[PRCo] Re: 23-Sewickley & PRC assignments....

[John Swindler]

Was the mid-day schedule hourly, with one car on the hour and the other on the half-hour???  Then if extra cars are added during peak, they will operate almost on each other's block.
 

 

> From: dwightlong at verizon.net
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: 23-Sewickley & PRC assignments....
> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:50:14 -0500
> 
> 
> John
> 
> Finleyville cars actually went to Riverview--unless they were DE Jones cars, 
> which would have been unusual.
> 
> Another quirk which was not remedied until almost the end of service was 
> that the Washington and Charleroi cars operated right on each other's block, 
> and traversed the downtown loop together. Why they were not offset 15 
> minutes is a question I always wondered but never acquired a satisfactory 
> answer.
> 
> Dwight
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John Swindler" <j_swindler at hotmail.com>
> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 8:17 PM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: 23-Sewickley & PRC assignments....
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > What would be impossible to deduce is the first realization by PRC that 
> > existing tracks at the point are going to be changed with urban renewal, 
> > and the highway dept. was not looking favorably on putting rails on a new 
> > point bridge.
> >
> > But access for scrapping sounds more immediate. The 1700s had just 
> > arrived, and perhaps a 'house cleaning' was envisioned. Probably the 
> > eventual disposal of low floor cars was much more extensive and rapid then 
> > envisioned in 1949. Perhaps that is another question for Ed Tennyson.
> >
> > Speaking of Ed, at TRB last month he related how PRC would operate a 
> > Library, Finleyville (?) and Charleroi car within a few minutes of each 
> > other every half hour at peak times. Ed suggested spreading out the 
> > headway to every ten minutes instead of bunching at 30 minutes, but 
> > management would not consider it. That is until a manager moved to 
> > Bethel Park.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> From: dwightlong at verizon.net
> >> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
> >> Subject: [PRCo] Re: 23-Sewickley & PRC assignments....
> >> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:17:58 -0500
> >>
> >>
> >> Ed
> >>
> >> I agree with your logic, but would that not apply doubled in spades to
> >> running Rt. 23 out of Tunnel Car House?
> >>
> >> So the question still remains as to why this simple expedient was not 
> >> done
> >> at a much earlier date?
> >>
> >> Now go enjoy sunny Fla.!
> >>
> >> Dwight
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----- 
> >> From: "Edward H. Lybarger" <trams2 at comcast.net>
> >> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 4:57 PM
> >> Subject: [PRCo] Re: 23-Sewickley & PRC assignments....
> >>
> >>
> >> > Attached is PRC Track Sketch 49-019, which I copied (unfortunately
> >> > title-less) this morning. It indeed covers this job, and indicates that
> >> > the work was closed on the books May 14, 1949. Since they would have 
> >> > had
> >> > a major street dug up, I doubt they would have dawdled, and it would 
> >> > have
> >> > been a Spring 1949 thing.
> >> > Has anyone given a thought to its purpose being easy access from Tunnel 
> >> > to
> >> > Ingram so they could move cars for scrap there more expeditiously? We
> >> > don't have access to the books to know its cost, but it was quick and
> >> > dirty and would probably have cost a lot less than the platform time of 
> >> > a
> >> > multitude of operators who had to go downtown to turn around.
> >> >
> >> > Ed
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementix.org
> >> > [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementix.org] On Behalf Of 
> >> > Dwight
> >> > Long
> >> > Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 1:32 PM
> >> > To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
> >> > Subject: [PRCo] Re: 23-Sewickley & PRC assignments....
> >> >
> >> > Phil
> >> >
> >> > Most interesting.
> >> >
> >> > Recall that my contentions were in the first place based upon using the
> >> > direct route from the tunnel to the Point Bridge on West Carson as I 
> >> > was
> >> > unaware that the curves at the end of the tunnel were apparently not 
> >> > there
> >> > in the 30s or early 40s (why not is a whole other question). Secondly, 
> >> > I
> >> > bifurcated my response between AM and PM feed ons-feed offs. AM cars
> >> > would go to the Sewickley (or Graham or Fleming Park) loops when 
> >> > feeding
> >> > on while PM cars would go to the downtown loop. For the PM cars, even
> >> > with the detour around the Union Station route via Grant and Liberty, 
> >> > the
> >> > distance is shorter than from Ingram. For AM feed on cars, Ingram is
> >> > clearly the better choice from a stem time point of view. So, I guess,
> >> > taking both into consideration it would have been pretty much equal.
