[PRCo] Re: Smithfield to W.Carson

[Edward H. Lybarger]

We are clearly missing something.  Perhaps this is another question for Ed
Tennyson.

-----Original Message-----
From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementix.org
[mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementix.org] On Behalf Of Phillip
Clark Campbell
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 1:06 PM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
Subject: [PRCo] Smithfield to W.Carson

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