[PRCo] Re: Roll signs Interurbans

[Phillip Clark Campbell]

Mr.Long,
The split signs with route and destination for terminal are nice
in theory but don't work in practice;  people see the route but
not the terminal and then moan about the rwy when forced
out before their stop.  I mentioned this in a previous post.  I
also mentioned the separate route number ala Prc which seems
to work much better.

I have seen photos with a Roscoe destination Mr.Long;  I shall
try to find some for you.  There may be a PCC photo in the archives
displaying Finleyville but it is hand drawn for the occasion.

 Phil
Without  a   'coast'   but  not  a   'cause.'





________________________________
From: Dwight Long <dwightlong at verizon.net>
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Sent: Sun, October 31, 2010 1:06:55 PM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Roll signs Interurbans

Fred

A number of PCC operators had split front destination signs.  The one 
(typically) on the left (as one faces the car) had the route name and the one on 
the right had the destination.  This was a better system for companies with a 
lot of cutbacks and alternate routings.  PRC tried to handle these by 
establishing separate route numbers, i.e. 43, 69, 55B, etc.  Not nearly as 
elegant a system as split signs!

And, of course, it did not work on the interurban lines where, prior to 1953, 
there were no route numbers, just destinations--and they were not always 
properly displayed!

Dwight