[PRCo] Re: SE DE

[Fred Schneider]

It seems to me that the terminal in Connellsville was built because  
the city wanted them to get the hell off of Crawford Street.

Uniontown's first covered terminal was a loop.   The 1930 revision to  
get the line out of traffic replaced it.

Why were Connellsville, Uniontown and Greensburg loops?   Probably  
because it would have taken just as much rail to make stub terminals  
for all the lines using them as it did to make a double track loop  
around the building.   They were not dumb people.

On May 18, 2008, at 2:31 PM, John Swindler wrote:

>
> The point about West Penn also touches on headway issue.  No reason  
> to put loops in Brownsville, Fairchance, Latrobe, etc., which were  
> used by one line only on 30 or 60 min. headway.  But opportunity  
> taken to have loops Greensburg, Connellsville where several lines  
> terminated.  Maybe the thought was - as long as we are building a  
> terminal, lets put in a loop for ease of operation.  Just a guess.   
> They didn't have to put in a loop, but they did.
>
> John
>
>> Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 15:48:16 -0700> From: pcc_sr at yahoo.com>  
>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: SE DE> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org> >  
>> > ----- Original Message ----> > From: John Swindler  
>> <j_swindler at hotmail.com>> > To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>  
>> > Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 2:06:44 PM> > Subject: [PRCo] Re:  
>> SE DE> > > > > > > > Switch points and frogs needed for stub  
>> terminals, but not needed for a loop. > > Although it is nice to  
>> have a siding at a loop.> > > > Also, with a loop, if large  
>> enough, the center part can be leased for a gas > > station. Pirl  
>> St. comes to mind, but won't swear to it.> > > > And management  
>> doesn't care if the motorman has to "lug" handles, farebox and > >  
>> supplies to the other end. They do care if cars back up because of  
>> scheduled > > headway and congestion at the terminal.> > > >  
>> Didnt' Vera Cruz shop double end cars to convert to single end?  
>> Likewise > > Birmingham?> > John> > > Mr.Swindler;> > > That  
>> brings Boston to mind doesn't it. The!
>  y bought the Dallas DE PCCs and they eventually were used in SE  
> fashion; believe one trolley pole was removed as well. SF had DE  
> PCCs which were single-ended with double controls kept for special  
> backup maneuvers only - unused doors were sealed; Muni city owned  
> since inception. Even WP was quite SE 'operation' with DE  
> equipment; Connellsville and Greensburg both had loops in terminals  
> so trips between the two rarely changed ends. Believe Mr.Schneider  
> pointed this out before about the 700s being used not unlike SE  
> cars. Obviously Trafford, Latrobe, Fairchance, Brownsville, Martin  
> etc. ends were stub and required a change but they only operated  
> every 30-minutes or less didn't they, not 3-minutes!> > The North  
> American PCC fleet is essentially SE; Dallas-25, IT-08, PE-30, &  
> SF-10+ the big exceptions for new equipment - well under 2% by any  
> count. Some cities had to add wyes / loops didn't they.> > > Phil>  
> > > > > >
> _________________________________________________________________
> Give to a good cause with every e-mail. Join the i’m Initiative  
> from Microsoft.
> http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Join/Default.aspx?souce=EML_WL_  
> GoodCause
>