[PRCo] Re: Roll signs Interurbans

Tue Nov 2 11:35:08 EDT 2010

By the way ... that 3769 picture is a Bill Vokmer picture at Charleroi.   I believe the car was assigned not to Charleroi but to Tunnel.  What was it doing at Charleroi?   There was a fantrip over the line with that car sometime around 1950-1952.    Don't count on the sign even being authentic at that time.   It may be added to the sign box for the trip.   We all know railfans do strange things and anyone who was on that trip still living today would have to be in his mid 60s or later ... most people who are knowledgeable would be pushing daisies.   

Was Art Ellis in Pittsburgh at that time?   Art would have been about 30 then ... he's 90 today.   

Who else was with the museum that is still living?

The old guys running those trips like Bob Brown are dead.    Tom Phillips who lived in Charleroi and knew what signs they used died several years ago.

On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:05 AM, Phillip Clark Campbell wrote:

>> From: Dwight Long <dwightlong at verizon.net>
>> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>> Sent: Tue, November 2, 2010 1:56:34 AM
>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Roll signs Interurbans
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Mr.Long,   I remember seeing your comments recently.  Mr.Lybarger
> indicated this was a railfan entry;  not sure if he meant they installed the
> sign or just rolled it up for display.  I believe it was a valid sign on the
> cars at one point in history from all that has been written here;
> it would make sense to use it on local Charleroi Roscoe service but
> then the cars from Pgh should use same for consistency shouldn't they.
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> All this is true;  service to Donora commenced and ceased before the
> 3800s.  I concur with your conclusions as well.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> In the archives Mr.Lybarger pointed out it made sense to the passengers
> at the time.  As you suggest maybe it was only at County Fair time when
> the rwy had reverse ride passengers from Finleyville to the Fair.  As for DE
> equipment, where would they turn?  Lanks?  I don't remember crossovers
> in that area.  They would need the faster DE cars for such; the unmodified
> DE slow cars could seriously affect schedules for others!
> 
> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 