[PRCo] Re: Roll signs Interurbans

[Dwight Long]

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

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Fred Schneider 
  To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org 
  Sent: Sunday, 31 October, 2010 11:12
  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 or 10 City Hall via Subway not simply the outer destination or the route name.  

  Lehigh Valley Transit would have displayed Norristown or Philadelphia on southbound interurbans, Allentown on northbound cars.   Even their city cars had destinations:  Allentown-17th St, or Bethlehem - Minsi Trail.   

  I have no idea which was most common.   Here in Lancaster, route signs were used.  When, in the early 1950s, they combined routes because you could drop one bus out of a schedule on a combined route and not shorten the headway more than a minute (in the first cutback), they added new route names.  Instead of changing from Duke Street-PRR Station northbound to 7th Ward southbound, they stitched a new sign on the roll reading Duke-7th Ward.   That way the sign never had to be changed until midnight when GARAGE was rolled up.   



  On Oct 31, 2010, at 9:31 AM, Herb Brannon wrote:

  > Hardly "motorman laziness". The proper way to set destination signs at both
  > PRCo and PATransit was to set the sign and forget it until you changed to a
  > different line or ran a 'short turn' out of downtown. Then the sign was
  > changed to the new line designation or to the short turn terminal. *This is
  > what was taught by the Instruction Department.* No one was being "lazy".
  > This method prevented the passengers from being lazy. Passengers had to know
  > in what direction each terminal was, from their location, when boarding a
  > car or bus. So now you don't have to "guess" any longer.
  > On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 02:18, Dwight Long <dwightlong at verizon.net> wrote:
  > 
  >> Fred
  >> 
  >> But there WAS in the PCC era, short turn service between Charleroi and
  >> Elco.
  >> 
  >> Also, there was (inexplicably) a reading in the PCC interurban sign rolls
  >> of FINLEYVILLE.
  >> 
  >> PITTSBURGH was a useful reading to distinguish cars going through.  You are
  >> right, though, that it was used in the minority of cases.  Motorman
  >> laziness, I guess.
  >> 
  >> Dwight
  >>  ----- Original Message -----
  >> From: Fred Schneider
  >> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
  >> Sent: Saturday, 30 October, 2010 19:09
  >> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Roll signs Interurbans
  >> 
  >> 
  >> What year?
  >> 
  >> WASHINGTON
  >> CANONSBURG
  >> PITTSBURGH
  >> CHARLEROI
  >> RIVERVIEW
  >> CASTLE SHANNON
  >> LIBRARY
  >> 
  >> After about 1952 two other signs were added for off peak service to
  >> distinguish local service in the non-rush hour periods
  >> 
  >> SHANNON-WASHINGTON
  >> SHANNON-CHARLEROI
  >> 
  >> In 1953 you can add
  >> 
  >> SHANNON-LIBRARY
  >> SHANNON-DRAKE
  >> 
  >> The Pittsburgh signs were seldom used.   That would be like taking an
  >> 8-PERRYSVILLE sign and changing it to PITTSBURGH.  Everybody was supposed to
  >> know an inbound car was going there.   In the early years there were cutback
  >> like extra service between Washington and Canonsburg but that didn't happen
  >> in the PCC era.
  >> 
  >> 
  >> 
  >> 
  >> On Oct 30, 2010, at 10:44 AM, rayprco53 at verizon.net wrote:
  >> 
  >>> Hello, I know this was posted before but I can't find it. Could someone
  >> repost the route destinations
  >>> for the two interurban lines? I talking about the PCC roll signs.
  >>> 
  >>> Thanks
  >>> 
  >>> Ray
  >>> 
  >> 
  >> 
  >> 
  >> 
  >> 
  >> 
  > 
  > 
  > -- 
  > Herb Brannon
  > In Cuyahoga Valley National Park
  > 
  > 
  >