[PRCo] Re: More photos

Mon Apr 27 17:00:13 EDT 2009

If we are talking about the last picture ... bus 310 ... I would  
agree with Lincoln Coach.   I would suggest that the turn signals are  
expensive, rather they were the standard on the TDH-3612 model and  
replaced by the bulls-eye design on the air-suspension TDH-3714 that  
came out about 1954.

Remember that West Penn Railways (West Penn Bus Company) had a fleet  
of these, some of which went to Community Transit in 1953 when West  
Penn folded.   I was told that one was sold to Potomac Edison but I  
never bothered to confirm it.    The shading would be right for West  
Penn or Community (orange, cream and a dark green stripe).   Lincoln  
Coach, which took over some of those routes was gray and white and I  
think they had a red stripe.

I have no recall at all how Lincoln numbered their equipment.   The  
TDH 4509s that Fayette bought for the mainline and Irwin service were  
painted the same as the West Penn TDH 3612s  but I think they were  
numbered for the year (5200 series).

No, I'm not I bus fan.   I'm simply rambling.   I think.   I don't  
really know.   Ed picked up the bus negatives I still have last week  
and hauled them to Arden.   Most of my bus negatives are in the Motor  
Bus Society library, where they have been since 1961.     It is  
something I walked away from years ago.    I could once identify all  
sorts of model numbers of Southerns and Beavers and Fitzjohns.   I  
could also speak a lot more German than I can today.   Operative  
words are once and could.  But I still can drive a bus if you put it  
in my hands.

On Apr 27, 2009, at 3:50 PM, Edward H. Lybarger wrote:

> There are five things that I'm not buying...
>
> 1.  The font used for the number is nowhere close to PAT's.
>
> 2.  The vent above the destination signbox was rare in Western PA.   
> And
> local buses did not generally have a PITTSBURGH panel on the rollsign.
>
> 3.  The turn signal is the expensive model; not generally found here.
>
> 4.  The stripe is too dark to be PAT red.  If this were  
> orthochromatic film,
> I might say otherwise, but it's not.
>
> And...
>
> 5.  The state inspection sticker is on the right window.   
> Pennsylvania had
> changed the location to the driver's windshield long before PAT was  
> on the
> scene.
>
> What about other private operators such as P&W or Lincoln Coach?
>
> I'm having dinner tonight with Barb and Ralph.  I'll show it to him.
>
> Ed
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
> [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org] On Behalf Of  
> John
> Swindler
> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 2:58 PM
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: More photos
>
>
>
>
> Could not find a private operator with a TDH 4509/12 numbered 310,  
> but there
> was a Pgh Rys bus #310 which went into the PAT fleet.  This is  
> according to
> the Pittsburgh bus history site referenced elsewhere.
>
>
>
> Some of the private operators adopted the PAT paint scheme, but not  
> sure if
> only 'new look' buses bought in early 1960s or also applied to some  
> of the
> 'old look' buses.  The original scheme had a green belt rail,  
> similar to
> Harrisburg Railways.  By the time PAT actually took over, had  
> changed to
> red.
>
>
>
> I'd tend to suspect that this is a 1960s photo of ex PRC 310 in PAT  
> livery.
>
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> From: trams2 at comcast.net
>> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: More photos
>> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:21:43 -0400
>>
>> The date on the bus accident could well be correct. This is not the
>> 1980 accident near Palm Garden. This is a private operator's bus
>> #310...there's a research project for someone!
>>
>> -----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: Saturday, April 25, 2009 6:41 PM
>> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>> Subject: [PRCo] More photos
>>
>>
>> Quite a few very interesting photos; this could almost be a real
>> estate diversion couldn't it:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/1601sHighWater - Location?
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/StreetFlood-1950 - Location?
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/NarrowBridge - Location?
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/Courthouse19520404 - Low bridge ahead, bus!
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/ForbesFlood-1950 - not a few photos show flooding.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/OaklandFifthToEast - this is an incredibly
>> beautiful aerial isn't it -- 1601, 17xx, ten or eleven, and one of
>> those PCCs in the distance!
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/5thKaufmannConstruction - How would trolley  
>> service
>> be rerouted?
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/17xx-71-5thDowntown-1950
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/PatBusCrash - Date is wrong by at least 14-years.
>>
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Rediscover HotmailR: Get quick friend updates right in your inbox.
> http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail? 
> ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Upd
> ates2_042009
>
>
>
>