Pittsburgh Rys 101

[EDWARD H. LYBARGER]

1)  I have before me a copy of the Lougee Report.  It recommended converting
the following routes to bus:
        23-25-26-27-28-30-31-34-49-55-56-57-58-59-60-62-65-68-99.  All but
Rt. 99 lost money.  Lougee projected that conversion would produce a
$171,000 profit instead of a loss of $882,000, or a net difference to PRCo
of $1,053,000.  Not to be sneezed at.

2)    The Beechview track was paved March-June 1940.  I don't know exactly
why; perhaps it was done to make it more costly for the City to appropriate
it (like they did to Rt 39 when they joined Brookline Blvd. to West Liberty
Avenue).

4)    PRCo agreed in 1949 to abandon trackage on the Point Bridge and not to
seek its installation on the replacement.  Regardless of what happened
later, that is established in meeting minutes from that date.  The West End
trolley lines were losing $300,000+ annually.  The state bought the buses
and gave the company enough money to buy off the municipalities.  They would
be fools to want to continue trolley service, and they weren't fools.  Any
stalling was likely a ploy to beat down the municipalities in their paving
demands.

5)    Block signals on the interurbans were in place from the beginning, and
were modernized in 1928-30.  There were several collisions on 38a in the 70s
(1770/1774 and 1732/1755 come to mind).  The devices on the track brakes
weren't brushes, they were either abrasive or caused the brakes to drag.  I
don't know which, but they were only on four cars (which I could identify if
it were a matter of life or death).

7)    None whatever, from an economic perspective.  In addition to the
capital cost, patronage would not even begin to support it.  The bus service
barely stays afloat, even with state subsidy.

8)    The one-way street in Charleroi was a last-year phenomenon.  Yes,
someone flagged the street when a car backed out of Washington's wye.  When
the big facilities shutdown came on 6-20-53, cars no longer pulled in.  They
ran around the block instead.

9)    The Trolley Museum is in the museum business and has no interest in
getting into the transit business except as it applies to transporting
passengers to the Fair Grounds on our demonstration railway.

10)    Peter Muller-Munk Associates (a design consultant) was responsible
for the 1972 paint schemes.  "Everything 'evil' in PAT?" Come on, now!  This
is froth of the worst kind.  These people were doing their job as they saw
it.

11)    Federal policy during the "New Deal" was strictly anti-streetcar,
anti-utility, anti-business, anti-almost anything that paid the bills for
the government.  It began the myth that government is good.  There is a 1933
report (written in such sophomoric language as to downright funny in its
shallowness) advocating elimination of the streetcars and their replacement
with city-owned buses.  The Davey Lawrence crowd bought into this crap
because it was easy to garner votes by attacking the establishment.  Anne
Alpern was his City Solicitor (mouthpiece).  The railways company resisted
not only because they felt they were providing good service but because they
needed every cent of the rail system on the books to justify their rate
base.  If anyone believes that anything was done without concern for the
economic consequences, their study of this industry falls short.  But the
city's hatred of PRCo goes back into the 1900s.  We are reading the
newspapers to find out what happened; the histories, such as they are, have
always glossed over this stuff in favor of presentations of routes and
equipment.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Holland <pghpcc at pacbell.net>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 1999 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: Pittsburgh Rys 101


