[PRCo] Re: PRCo___Tax___Licenses

[Fred Schneider]

I'm sorry Jim.   It was late when I typed that and Ed and I had both  
stood on a concrete darkroom floor for eight hours.   Missing word.    
Should read  "and we have NO records......"

One in a while a car license card surfaces but no one that I have  
ever bet has done an exhaustive study on which cities and boroughs  
had such taxes.   I can only say it was common.   In one form on  
another the trolley companies in Pennsylvania paid 10 cents out of  
every dollar in open taxes plus the ones that were less easy to  
document such as thou shall plow snow and thou shalt pave the street  
when we dictate.

 From the number of people who have shown me these car licenses, and  
from the occasional one that surfaces on e-Bay, I suspect the  
practice was wide spread and may account for why many companies  
assigned cars to specific routes.    Afterall, if I need a license  
for Pittsburgh city, one for Washington, one for Donora  
(hypothetical, guys), one for Charleroi  ...  I'd sure as hell  
restrict the 1600s to Washington and put the licenses only on them,  
I'd split the licenses on the 1700s and have may five cars that have  
both licenses and I'd assign them to Tunnel, well you get the picture.

Here in Lancaster County all of the suburban cars were were assigned  
to routes from 1890 to 1947.   I have no clue whether it was due to  
favortism to keep motormen happy or licensing issues.   In one case  
the assignments may have been to put the worse cars in an environment  
where drunken people could cause the least damage.

I have no clue why West Penn did what they did;   I can only observe  
that they did it.

I was told that they disliked running mainline cars in reverse  
because their engineering department was convinced that motor brushes  
lasted longer if the commutators always turned in the same direction.

On Oct 29, 2005, at 6:17 AM, James B. Holland wrote:

> Fred Schneider wrote:
>
>
>> Assignments  [on WP]  may have had a lot to do with what tax licenses
>> might have paid on which cars in which boroughs and we have  
>> records of
>> which towns had taxes and which cars were licensed, if any. But this
>> could have been a consideration.
>>
>
>
> Did PRCo have any such considerations?       The McKeesport line could
> be considered Interurban since it ran between two cities, Pgh. and
> McKeesport - did McKeesport require any special tax license?
>
>
>
>
> Jim__Holland
>
>
> I__Like__Ike.......And__PCCs!!
>
> down with pantographs ---- UP___WITH___TROLLEYPOLES!!!!!!!
>
>
>