[PRCo] Re: Allenport?--Correction

[Dwight Long]

Phil

A roll sign reading of “Black Diamond” on an interurban Jones car had to be turned up by an enthusiast, not by PRC staff (unless by them at enthusiast request)!  Why?  Because there was no facility to turn a single end car at Black Diamond.

Interurban Jones cars were kept at Charleroi for tripper service to Elco—and possibly also north to Mon City, although I am not sure of the latter.  

According to the map I have (accuracy of which may be questionable), the level crossing with the railway in Charleroi was NORTH of the S curve.  Assuming it to be reasonably accurate, the crossing would be too far in the distance to show in the “mystery photo,”  so I think that is not an obstacle that would rule out this location.  What is the source of your info that shows the opposite layout of the siding, S curve, and level crossing?

See my earlier memo re the accuracy, or lack thereof, of roll sign readings.

Dwight


From: Phillip Clark Campbell 
Sent: Thursday, 08 December, 2011 19:21
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org 
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Allenport?--Correction
Thank you Mr.Long;

Your reasoning makes very much sense.  I need to study
it more closely.  I understand the date for 3761 now; I don't
remember it being cited as part of a charter in the archive discussion.
This also clarifies what Mr.Lybarger wrote earlier, to this effect:
"[Car] 3761 was not on Washington this date."Â  Now I know how
the date evolved and why it can't be on the Washington line.

The possible South Charleroi siding you mention is also what I have
suggested known as either Maple View / New Switch.  If it is this
location we should see the PRR line cross the track before the
interurban hits the street.  This is not at all visible.  Beyond the RR
crossing the Interurban makes a slight "S" move onto 88 / McKean
which then turns slightly left to the numbered Charleroi Streets.  The
next northbound siding is then 5th Street.

I believe this was mentioned in the archives but I forget the reason it
was rejected.

Additionally, if the sign on 1707 in this siding (same as 3761) is
correct, then this location is wrong; 1707 needs to face the other
direction to be going to "Pittsburgh."


There are still a few holes in the possibilities.

It shall take some time to find more pictures but I believe I did see
several of 3761 -- one at Charleroi car house with "Black Diamond" as
a destination.  The sign didn't bother me but a SE low-floor sitting on
the ladder could be explained by a charter.

We also discussed a PCC sitting in the hole at Roscoe with barely
the nose of a low-floor visible.  I found another picture showing more
of the low-floor, possibly 3761.  If I can find these I shall send them.


I am interested in Mr.Lybarger's observations as well.

Again, thank you, Mr.Long.  Your reasonings are very logical.

 
Phil



________________________________
From: Dwight Long <dwightlong at verizon.net>
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org 
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2011 6:31 PM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Allenport?--Correction
 
Phil

You asked earlier about the date of the 3761 photo.  

Here is what I believe happened.  On the 27 July PERC/Akron trip
over the interurban lines, when the cars got to Charleroi there were
options.  One, which I took, was to take service cars to Donora and
be met at Black Diamond by the chartered cars (1614/1646) returning
north (they turned at Charleroi).  Another was to have lunch in Charleroi.
A third, which I now dimly recall, was to take a chartered car to Elco and
return to Charleroi in it and then resume the northbound trip in 1614/1646.
The car which was used for the excursion to Elco was undoubtedly 3761.
I have a photo, which I have scanned but for some reason cannot get my
other computer to forward it to this one (I’m working on this vexatious
problem, which may be a cooked hard drive), that shows 3761 along with
1614 and another Jones car on the Charleroi carhouse lead.  In the right
front window of 3761 is the identical card sign reading “Charleroi” which
appears in the “mystery photo” and in the center window is the cardboard
run number “1” sign.  It is almost certain that 3761 was used for the Elco
excursion and that the “mystery photo” was taken on that occasion.
I did not go on that part of the trip; since I had already ridden the line
to Elco but had never done Donora, I opted for that choice.

This theory, if true, does really narrow down the “possibles.”
It is now my thinking that the shot was taken at the siding at the south end
of Charleroi, with 3761 heading south.  There is a siding, unnamed on my
track map, just south of the “S-shaped” jog going north into Charleroi from
it and south of the railway level crossing.  This seemingly fits the details in
the “mystery photo” better than Allenport—but I would need to see the
details of how the line went through the latter burg before betting anything
of value on my current assumption!

Dwight

From: Phillip Clark Campbell 
Sent: Thursday, 08 December, 2011 16:23
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org 
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Allenport?--Correction
This sentence:
"If the roll sign on 1707 is correctly set in photo #3 then it is heading NB.
This rules out an Allenport location as well doesn't it."
Should read:Â  "...photo #-2..."

Another discrepancy between the photos:
In photo #2 the first line pole on our right shows a dual display
signal; also on this pole is a line side phone.  Please note this
phone extends toward the track.

In photo #3 the first line pole to our left of 1707 shows the signal
mount; a line side phone is 'apparently' there but it protrudes
behind the pole and toward the RR, not the interurban.


Phil




________________________________
From: Phillip Clark Campbell <pcc_sr at yahoo.com>
To: "pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org" <pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org> 
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2011 3:39 PM
Subject: [PRCo] Allenport?

Mr.Lybarger;

Enclosed is a photo montage which might help some with
identification.  All these photos were found on the internet
some time back; locating them in my folders took considerable
time.  Please let me describe the montage:

3761 photo in dispute.
1707 appears in identical location, more is visiible.
1707 again
Mapleview.

The first 2-photos show discrepancies as a 'white' bldg is missing
in the photo of 3761.  As the tape on the fan monitor is missing from
1707 it strongly suggests 1949.  You indicate 3761 is in 1952.  The
house appears in both doesn't it.

The view of 1707 includes more, two-white bldgs, one already
mentioned.  The other bldg to the right of the line poles suggests
the RR is some distance again to the right.


If the roll sign of 1707 is set correctly the car is heading north.

I found the 3rd photo of 1707 in several locations on my computer,
one as plain 1707 and another listing the location as Mapleview.  As
already noted the PCC book lists the location as Allenport.

A discrepancy between the first-2 and 3rd photos is the very level
terrain at the interurban track and roadway.  The first-2photos hint
at a grade for the road.

While it appears the track curves to the left into the roadway in the
first 2-photos, would this give enough spread between the RR to
show the additional bldg in the 2nd photo to our right of the line poles?
Additionally, the double set of line poles in photo #3 is not revealed in
photo #2 although the spread 'may' prevent them in the 3rd photo.

But the contactor for the nachod is visible in the first 3-photos.  The RR
would also have to curve away considerably to allow one set of line poles
not to be included in photo #2.

Photo #3 also suggests a 1949 date since 1707 does not have the
tape on the monitor.  This 'suggests' but by no means assures that
photos 2 & 3 could be the same date.

If the roll sign on 1707 is correctly set in photo #3 then it is heading NB.
This rules out an Allenport location as well doesn't it.

As stated, the 3rd photo has several different file names on my computer
as simply 1707 and one includes "Mapleview" thus the 4th photo of
Mapleview in 2008.  I presume I got this from the list archives and
relabeled the photo as indicated by the text; nothing in the photo archives
shows "Mapleview;" as I noted elsewhere photo labels are wanting and
usually not descriptive of the photo.

With the RR by the river and close to the interurban from Roscoe to
Mapleview the topography is quite flat.  This would not preclude some
undulating but the 3rd photo seems to rule that out while the first two
suggest the road is on a grade.

These photos seem to rule out Allenport don't they.  What do you think?
The first two photos suggest a grade to the road; the third photo rules that out.

"New Switch" is a possibility as the road makes an "L" formation to the
north of the siding, south to west.  I would expect to see the PRR RR
crossing of the interurban in the first 2-photos.

To further complicate the picture I understand the first 10-12 1700-series
Interurbans were fitted with radio phones for Washington service.  This
alone does not preclude service on Charleroi; I would "assume" that
base service would find cars with phones and only 7-cars were needed.
Trippers could be any car.

It seems the more we learn the more questions that are raised!

Phil

________________________________
From: Edward H. Lybarger <trams2 at comcast.net>
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org 
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2011 11:08 AM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Washington Interurban Forensics

-----------------------------

I'm sticking with "3761 SB at Allenport Siding" for the other one unless
there is conclusive evidence against it.

Ed

-----Original Message-----
From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementix.org
[mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementix.org] On Behalf Of Phillip
Clark Campbell
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 10:53 AM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Washington Interurban Forensics

Mr.Lybarger;

-------------

With 3761 we have a photo on a known system which remains unidentifed.  The
topography changes considerably with time; cutting the Grant St hill
considerably is evidence.  Perspective over 1-years, different lenses on
cameras, different depth-of-fields etc. can be fooling.  Trying to identify
the E-McKeesport photo was anything but orderly and methodical -- start with
the "givens" and then rule-out.  It takes field work, not hunches.

Phil

http://lists.dementix.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/3761-1707-1707-Mapleview.jpg