[PRCo] Re: Allenport?

Sat Dec 10 14:57:23 EST 2011

Ed

Thanks.  

About what I suspected, though I was unaware, until these exchanges started, about the portion around Allenport.

Question:  would not the northern limit of Nachod control have been the south end of the double track at Monessen Jct.?  Since the â€œsidingâ€ at the car house was in pavement, itâ€™s hard for me to understand how a USS signal circuit could have worked there.  Maybe I am missing something.

Otherwise it all fits.

Dwight

From: Edward H. Lybarger 
Sent: Friday, 09 December, 2011 08:37
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org 
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Allenport?
The Nachod-controlled segments were:

Riverview Siding to Riverview Loop
Pine Street, Monongahela to 1st Street, Monongahela
Charleroi CH to Mapleview
White Barn to Allenport

-----Original Message-----
From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementix.org
[mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementix.org] On Behalf Of Fred
Schneider
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 8:39 PM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Allenport?

No matter how many times we proofread, Phillip, we never see our own
mistakes because the brain sees only what it thought we wrote.   Did you
also see my real blunder where I renamed a street in Pittsburgh in one of
those two books?   Ohio and Carson streets are transposed and I knew better
but the brain does those things.   

Did anyone post a scan of that ERA map?   I have been so busy today between
getting ready for a slide show in Washington DC tomorrow night and a class
tomorrow morning that I have not thoroughly read all the e-mails.   

If the map has not been posted, I would be indebted to see a copy posted.
I would also like to know, Ed, exactly where the Nachods were.   I would
think Mapleview to the north end of Charleroi, through Monongahela, through
Houston and Canonsburg and Tylerdale into Washington .... what did I miss?

On Dec 8, 2011, at 7:54 PM, Phillip Clark Campbell wrote:

> 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-Map
> leview.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/RoscoeToNewSwitchS
> chematic.jpg
> 
> 
> 