[PRCo] Re: Roll signs Interurbans

[Dwight Long]

Phil

The Roscoe sign on 3769 makes sense as these cars were used in interurban tripper service and as I pointed out in years gone by there was some Charleroi-Roscoe (Elco) local service.  There may even have been in earlier years some local service from Riverview to Roscoe, but I do not know anything about such.

I would have to look up the facts on the alternating service to Donora which you cite but my offhand impression is that it ceased before the 3800s were built.  But it would make sense for PRC to include that reading on the original signs just in case they wanted or needed to run it again, even if it had been discontinued by then.

As to the temporary Finleyville sign, I have no idea why some Riverview trippers used that reading and others more appropriately Riverview.  As Ed has pointed out, all the single end trippers went all the way to Riverview, where they wyed.  At some point there may have been double end trippers which DID turn at Finleyville--such as in County Fair season--but again I have no specific info on such.

Now if someone can just come up with a 1700 or 1600 interurban with a Finleyville sign up----------

Dwight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Phillip Clark Campbell 
  To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org 
  Sent: Monday, 01 November, 2010 22:12
  Subject: [PRCo] Re: Roll signs Interurbans


  Mr.Long;
  Here is 1442 with a temporary Finleyville sign:
  http://lists.dementia.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/1442%2035+%20Finleyville%20SHJ%20Pullout%20195xxxxx.jpg


  Roscoe sign on 3769:
  http://www.davesrailpix.com/pitts/htm/wvp011.htm

  Donora sign on 3805:
  http://www.davesrailpix.com/pitts/htm/wvp013.htm
  Yes; there was a time when every other car turned at Donora wasn't there.
  Short lived;  just a few years at most.

  I have seen others, Mr.Long, but they prove elusive to find don't they.
  One was on a Brill interurban.

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





  ________________________________
  From: Phillip Clark Campbell <pcc_sr at yahoo.com>
  To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
  Sent: Mon, November 1, 2010 10:52:54 AM
  Subject: [PRCo] Re: Roll signs Interurbans

  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