> Greetings!
>
> Student?  Do you know the definition of the term!  Think that I am
> going to learn more from this than I can contribute!
>
> Charles Brown wrote:
>
> > 1)  I read about the 1949 Lougee report in an old,
>
> Never heard of it - could you provide a source so I can check it out?
>
> > 2)  On the 42 line, why was the PRW near Dormont paved?  Was it a former
> > street?
>
> The specific section to which you refer is just outbound of the Wenzell
> Ave overpass to Potomac Ave in the center of Broadway wholly within
Dormont.
> This section was sunk in cement up to the *bottom* of the railhead and was
> concave between the rails.  Doubt it was used as a street.  Don't
personally
> know why it was paved.
> This section from Potomac in Dormont to Neeld in Beechview was
> apparently graded specifically for the streetcars.  The one way traffic on
> either side was not necessarily at the same grade even near Potomac.  And
the
> streetcar passed over Wenzell on unpaved prw to the Neeld loop in
Beechview.
> Early contour maps *seem to indicate* that Broadway in Beechview was
> center of the highway prw but I have been unable to confirm that at this
point.
>  But that was paved, in street trackage while I grew up along the line
from the
> late 40's.  I used to live half-a-block down from the line on Greenmount,
the
> first stop inbound from the 42 DORMONT wye.
> The ERA, July 1952 *Headlights* publication on the interurbans
> indicates that the 42 line might have been part of the route into downtown
very
> early on.  That was then changed to the 38 MtLEBANON line and shortly
later to
> the Overbrook location.
>
> > 3)  Is or was there any other system that had more bridges and trestles
> > or more miles of track on them than PR?
> > 4)  Speaking of which, I understand that the West end lines were
> > abandoned due to the closing of the Point Bridge.
>
> Certainly other systems had more trackage but *probably not* as many
> bridges and certainly not the variety of operation common to Pittsburgh
and
> PRCo.  Some will point out that PRCo was glad to get rid of the streetcars
> because the Point Bridge closed, but I am not totally convinced of that
yet!
> And yes, the 55 & 56 lines, both with very colorful operation, were closed
> because of a a bridge.
> The 2 & 3 were closed because of highway construction and *possibly*
> the 94 because of a bridge on the outer end across the Allegheny.
>
> > 5)  The block signaling system on the single track segments impresses
> > me.
>
> *Some form of signalling* was there from the beginning but the Union
> Switch and Signal system was installed later; Ed can give us a date.
> The Overbrook portion has been described to me as absolute, permissive,
> sub-divided block system, at least since the mid 50's - it *might* have
been
> slightly different before that.  When the interurbans were terminated at
> Library and Drake in 1953, two new sidings were added before and after the
Bon
> Air siding.  Because flow of traffic is predominantly one-way in each rush
> hour, an opposing car could theoretically get stuck forever in one spot at
a
> red signal.  There was a way for these cars to pre-empt this flow
automatically
> but since I don't know the terminology it is difficult to describe.  But I
> understood how it worked!
> The only cornfield meet I personally know of is 1646? and 1261 on the
> dinky track between Mt. Lebanon and Castle Shannon (1963-1965?).  The
motorman
> of the interurban car said that, knowing an accident was imminent when he
first
> saw 1261 coming around the turn, it looked like that car was coming at him
> sideways.  This track section was protected by trolley pole contactor
signals
> which *might* have failed; the other possibility was that the motorman
failed
> to check the signal.
> Several of the 1700 series PCC cars had brushes mounted in the track
> brake to sweep the rails clean of debris, especially sand, and it was
totally
> forbidden to use sand on the interurban lines because it could break
contact
> for the signalling system (even the prototype had problems with contact,
not
> just modellers - there is a prototype for EVERYTHING!) - unless there was
a
> valid emergency!  A light switch like used in homes, complete with box
that is
> sunk into the wall, was mounted on the right side of the operators dash to
drop
> the brushes; a light outside the right front window indicated that the
brushes
> were deployed.
> With the advent of LRVs here in SF, track switches went from overhead
> contactor to track segment operation.  A relay automatically shows
indicator
> lights for diverge or straight thru every 10-15 seconds.  When the proper
light
> is displayed, the operator moves the LRV or PCC into the track section
> immediately before the switch which sets that switch and then locks it
out.
> Each following truck enters the block before the previous one leaves and
the
> switch stays set properly for the whole train.  Just before the subway
entrance
> on Duboce is a switch to take surface cars to Market Street.  I was coming
> outbound with my Judah LRV and sitting behind a J Church LRV that was
