[PRCo] Re: Streetcars in the Strip District?

[Fred Schneider]

No mystery Dwight.     PRC called the two digit numbers DESTINATION NUMBERS (for destination signs) while they called the three and four digit numbers ROUTE NUMBERS.   The used the route numbers for internal purposes such as accounting and the route cards (until wartime staff reductions forced them to quit saving useless information in the early 1940s).     The destination numbers were on the public timetables.    They served two completely different purposes.   

What is a service schedule?   If it was internal, it may have used the route numbers.   

If you want to see them on a computer file, John, you know where to find me.   

You mean loosing interest like studying family genealogy?   Onct ve kno da basics and then find out that our kids don't give a damn, we shove that stuff in a box and forget it.    I suspect in my case a ton of paper and photographs will simply be thrown in the dumpster.   At least I circulated it widely when I was doing it so a lot of family members also have copies.   

Destination 79 FIFTH, SHADY AND PENN is equivalent to route 702 Forbes, Fifth, Shady (Outside Loop).   First route card is dated Sept. 1904.
Loop was discontinued December 15, 1919.   This abandonment gave an excess number that allowed them to use for Stadium Forbes Field trippers if they wanted to put them on the destination signs.   

Maybe by the 1950s, when you and I got into it John, the route numbers had disappeared entirely from the institutional memory and they were using only destination numbers.   It may have been necessary to get rid of duplications in the 1950s.   Prior to 1939 the were no duplicates.     Destinations were 1 through 99 plus W, C, W1, W2, W3 and D.   Routes were in the 100, 200, 300 .... up to 1300 series.   
In the 1950s Pittsburgh Railways began introducing bus lines in the 200 series which was a numbering series previous reserved for car routes based at Ingram. 

Also after 1949 (or thereabouts ... Ed would have the exact date) the connection to Equitable Gas and Duqesne Light was severed, the old Pittsburgh Railways was dissolved and a new Pittsburgh Railways was created.  The new management may have decided we don't need two numbering series, one for the public and one we use internally.   That would make a heck of a lot of sense.   Sometimes it takes a corporate reorganization or a recession or a bankruptcy to make some people wake up.     




On Sep 1, 2011, at 7:38 PM, John Swindler wrote:

> 
> 
> Hi Dwight
> 
> PRC had 3 and 4 digit route numbers, or service numbers, that date back to its beginning.  In summer 1914, a two digit route or schedule number was assigned to many services, primarily those going thru areas with multiple routes.  Many of these two digit numbers stayed the same over the years, so that they came down to our era identifying the same service.  The 64 route that those on this list remember from the 1960s was generally the same 64 route in 19-teens.  Same goes for 66, 67 and 68.  But some numbers were migrated to other services.   As with others on this list, that is what I remember.
> 
> I agree completely with first sentence of your second paragraph.  It was all a mystery to me also until recently.  But for some reason, I've been interested in PRC pre-1920 or so - perhaps precisely because it is not an interest to most railfans.  Some people like mystery novels.  Guess I just like mystery history.  Trouble is, once I find the answer, quickly lose interest.  
> 
> Hmmmm.  wonder if PRC was using the two digit or the 3 digit route numbers on service schedules during the 1930s?  Next time in Pittsburgh, maybe Ed will let me brown thru stuff from Rankin.  By the 1960s, PRC schedule department was using the two digits that appeared on public timetable.  I have a route 79 schedule from John Baxter - it was used for Stadium Forbes Field service, but did not appear on headsign.
> 
> Cheers
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> From: dwightlong at verizon.net
>> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Streetcars in the Strip District?
>> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:36:05 -0400
>> 
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> You need to know that what enthusiasts commonly call "Route Numbers" for PRC 
>> and what PRC used back in 1914 were two separate things. The 
>> commonly-accepted "Route Numbers" of our time were the numbers applied to 
>> destination signs, timetables, etc. These were NOT the route numbers PRC 
>> used back in the day (which did not necessarily appear on the cars). I have 
>> a reprint of the 1914 assignment--not sure it's complete--and it has been 
>> modified to show latter day destination sign numbers as well as the PRC 
>> route numbers. Fred has (or it may be at Arden) a more complete set of 
>> information on this.
>> 
>> For most PRC fans, the older route number system is just a mystery and most 
>> don't want to know. For that, and other, reasons most of us when PRC route 
>> numbers are mentioned refer to the latter-day destination sign numbers, 
>> which are pretty commonly known and understood--or at least were until the 
>> PAAC started messing with them in the 60s!
>> 
>> Dwight
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "John Swindler" <j_swindler at hotmail.com>
>> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:45 AM
>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Streetcars in the Strip District?
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> It appears that route numbers were assigned in 1914 to routes operating 
>>> downtown, E Liberty and Oakland - places were there were multiple routes. 
>>> There was no need to assign a route number to the various shuttle routes. 
>>> That came later as route numbers were "freed" thru what we would now call 
>>> "rationalization" of the PRC system. One of my retirement hobbies will be 
>>> to see what the Pittsburgh newspapers have to say about these early 
>>> routes.
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> John
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> From: dwightlong at verizon.net
>>>> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
>>>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Streetcars in the Strip District?
>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:25:02 -0400
>>>> 
>>>> John
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, in anything resembling our time they certainly were. 51 was the Bon 
>>>> Air Shuttle, 52 was the Carson Street shuttle (from the end of line loop 
>>>> upriver), and 53 was, of course, Carrick.
>>>> 
>>>> I knew Derrick could not have meant 51--at least in the parlance that any 
>>>> PRC enthusiast living today would remember!
>>>> 
>>>> Dwight
>>>> 
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>> From: John Swindler
>>>> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 30 August, 2011 08:19
>>>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Streetcars in the Strip District?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 53 used the Tenth St. bridge and Second Ave. to downtown. 50 used Carson 
>>>> St. and Smithfield St. bridge. Both were on Carson 10th to 18th St. Then 
>>>> 53 went up 18th to Brownsville Rd., while 50 continued on Carson to 30th 
>>>> St.
>>>> 
>>>> In early years there were two routes that used Tenth St. bridge and two 
>>>> routes on Carson that used Smithfield St. I think Tenth St. bridge had a 
>>>> short turn at 22nd and Carson. Routes numbers 50, 51. 52 and 53 were 
>>>> originally used on these Carson St. routes. But some of the numbers were 
>>>> shifted around over the years.
>>>> 
>>>> The shuttle to 36th St. was the remnant of the line from Carson to Hays 
>>>> on south side of Mon River. There was a Pittsburgh & Birmingham/PRC 
>>>> carbarn at Carson and 30th St., which might have had something to do with 
>>>> 30th being terminal of route 50 Carson.
>>>> 
>>>> just trying to keep current (lol)
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers
>>>> John
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:04:43 -0400
>>>>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Streetcars in the Strip District?
>>>>> From: shadow at gmail.com
>>>>> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Dwight Long <dwightlong at verizon.net> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Derrick
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Please explain how Rt. 50 diverged from Rt 51, or even vice versa!
>>>>> 
>>>>> sorry, should have said 53, not 51!
>>>>> i have bus on the brain.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Derrick
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 		 	   		  
>