[PRCo] Re: PRC History

Mon May 26 00:29:45 EDT 2008

Mr.Lybarger!

Below you wrote: "In the earlier years, it hadn't become the calcified railroad mindset that allowed change only under duress."  This is the 'concrete' to which I referred didn't I.  Nothing new under the sun is there so calcification probably happened to PRC - just when.

I recognize that PRC had 'book-keeping' route numbers in the 3-or-4-digits but used only 2-digits on the cars themselves didn't they.  Can you state a purpose for the 3-4-digit variety?

Someone mentioned something about assumptions didn't they.  That is all they are - not unlike postulations that are expressed while looking for facts / truth; nothing implied that it is truth is there.

Phil

----- Original Message ----
From: Edward H. Lybarger <trams2 at comcast.net>
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 9:00:35 PM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: PRC History

There was never any concrete.  But there were railfans who liked to think that the system as it was about 1940 should be the gold standard.  The change after that was of course shrinkage, but the fans cried every time a route was lost.  Much whining and caterwauling occurred between 1951 and 1971, by which time the system took essentially its present dimensions.

You are reading something into my route vs destination comments that is not there.  They were absolutely arbitrary.  All the PRCo routes had numbers.  The interurbans never had two-digit destination numbers, however.  They had four-digit route numbers, because they operated out of Divisions 12 and 13. I think you actually need to study the route cards like Fred, John and I have done to even begin to comprehend what the relationships were between the route numbers and the destination numbers.

-----Original Message-----
From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org] On Behalf Of Phillip Clark Campbell
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 3:44 PM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: [PRCo] PRC History

Mr.Lybarger!

We could say that the only 'constant' is 'change' couldn't we.  This is very true everywhere today inside and outside the railway companies isn't it.  Outsiders notice it most; people living through the change don't notice it as much until they reflect do they.  Just look at the city Of Pgh itself over the years / decades  --  goodness!  From your studies have you found a time frame where the mindset of PRC became set in concrete?  I would guess that this is after the railway was essentially formed and stabilized.  The consolidation of hundreds into PRC would see a tremendous amount of restructuring for a couple decades.  Once auto competition became keen the railway would 'probably not' realize much growth but rather adjustment to reflect needs; this might be when the concrete sets.

This distinction may have come later than mentioned below but it is now generally recognized that Interurbans used Destination signs and city lines used Route Signs.  Destination signs were just that - the town to which the Interurban traveled and usually lacked letter / number preface.  City routes used letter / number preface to a name of a location / dominant street / etc.  There are exceptions - Johnstown didn't use letters / numbers and neither did Boston in the past - could be others.

Phil

----- Original Message ----
> From: Edward H. Lybarger <trams2 at comcast.net>
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 7:16:18 AM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: 97

> > A point that has been eluding us all in these discussions is that until 1938, the numbers we came to know as route numbers were officially "destination numbers."  The route numbers were the three-digit numbers.

> > The other thread that can't ever be forgotten is how much things changed in a fairly quick time frame.  In the earlier years, it hadn't become the calcified railroad mindset that allowed change only under duress.

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
> [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org] On Behalf Of 
> John Swindler
> Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 1:00 AM
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: 97
> 
> 
> Maybe because very early 98 wasn't Glassport-Wilmerding, and it is the 
> railfans on this fantrip that were correct.
> 
> So what listing do you have for 97, Fred???
> 
> John
> 
> > From: fwschneider at comcast.net> Subject: [PRCo] Re: 97
> > Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 16:29:49 -0400
> > To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org So, Boris, what is your point 
> > by enclosing was is obviously a fantrip rollsign?
> > During the PCC era 98 was Glassport - Pirl Street. Very early 98 was 
> > also Glassport Wilmerding.> > > >