[PRCo] Re: Roll signs Interurbans

[John Swindler]

The first purchase were the 2000 series and 1000 series, 102 inch wide in 40 and 35 foot length.  It was the 1100 series that came with the 2100 and 2200 series.  The 11s were 35 foot, 96 in width and I would frequently ride them on 41A.  They lasted a long time.

What about the seats in front half of the 2100 and 2200 group.  Were there not some longitudinal seats?  I thought these were intended for Craft Ave. conversions.  But my memory is very foggy trying to go back that far.


> From: hrbran at cavtel.net
> Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 21:16:14 -0400
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Roll signs Interurbans
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> 
> 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
> >
> 
> 
>