[PRCo] Re: PRC History

Mon May 26 23:01:24 EDT 2008

Fred, you're ignoring the early destination sign boxes on the low 4200s and the 4700s.  Some samples are available on line.

I'd trust the Pittsburgh city photographer for date of June 28, 1916 of 4304 at S. Hills Jct. before I would trust some PRC clerk filling out the route cards.

Hope this link works, but looks awfully long.

http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?xc=1;g=imls;sid=11622ec214f80e1d38676efcea2663d5;q1=streetcar;rgn1=ic_all;size=20;lasttype=boolean;view=entry;lastview=thumbnail;subview=detail;cc=cp;entryid=x-715.162652b.cp;viewid=162652B.TIF;start=21;resnum=39

John

> From: fwschneider at comcast.net> Subject: [PRCo] Re: PRC History> Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 14:01:46 -0400> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org> > I wonder, Herr. Professor, if they just announced they were doing it > in 1914 (meaning they were going to do it) and it took them seven > years to get around to actually doing it! If we tell the media in > 1914 that we are doing it, maybe they will get off our backs for a > while?> > On May 26, 2008, at 1:59 PM, Edward H. Lybarger wrote:> > > 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.> > > >> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > 
_________________________________________________________________
E-mail for the greater good. Join the i’m Initiative from Microsoft.
http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Join/Default.aspx?source=EML_WL_ GreaterGood