[PRCo] Re: Roll signs Interurbans

[Phillip Clark Campbell]

Mr.Schneider;
Any time this is referenced in publications it is acknowledged
Prc had too many routes to have a separate destination roller.
It is not laziness on the part of anyone; looking closely Prc was
highly conscious of the public.  If needs were not met they
didn't get their business.

42-Dormont and 8-Perrysville are certainly far more revealing than
Blue Line.  Is all the equipment painted blue?  Streets?  Houses?
>From what you say Dormont, Perrysville, McKeesport, Frankstown,
Mt.Lebanon, Spring Hill, Fineview, Etna, Millvale, Sharpsburg,
etc. etc. are not destinations.

Not one system is perfect; Prc worked and Prc worked better
than those that had destination signs.  It is rare that passengers
recognize the short turn destination sign clearly displayed
beside the route;  they grumble loudly about the railway when
it was clearly their fault.  Prc used 43-Neeld for a short turn
Dormont which is far better than 42-Dormont-Neeld as opposed to
42-Dormont-McFarland isn't it.

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





________________________________
From: Fred Schneider <fwschneider at comcast.net>
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Sent: Sun, October 31, 2010 11:12:30 AM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Roll signs Interurbans

And my father, who was new to Pittsburgh in 1928,
disliked that system that PRC used because if you
were unfamiliar with the geography,
you had no idea where the car was going.  

Company laziness then if you don't like motorman laziness.
While Pittsburgh had "route" signs, many other companies
had "destination" signs.   Philadelphia for example would
have displayed 10 63rd and Malvern o 10 City Hall via
Subway not simply the outer destination or the route name.