[PRCo] Smithfield to W.Carson

[Phillip Clark Campbell]

Mr.Lybarger,

This now seems like the Charleroi photo identification
challenge doesn't it; what are we missing?

Your comment is interesting but we are forgetting one point:
the trip to Ingram for scrapping is one way isn't it.  The turn
"to" Tunnel is almost superfluous.

The 1952 roster shows 85 low-floor cars at Tunnel.  In 1949,
although some were already scrapped, there were 30-old
Interurbans weren't there.  The PCCs displaced these old
cars which can take advantage of the new turns.  We need to
assume there were more low-floor cars in 1949 also.

Turns existed on Smithfield to 3rd and 3rd to Wood; round-
trip from and to Smithfield and Carson is a little over a mile.
15-min is more than generous for this trip isn't it.  This adds
an hour of platform time for every 4-cars so routed.  The time
for moving 120-cars is then 30-hours for this extra trip; 40-hours
if 160-cars are moved.  If we use 5-cars/hour this drops to
24-hours and 32-hours.  Would this allow for tearing up the
street, building the track, interrupting service for some ?-minutes
when rails are removed and turnout-pieces are set in place,
possibly installing another line pole or two to equalize the
tension of constructing overhead which also takes "time?"

How did Union contracts of the day read?  Were the men off
the clock when they reached Ingram?  Would they be paid 

travel time to return to Tunnel?  Were operators or shop men
used to shuttle cars?  Observations suggest shop men shuttled
cars; operators would need to be in official uniform and the
men observed were wearing shop clothing.  Operators generally
parked cars in yards when the shift was finished; lower paid shop
men then moved them as necessary for next assignments.  It
seems Prc would use the lowest 'cost' employee for moving
unwanted equipment.  Not all low-floors would move to Ingram
together; reserves were kept in dwindling numbers into 1956.

Carson and Smithfield is a major intersection; much more work
was done than just the two turns.  This actually lowers the cost
for the two turns alone but it is difficult to allocate time from our
perspective isn't it.  The work done here is significant renewal
with long term benefits.

Considering the 3750 and 23-line operation from Tunnel and
using just 8-cars a day making this move and using the 15-min
allowed above makes for 2-hours daily or 20-days to equal
the 40-hours for moving 160-cars.  Prc could justify the cost
of the turns in less than a month for the 23-line alone.  The
8-cars are 4-out in the AM and 4-return in the PM.  It seems
far more would be used doesn't it especially if the 25 line
is also considered.  This also assumes the 23 and 25 use
the normal West End downtown loop; a couple guides of
the day confirm this fact.  While all cars in service after
leaving the yard they are not attracting new nor 23-line
dedicated passengers; these passengers would be served
by the normal routes involved.  Downtown many rode between
points free by entering and exiting the back doors.



Working in favor of this turn construction are ridership figures.
They increased steadily from 1940 until they peaked in 1947.
One year was down modestly but many years were up
significantly weren't they.  The decision for this turn construction
would at least germinate in 1948; the decline in ridership would
not be known until 1949 but it might be assumed.  One year
doesn't make a trend so the decision to build goes forward.
We might "assume" that 3750s from tunnel still worked the 23-line;
the delivery of the 1700s in 1949 may have changed that.


It does seem we are missing something doesn't it.



Phil



________________________________
 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....
 
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


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.





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?


Phil

http://lists.dementix.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/Track%20Sketch%2049-019%20Carson%20at%20Smithfield.jpg