[PRCo] Re: PRC History

[Edward H. Lybarger]

This is why it's important to have the whole story! 

-----Original Message-----
From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
[mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org] On Behalf Of Fred
Schneider
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 12:44 PM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: [PRCo] Re: PRC History

The company posted their route cards seven years later.   End of  
discussion.

On May 26, 2008, at 12:05 PM, Edward H. Lybarger wrote:

> The professor has a newspaper ad from the spring of 1914 in which the 
> company brags about how much easier the new system will be for the 
> public.
> End of discussion.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
> [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org] On Behalf Of 
> Fred Schneider
> Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 11:59 AM
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: PRC History
>
> 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.> > > >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>