sitting
> on the diamond of this junction waiting for an inbound 2-car Judah train
to
> clear the intersection (1981-1982.)  It was a rainy day and the operator
used
> sand all the way across the intersection.  This apparently broke contact
and
> reset the switch so that the very last truck of the last car headed for
Market
> Street and smashed into the Church car sitting in front of me!
>
> > 6)  In Jim's tape, he shows the interurban PCC's merrily bouncing along
> > passing stop after stop.
>
> Oh yes - Sundays and holidays were light but weekday commutes were
> extremely heavy (I also turned off the battery powered movie camera at
stops
> to preserve battery and film!!)  Sunday schedules were hourly on Library
and
> Drake giving Castle Shannon half hourly service in the 60s.  As late as
> December in 1957, 40 minute headways were common on Sundays thus giving
> Overbrook riders 20 minute service.  The Library car had owl service until
the
> mid or late 60s!  Commute schedules were every couple minutes at peak
times
> with 37 Shannon trippers.
>
> > 7)  And speaking of which, would there be any justification today to
> > re-extend the interurbans to Washington and Charleroi . . . For that
> > matter, have any physical obstacles been built since their abandonment
> > 8)  Oh yeah, on a video (can't recall which one) it shows an interurban
> > in Charleroi battling against one-way traffic. . .And on the Washington
> > end, did they have anybody to stop traffic when the PCC's backed out of
> > the wye station?
>
> Oh yes - I think you would have a difficult time moving the
> Pennsylvania Trolley Museum off its location on the County Home Siding of
the
> Washington line!  Don't know about justification but bus service still
exists,
> or did a number of years ago!
> It was near the end that Charleroi made the street one-way; it wasn't
> always that way!
> NO back-up controllers in Pittsburgh PCC cars.  The 3700-3714 and
> 3800-3814 series had back up controllers but from photos I have it
*appears*
> there is a trolley pole contactor in the backup wire of the wye that
*might*
> set a traffic signal for traffic - probably installed for the PCCs - but I
> can't see the traffic signal.
> In the TGM tape of Pittsburgh's South *Side* (should read South Hills)
> lines, it shows a 3750 class car backing into the Canonsburg wye across
> traffic, motorman at the front controls, no traffic signal.
> The 42 DORMONT wye was on prw but there was a tremendous amount of
> pedestrian traffic, and us kids, in the area and they backed from the
front
> seat--without any help from anyone else!
>
> > 10)  Was Geissenheimer responsible for the bizarre paint schemes in the
> > 1970's?
>
> Believe so!  At first I wasn't too keen about the change but it did
> bring about a positive public image - many riders knew the cars by name
and
> number!
> The ({[PAT gray]}) paint scheme is symbolic of everything evil in PAT
> and is akin to *devil red* as far as I am concerned.  Even now to be
confronted
> by a car painted as such causes me to react with horror and anger as
though
> confronted by a poisonous snake!  ({[PAT]}) was forced into keeping the
> trolleys and Geissenheimer's attempts restored some respectability to the
> trolleys for the public and the railfan - even the dash lights came back
on
> much of the equipment!
>
> > 11)  I just read that while PR favored streetcars, the city hated them
> > and tried to eliminate them as far back as 1933.
>
> Anne X. Alpern (sounds like the devils temptress) was city council
> member who avidly hated the streetcars, but don't know why.  She hails
from the
> late 40s or early 50s.  At this time, PRCo was going through a second or
> possibly third reorganization following a bankruptcy declaration.
> There has been much debate about the *National City Lines* being
> responsible for the demise of streetcars in a variety of places.  But by
the
> 50's, most of the populace thought streetcars were old fashioned, the
> automobile provided keen competition, and Railway Companies found it
cheaper to
> buy new buses than new streetcars AND rebuild the deteriorated
infrastructure
> of track, bridges, and overhead!  These three would be an horrendous
capital
> expenses at a time of drastic reductions in yearly patronage so little if
any
> return could be projected for such a large expenditure.
> Quite honestly, many of the light rail systems today are being built as
> me-too systems following a *fad return* to light rail - streetcars are
once
> again an *in-thing* but they won't always be such!  It will be interesting
to
> see what happens to these rail lines then!
>
> Found a hot-dog laying on the front sidewalk - 400 miles from Long
> Beach?!--naw, couldn't be!
>
> --
> James B. Holland
>        To e-mail *off-list,* please click here: mailto:pghpcc at pacbell.net
>               PITTSBURGH RAILWAYS COMPANY (PRCo), June of 1949 -- June of
1953
>       Pennsylvania Trolley Museum (PTM) member #273;
http://www.pa-trolley.org/
> N.M.R.A.  Life member #2190; http://www.mcs.net:80/~weyand/nmra/
>