[PRCo] Re: West Penn 706 Question

[Fred Schneider]

A lot of smaller companies, as Harold pointed out, assigned cars.  Here in
Lancaster, all of the cars on the interurban lines were assigned.  And the same
motorman and conductor got the same car every day.  It may have been a hostler's
nightmare but it did keep the crews happy.

Raises a question ... did the 1690s assigned to Fineview always go onto the same
track at Keating?

I know that parking of cars in Pittsburgh wasn't entirely random, at least not in
all barns.  Going back into the early 1950s, the active 5500s were always placed on
the two tracks nearest the highway.  There were other tracks farther back were
inactive single-end low-floor cars were stored.  I think the double end cars for 9
and 12 usually got the far track back by the cliff.  I remember them there and I've
seen pictures taken by Bob Brown back there in the late 1930s.  If there was a
pattern for active PCCs, I don't know it.

But in principal I am not arguing with Harold but supporting him.   There has to be
a lot to be said for giving a senior man the vehicle he likes.

Without going to look, I think all the 3600s, 3700s, 3750s and 3800s had toilets.
I have photographs of 3750s to confirm that ... toilets came out of them when the
3800s went into service and the 3750s were reassigned to city routes.  And having
just had prostate reduction surgery, I can't even imagine riding two and half hours
on an interurban without relief.

I wish, Harold, that I had a picture of a motorman's friend that we could post.

Harold Geissenheimer wrote:

> Greetings to all and to Fred
>
> In that era of stability it was not necessary to rewrite the
> vehicle assignments every day.  Even at Community
> Transit operating out of Tarentum the same bus was
> assigned to the same runs.  Many times the same
> driver bid the same run for years.  Vehicles could be
> switched some times to please a driver or a particular
> heavy trip.
>
> At Community, the Queens Nassau buses #126 and up
> were assigned in order to runs on what is now PAT line
> 1/3A.  This never changed for3 years and was carried
> over to PAT.  Same for buses on #77A and 5A/B.
>
> Same for BidgevilleCommunity Transit buses..  Its
> called vehicle utilization planning.  We could do this because
> we could park the buses the night before.
>
> Big systems park the vehicles as they come in.  PAT
> even had trouble in keeping 30' or 35' buses off Pgh runs
> requiring 40' buses..  West Penn was small enuf to
> do it right.
>
> Some big bus lines do put out the same bus the same way
> every day by parking them in individual slots.  That way
> the same bus for the same driver or pairs of drivers.
> I prefer that.
>
> The question about rest rooms is interesting.  NJ Transit
> cant even put the toilet car in the same place. every day.
> Important to note, the LRT SBahn that runs out from
> the Karlsuhe CBD over commuter DB tracks is now
> receiving LRV's with toilets.  These run on long interurban
> lines for 60 to 90 minutes.  Another example of better
> rail in Europe.
>
> The  LVT in Allentown had toilets.
>
> A question...did the early PRC interurbans have toilets?
>
> Harold Geissenheimer
>
> Fredbruhn at aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> >West Penn 706 was the regularly scheduled car on the Fairchance line.  Almost
> >all of the photos I have show this car, or an 831 series holding down the
> >schedule.
> >Car 706 and its sister 705 are shown to have 58 seats after being rebuilt in
> >the 1930's
> >while the balance of 707-739 show 54 seats.
> >
> >My question is, can anyone tell me why 706 was used mostly (if not entirely)
> >on the Fairchance line, and where did the extra space come from for the 4
> >additional seats.
> >Would eliminating the restroom provide that much space?
> >
> >If 706 lacked lavatory facilities and the Fairchance line was the shortest
> >served by the 700 series, maybe management felt patrons could hold their needs
> >for the length of the trip.
> >
> >Thanks for any help, factual or otherwise.
> >
> >Fred Bruhn
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >