[PRCo] Re: Allenport?

Thu Dec 8 20:22:15 EST 2011

I stand corrected.  New Switch indeed became Mapleview.  And the railroad
crossing was just north of it.

But the trolley and the highway are not in the same relationship in the
photo and at Mapleview.

I continue to have a feeling about this photo that I've had for years...that
I'm overlooking something obvious.

-----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 7:54 PM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Allenport?

Thank you Mr.Lybarger;
Photo #-3 is then "Mapleview" and not "Allenport" as labeled in the first
PCC book.  This apparently rules out where 3761 was photographed.

But!  You mention a RR crossing; there should be one at Mapleview - first
siding south of 5th-Street siding in Charleroi.

The pea-soup is getting thicker Mr.Lybarger!  The configuration of the road
(in both photos -- 3761 and 1707 #-2) seems to fit the road north of
Mapleview.

There also seems to be some confusion on New Switch and alternate name. 
Please see enclosed.

Phil

________________________________
 From: Edward H. Lybarger <trams2 at comcast.net>
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2011 7:19 PM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Allenport?

Mapleview Siding was immediately south of Charleroi.  Photo #3 is a John
Stern image taken there.  Note how narrow the R/W is between the RR and the
road...the outbound US&S signal is on the inbound side.  The trolley is on
the east side of the highway.  Steve Maguire took another photo there of
3811 sometime before.  This is not where 3761 is.
"New Switch" was renamed White Barn.  I'm attaching a photo there from the
Duke-Middleton collection, looking outbound.  Note the very distinctive
configuration of the insulators at the top of poles and the proximity to the
highway.  This also is not where 3761 is.

The rollsign reading is not conclusive.  Operators changed these at their
whim, especially as they neared the end of the run and were perhaps running
a bit late.

In the 3761 photo, the river is dead ahead, behind the houses and trees, and
the east bank's hillside is visible.  The car has to be southbound, and has
just left the road.  Is that a stop sign on the second pole from the right?
Or is it a RR crossing sign?

Too bad we don't have good maps of this part of the system.  I'll keep
digging.

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 3:40 PM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
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

http://lists.dementix.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/1715%20SB%20White%20Barn
%20D-M%20Coll.jpg

-- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
-- Type: image/jpeg
-- Size: 14k (15022 bytes)
-- URL :
http://lists.dementix.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/RoscoeToNewSwitchSchemat
ic.jpg