[PRCo] Re: Route 40 1700's

[John Swindler]

As a flawed, somewhat sweeping generalization, PTC took over SEPTA, while the independent bus company owners took over PRC.  It's a way to try to explain differences between the large system at either end of the state. 
 
 
 
 

 

> Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 05:35:51 -0800
> From: pcc_sr at yahoo.com
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Route 40 1700's
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
> 
> Mr.Rathke,
> 
> 
> The apparent ban on 1200s and 1700s on the 40 was by Prc, wasn't it.
> This ban evaporated with the RR charter in 1958 when each series
> PCC was sent up there.  I am searching for more information to make
> this clear as I saw this discussed in the archives previously.
> 
> All rules and regulations and ordinances and laws are enforced stringently
> when introduced.  Time see such enforcement relax and even forgotten;
> sometimes the need for the law evaporates yet the law remains.  How many
> times have towns found bans on securing the horse in front of a saloon on
> Sunday, even when bans on horses had been in place for decades?
> 
> Pat is a whole other organization.  Lower level employees would proceed
> as they had under Prc but upper management was drastically different
> wasn't it.  Their policies were not at all favorable to rail; they balk at rail
> to this day don't they.
> 
> We have to compare apples and apples, not Prc and Pat.
> 
> I spent the better part of the last couple days searching the archives for this
> information.  What I found is a retelling of the story; I can't seem to find the
> original document.  This document was quite plain:  engineering and the
> shop banned the 12s and 17s from the 40-line (most likely the 21-line as
> well.)
> 
> The RR convention of 1958 apparently changed that; a car of each series
> was used for a charter onto Grandview Avenue.  Whether or not this was
> considered 'successful' in testing these two series is unknown but it is
> possible the ban was relaxed.  This archive post only mentions the 12s;
> I found the one mentioning the 17s but can't find the Url:
> http://lists.dementix.org/mlist/pittsburgh-railways/1999-10/msg00009.html
> 
> I am still searching for more information; this has been discussed many
> times.
> 
> I also found some information on drum brakes:
> 
> http://lists.dementix.org/mlist/pittsburgh-railways/2004-03/msg00116.html
> 
> http://lists.dementix.org/mlist/pittsburgh-railways/2004-03/msg00167.html
> 
> I am still searching for more information.
> 
> 
> 
> From pg-5 of the 1952 treatise on the interubans is this quote:
> 
> "The new route [Washington Interurban] was truly a high-speed
> electric line, the greater portion being fenced P/R/W ...."
> 
> Any number of times I read how RRs and Interurbans were 'fenced.'
> One might deduce that rules, regulations, ordinances, laws
> governing same saw such building; after all, everyone here knows
> that rwys would not spend a nickel if they weren't so required.  Rwys
> tended to pinch the nickel so hard the buffalo would bellow.
> 
> How much of this fencing was evident in the 1940s and at the time
> the Interurbans ended?  It was installed but not often maintained
> and apparently far more rarely enforced wasn't it.
> 
>  
> Phil
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Bob Rathke <bobrathke at comcast.net>
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org 
> Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 1:16 PM
> Subject: [PRCo] Route 40 1700's
> 
> 1700's were sometimes seen on route 40, at least in that route's last year.  
> Attached is a photo I took of 1784 in regular service  - 
> on Fingal St. on Aug. 19, 1966.   
> 
> 
> Bob
> 
>