[PRCo] South Fork - Portage Railway

[Daria Phoebe Brashear]

Check out page 2 of this newspaper. Some folks spoke at the Cambria County
Historical Society. A few of the details seem off, but interesting
nonetheless

https://issuu.com/mainlinenewspapers/docs/extra_11-21-19


On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 7:31 PM Daria Phoebe Brashear <shadow at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Stephen Titchenal <stephen at titchenal.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The left side of the val map includes the right side of tracing #3 with
>> the location of the PC Ry. track showing.  Tracing 4  actually corresponds
>> with most of the val map section. Tracing 5 shows the right side of the val
>> map.
>>
>>
>>
>> The valuation maps were intended to show railroad property only.
>> Sometimes nearby roads and railroads (in this case the PC Ry) were also
>> shown. If you are lucky, the surveyor/draftsman showed more than a minimum
>> of non-railroad culture.  Often the non-railroad culture was not updated in
>> a revised val maps -- only railroad owned track, buildings and property.
>>
>>
>>
>> Looking at the portion of Maple Street available in Google Street view I
>> agree it looks like the hill in the photo. Might be able to identify one of
>> the homes if visiting the area.  The caption indicates that the bumping
>> post was near the car (auto or trolley?). That is not the end of the line,
>> so why would the bumping post be there?
>>
>>
>>
>> Attached is a colored DEM of the area with my tracing of the Penn Central
>> Ry right of way in yellow and an elevation profile below it. The PRR tracks
>> in in Red, the original Portage RR is in light blue. The Southern Cambria
>> Ry is in purple.  When I have some time (maybe in a couple of weeks) I’ll
>> use the Lidar to create a more accurate elevation profile rather than
>> whatever Google Earth is using. I’ll also georeference the 1938 aerial.
>>
>>
>>
>> Where is the reference to the stationing referred to? 72+85 and 79+15?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So we know the stations are 700 feet apart, one is in Croyle and one is
> in Summerhill. That gives us a bracket of ~1400 feet on either end of
> Summerhill, basically.
> Measuring 7285ish feet from the South Fork/Croyle boundary doesn't yield a
> 700 foot window across either boundary. Measuring from a point
> approximately where the line rejoined the road at the east end of the
> diversion into the hollow where the route 219 interchange is yields a
> crossing in Summerhill and another in Croyle, on either side of the first
> underpass east of Summerhill. Maybe, but 1) the val map showing that
> underpass will probably tell us and 2) I don't see why.
>
> Okay, so what if we measure from Main and Railroad Sts? Then we get a
> point in Croyle, east of the cemetery, and a point in Summerhill, after the
> line crosses the river. It would mean the line would cross the river on the
> north side of the street, between the street and the railroad. I don't know
> *why* this would be desirable, but the aerial shows something which might
> fit this conclusion. I'll mark up a copy and attach it.
>
> Also, the answer to why the first two underpasses east of Summerhill were
> fine and the subway in question was not? The first 2 are multi-arch spans
> of ample width and the 3rd is an underpass which spanned only the portage
> railroad, thus narrower. Hence presumably why the state was more
> proprietary about it, tho it's unclear what the PRR granting use of right
> of way to the trolley company bought them if then they couldn't use this.
>
> --
> Daria Phoebe Brashear
> AuriStor, Inc
> dariaphoebe.com
>
>

-- 
Daria Phoebe Brashear
AuriStor, Inc
dariaphoebe.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.dementix.org/pipermail/pittsburgh-railways/attachments/20191210/be69a9eb/attachment.html>