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

[John Swindler]

Well, scrach that theory.
 

 

> From: dwightlong at verizon.net
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: 23-Sewickley & PRC assignments....
> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:51:42 -0500
> 
> 
> John
> 
> No, until a year or so prior to the cutbacks of the lines, it was half 
> hourly until way into the evening.
> 
> Dwight
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John Swindler" <j_swindler at hotmail.com>
> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 12:04 PM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: 23-Sewickley & PRC assignments....
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > 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
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > 
> 
>