[PRCo] Re: PRC History

[Fred Schneider]

Destination numbers are listed in the route cars about 1922 for the  
first time.   For example, route 99 Evans Avenue got destination its  
number on June 25, 1922.   I have not bothered to determine if the  
all happened on the same day but it seems to me that they were all in  
the early 1920s.   I hate to take umbrage against the professor but  
1914 is a tad early.  Again, like everything, not all destination  
numbers are dated on the route cards.

On May 26, 2008, at 11:43 AM, Edward H. Lybarger wrote:

> I thought I had done that when I said that the interurban lines  
> operated out
> of Divisions 12 and 13...the first digit or two of the route number  
> was the
> division from which it operated.
>
> The two-digit destination numbers came about in 1914 when PRCo  
> figured out
> that the average person wasn't going to interpret the colored  
> marker signs
> on top of the cars and translate them into destinations or route  
> numbers.
> I'm guessing there was some not-so-gentle pressure from the city  
> and the
> press, as well.
>
> -----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: Monday, May 26, 2008 12:30 AM
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: PRC History
>
> 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.> > > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>