floor
4000s and 4100s had longitudinal seats on left side and transverse on the
right side.   This would make sense because they were essentially pass
through cars ... get on the rear platform and off the front.  Therefore a
uniform aisle width would be beneficial.

Some older double truck cars (see 3487 at PTM) were pure bowling alley ...
longitudinal seats on both sides.  That would have facilitated pay within
fare collection.  However, if you look closely at 3487 today, you will note
that it was modified for pay as you enter fare collection.  Not at all
surprising as Pittsburgh was one of the largest big cities to opt for one
man operation on trunk routes.   Something I've never studied ... only a
suspicion that bench seating was common in many cities regardless of the
length of the car ... be happy to have someone do an analysis and prove me
right or wrong.

The low-floor trailers were all single end ... one door in the middle of one
side ... don't bother us with issues of emergency exits, thank you.  I think
they too had longitudinal seats all the way around.

And there is no doubt at all, as Harold points out, that it is much easier
for a patron with shopping bags to get up if they were in a side seat.  With
buses I suspect the decision was often made for the operator by the coach
designer ... cross seats don't work as well as bench seats over a wheel
well.   Many manufacturers installed longitudinal seats over both the front
and rear wheel wells.  ACF Brill had suburban C36 coaches (we had a few in
Lancaster) with cross seats from front to rear ... but they were elevated
above the aisle.  There was also a luggage rack overhead.  I remember well
the night my mother came home from town on the Lititz bus when they had
pressed one of those charter C36s into scheduled suburban service ... she
was very upset about the indignity of trying to pry herself out of that
seat.

An aside to Harold:  Public transit authorities commonly query passengers
... a typical government cover your butt mode.  But did the private
companies do it to the same degree?  I really don't know but I suspect not
because surveys cost money that they didn't have.  Tell me ... I would like
to learn.

Harold Geissenheimer wrote:

> Greetings to all
>
> Interesting discussion about seaiting
>
> PAT returned to long seating on several orders of New Look busses iinthe
> 1960's
>
> It did improve passenger flow in the aisles.  But we found that many
> passengers liked the long seat based on passenger interviews.
>
> Why:?   Because older passengers, heavy set passengees.
> passengers with kids or shopping bags could more easily sit there
>
> The single forward facing seat was not without disadvantages.
>
> There are many points of view.  Did some  older PRC yellow cars
> have long seats before the PCC?
>
> As a rider, I found different advantages in each.
>
> Harold Geissenheimer