> >> > Except that operationally the route from Tunnel, except for the tunnel
> >> > itself, is essentially flat. If you have ever ridden route 31, you 
> >> > would
> >> > know that it is a succession of hills and curves. !
> >> > Balance tipped perhaps to Tunnel by this?
> >> >
> >> > Iââ,¬â"¢m virtually sure that the reason the Union Station route was 
> >> > used
> >> > was for capacity reasons. Even in latter days of greatly reduced 
> >> > service,
> >> > Smithfield Street was choked with trams. Right up until PAT, PRC turned 
> >> > a
> >> > number of rush hour cars at 4th Avenue (to Grant) to alleviate this
> >> > problem. Grant Street was less used and thus better able to accept the
> >> > Rt. 23 feed-ons. Further, since they were feed-ons and not regular 
> >> > route
> >> > cars, running them on the less-central route on Grant would not
> >> > inconvenience riders, who would normally be boarding at the lower end 
> >> > of
> >> > the Triangle.
> >> >
> >> > Still, I would think the reduction in stem time by installing the 
> >> > curves
> >> > at the end of the tunnel would have more than justified the cost of
> >> > construction at a very early dateââ,¬â?but that assumes long-term 
> >> > plans
> >> > to operate Rt. 23 out of Tunnel Car House. It may have been that this 
> >> > was
> >> > when instituted viewed as just a temporary measure which would not last
> >> > long enough to install the needed curves, and then it lasted, and 
> >> > lasted,
> >> > and lasted. Not an uncommon thing, eh?
> >> >
> >> > Dwight
> >> >
> >> > From: Phillip Clark Campbell
> >> > Sent: Tuesday, 21 February, 2012 11:26
> >> > To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
> >> > Subject: [PRCo] Re: 23-Sewickley & PRC assignments....
> >> > Mr.Long,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Yes! Those turns are the latter 1940s, 'very late' in the game isn't 
> >> > it.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I found a "Trolley Guide," Mr.Long, so I set aside my original 
> >> > thoughts.
> >> > The calendar is 2nd-half-1937 and all-1938. The downtown loop for the
> >> > 23-line, "at this date," is the typical West End loop on Penn, Stanwix,
> >> > Liberty, Fancourt, and back to Penn isn't it. According to Google's map
> >> > it is 2.2-miles from Ingram to Corliss and W.Carson.
> >> > In pre-dawn AM the majority would turn toward Sewickley with a couple
> >> > heading downtown to establish service. A car coming from Tunnel travels
> >> > at least twice the distance to Corliss and Carson doesn't it. This car
> >> > needs to at least loop downtown like Smithfield, 3rd, Wood, Ft.Pitt,
> >> > Smithfield and out W. Carson. If the pull-outs from Tunnel go directly 
> >> > to
> >> > the downtown West End loop via Grant and Liberty it adds extra time to 
> >> > get
> >> > to Corliss; 15-min extra as a guesstimate and 10-cars make for an extra
> >> > 2-hours daily just for this one move.
> >> > I am not trying to be exact but this significantly increases costs.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > This "answer" then begs more questions doesn't it. Why would Prc use
> >> > Grant and Liberty to the West End loop at Stanwix and Fancourt?
> >> > Smithfield is much shorter isn't it. The information provided by
> >> > Mr.Schneider suggests Tunnel operated the 23 // 25 lines from 1934 into
> >> > the mid-1940s. Why would the double-track turn from Tunnel to W.Carson 
> >> > be
> >> > built at the very end of Tunnel operation of the 23 and most likely 
> >> > after
> >> > it ended?
> >> >
> >> > Is it possible the downtown loop for the 23/25 lines did change to
> >> > Smithfield, Grant, Liberty, Wood, Smithfield to W.Carson for a time?
> >> > This is very possible but would also cause public confusion. This route
> >> > would greatly reduce overhead for operation from Tunnel wouldn't it.
> >> > Mr.Dengler's picture 'hints' at this doesn't it; but any car on the 
> >> > street
> >> > is "in-service" unless disabled. The one picture of 3756 on the 23 at
> >> > Grant and Liberty with passengers in 1944 is interesting.
> >> >
> >> > It seems logical to assume Tunnel equipment needs increased with the 
> >> > 23/25
> >> > lines. Did this force other routes out of tunnel and where would they 
> >> > go?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > This guide lists the 12-line as operating to and from downtown. It is
> >> > obvious Prc responds to demand. Lower demand may see it reduced to
> >> > outer-end shuttle; if demand increases then it is run full-length.
