[PRCo] Re: West Penn Railways

[Schneider Fred]

Ed saved me the trouble of answering that.   Mesrobian is perhaps 10  
years older than I am ... I woud suspect he might have been born  
around 1930.   He was out photographing West Penn just before the  
mainline and Latrobe quit in 1952 but he missed the south end lines  
in 1950.

On Feb 9, 2010, at 11:02 AM, Edward H. Lybarger wrote:

> Ara is not old enough to have shot the Hunker line.  Fact is that  
> we have
> only a couple images of that...one from Steve Maguire at County  
> Home Siding
> where the sewage plant is today along 119 just south of S  
> Greensburg, and
> another dating from 1902-03 at Tarrs. Most of the enthusiasts  
> missed it
> entirely.
>
> Ara was not responsible for what was said in the article...such  
> info as he
> supplied with the slides was accurate.  It was the author who  
> didn't do his
> homework.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
> [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org] On Behalf Of  
> Derrick
> Brashear
> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 10:49 AM
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: West Penn Railways
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Edward H. Lybarger  
> <trams2 at comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> I've found the article.  Looks like the gent bought some of Ara
>> Mesrobian's seconds and decided they were wonderful.  Bus his
>> knowledge of the system (and Pennsylvania) appears to be limited.
>
> It's a shame he didn't talk to anyone who knew better.
>
>> Those "several" 5' 2-1/2" systems he mentions in the first line would
>> include:
>>
> [about 30 systems...]
>
>> Clearly, his definition of "several" is different from mine.  His
>> understanding of the Coke Region geography is tiny (he missed the
>> existence of the second parallel main line and doesn't grasp that the
>> region encompassed far more than just Connellsville).
>
> Did Ara shoot when the line via New Stanton and south existed?
> Or was he extrapolating based on what he had?
>
>> My purpose is not to pick nits here.  But the big thing that's absent
>> is interpretation in its own time.  He's taking what was there in  
>> 1951
>> and suggesting that's what it always was.  How egregious.
>
>
>
>
>
>