[PRCo] Re: Roll signs Interurbans

[Herb Brannon]

Speaking of destination signs. One interesting group of PATransit vehicles
were the 2100- and 2200-series GMC 40foot buses and their counterparts of
the 35foot model which I don't remember the fleet series numbers. I operated
these buses at East Liberty division. They came equipped with split
destination signs. These signs had the *route number and name* on the
curbside sign and all the *destinations* on the streetside sign. Also, the
curbside signs had the route numbers in both 'plain' and 'red diagonal
striped'. Very rarely could an operator use the 'red diagonal striped'
number/route name curtain unless a short-turn was ordered by the Traffic
Controller or a Route Foreman. These vehicles had extremely long curtains.
This was the first time I ever saw the designations for 71A Negley, 71B
Highland Pk, 71C Wilkinsburg, and 71D Hamilton. The signs also had the
71/73/75/76 aspects. Interestingly, these buses were manufactured in the
late 1960s/early 1970s. Just a bit of Pgh transit trivia.   :-)
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 13:06, Dwight Long <dwightlong at verizon.net> wrote:


> 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
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Fred Schneider
>  To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>   Sent: Sunday, 31 October, 2010 11:12
>  Subject: [PRCo] Re: Roll signs Interurbans
>
>
> --
> Herb Brannon
> In Cuyahoga Valley National Park
>