[PRCo] Re: PRCo___Tax___Licenses

[Fred Schneider]

And I wrote this one after another eight hours on a concrete  
floor.... it should have read, "once in a while but know one that I  
have ever known has done an exhaustive study on which cities and  
boroughs."    In one for OR another..."

and in the third paragraph, and "have maybe" not have may.

On Oct 29, 2005, at 3:12 PM, Fred Schneider wrote:

> 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!!!!!!!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>