> >> > The 21-line is defined with a North side loop as we know.
> >> >
> >> > This booklet is 3"X5.5", 60-pgs, less than half about transit, the rest
> >> > about "medicine."
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Phil
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ________________________________
> >> > From: Dwight Long <dwightlong at verizon.net>
> >> > To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
> >> > Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 11:57 PM
> >> > Subject: [PRCo] Re: Making sense of the PRC assignments....
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Phil
> >> >
> >> > I'll have to take your word for it.
> >> >
> >> > So you are saying that the curves between the tunnel and West Carson 
> >> > were
> >> > actually built some time in the PCC era? Meaning anything going between
> >> > the
> >> > West End group and the rest of the system had to transit the Golden
> >> > Triangle, prior to their installation? This was before my time if it
> >> > existed. Sounds beastly inconvenient to me, especially if one wished to
> >> > run
> >> > cars on Rt. 23 out of Tunnel Car House. But, it could be done, and 
> >> > other
> >> > than the congestion factor in the Triangle, would still be a more
> >> > favorable
> >> > barn than Ingram to feed cars onto the line--but not for taking them 
> >> > off,
> >> > in
> >> > the afternoon, and the reverse in the morning.
> >> >
> >> > Dwight
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> >> > From: "Phillip Clark Campbell" <pcc_sr at yahoo.com>
> >> > To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org>
> >> > Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 9:06 PM
> >> > Subject: [PRCo] Re: Making sense of the PRC assignments....
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Mr.Long,
> >> >> The 50-line was based at Craft. The first curve from tunnel to 
> >> >> E.Carson
> >> >> is there; the 2nd curve wasn't built until the 2-curves from W.Carson
> >> >> were built.
> >> >>
> >> >> I am attaching a picture of 1201 again to this email. You shall NOT
> >> >> receive
> >> >> the picture itself; the mail program provides a Url at the very bottom 
> >> >> of
> >> >> this email. Click on it to see the picture.
> >> >>
> >> >> Please note total absence of tracks to and from W.Carson.
> >> >> Look at the car stop sign immediately above 1201. In the same span is
> >> >> the frog to turn to E.Carson. It is a little difficult to see the 
> >> >> track
> >> >> but it
> >> >> is
> >> > there.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Phil
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ________________________________
> >> >> From: Dwight Long <dwightlong at verizon.net>
> >> >> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
> >> >> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 8:47 PM
> >> >> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Making sense of the PRC assignments....
> >> >>
> >> >> Phil (sent from my portable computer)
> >> >>
> >> >> AIR, there were double curves between East Carson and the tunnel.
> >> >> However,
> >> >> I don't have my maps with me here so I can't verify that. But if not, 
> >> >> how
> >> >> would cars coming off route on 50 get to the car house?
> >> >>
> >> >> I'll take another look at the map later, but I think you are right 
> >> >> about
> >> >> the
> >> >> lack of a straight through track on Carson. There would be no need
> >> > for it.
> >> >> I think I made an error there--with respect to calling it a Grand 
> >> >> Union.
> >> >>
> >> >> With respect to cars signed 23 on any part of the South Hills downtown
> >> >> loops, that fact is not dispositive. 23 may or may not have been 
> >> >> rerouted
> >> >> to use one of the South Hills loops. I know nothing of this, but that
> >> >> does
> >> >> not mean it did not happen. In my day it always used the West End
> >> >> downtown
> >> >> loop. Assuming the base cars always did so, the cars to which you
> >> >> referred
> >> >> could just be feed on or feed off runs and not base trips.
> >> >>
> >> >> We would need access to route guides or old timetables from Way Back 
> >> >> to
> >> >> sort
> >> >> all this out. And it all assumes that the curves between the tunnel 
> >> >> and
> >> >> West Carson are some latter day installation. In my day they were 
> >> >> always
> >> >> there, and their use would be the logical way to feed cars based at
> >> >> Tunnel
> >> >> Car House on and off Rt.
> >> > 23.
> >> >>
> >> >> Dwight
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
> >> > -- Type: image/jpeg
> >> > -- Size: 631k (647130 bytes)
> >> > -- URL :
> >> > http://lists.dementix.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/Track%20Sketch%2049-019%20Carson%20at%20Smithfield.jpg
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> > 
> 
>