Pittsburgh Rys 101

[EDWARD H. LYBARGER]

Colleges and universities are among the worst when it comes to power and
ethics.  What's most egregious is accepting oodles of corporate $$$ for
research and other pet projects and then bashing the same companies in the
classrooms.  Too many instructors have never seen the light of day of a
"real world" job, yet feel they have every right to look down on others.
They should have been teaching the ethics courses all along, and practicing
some of the principles themselves!  Further, MBAs have destroyed more jobs
in America than even the environmentalists!

My point about government involvement is that it was supposed to have
eliminated all the "abuses" of private operators who HAD to make a return
for their owners, and spent what it took to do that.  Instead we squander
money advertising, for example, that taking the bus is a lot better than
riding a pogo stick to work.  And we pay some clown in excess of $80K
annually for that kind of "originality."

Yes, the mechanical maintenance was top-notch.  It had to be, with the
topography.  No PRCo PCC ran away in the tunnel, but a PAT-maintained car
did.

But the ultimate point is that we can't call people "evil" simply for
eliminating streetcars!

Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Holland <pghpcc at pacbell.net>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 1999 2:50 AM
Subject: Re: Pittsburgh Rys 101


> Greetings!
>
> EDWARD H. LYBARGER wrote:
>
> > As one who was actively (but necessarily quietly) opposing the Sky Bus
> > proposal, I'm all too familiar with what was going down at the time.
But
> > that's what life is all about...money and power.  I don't have to like
it to
> > recognize it.
>
> Exactamente!!!  I recognize the same and call it as I see it, and then get
> called names for stating such - and *that* I don't like!!!!!!!
>
> > But if the job of the guys there was to attack you in order to get their
job
> > done, so be it.
>
> Sorry  --  money, power, business at any cost  --  e-x-t-r-e-m-e-l-y  bad
> ethics whether on the business, government, charitable, or museum level
and I don't
> want any part of it.  Colleges and universities have instituted new ethics
classes for
> their MBA students because of the lack of the same.
>
> > . . . Instead we ride a slow,
> > inefficient, extremely costly country trolley line that features dirty
> > cars...largely because the government's in charge and no one gives a
damn.
>
> None of us are perfect and we all recognize that we will have friends with
> imperfections; we learn to accept that.  As a railfan, the streetcars are
friends, and
> in particular, the Pittsburgh Railways streetcars (for myself).  But you
want to talk
> dirty cars on ({[PAT]}) LRVs?  Every summer in the 1950s when people
visited on
> vacation they would  a-l-w-a-y-s  comment about how dirty the inside of
the streetcars
> were - a-l-w-a-y-s.  Let me quote again from the Sept-Oct 1984 *ERA
Headlights* - "The
> Great Circle Tour" by J. William Vigrass, pg 15:
> ". . . The 3750s were similar to PRC's standard city cars, and arch bar
trucks,
> and seats that were intended to be luxurious.  They weren't, and were not
merely dirty,
> but filthy."
> One can retort:  "This is the steel, coke, and coal city - that's why the
cars
> are dirty."  I say:  "EXCUSE - not a reason.  Clean the cars."
>
> Track was terrible too; again, from the same article above, page 15:
> ". . .we saw what appeared to be an abandoned streetcar body in a nearby
field.
>  After alighting from the train at a flagstop shelter, we were able to
discern a
> Pittsburgh Railways 3750-type deck roof car in Roscoe Loop.  It wasn't a
car body.
> Weeds merely grew up to the windows."
> And the same article, page 3:
> ". . . our PCC car entered Ardmore Boulevard, with its private
right-of-way
> median strip.  We had heard about this line, and anticipated a rapid
transit type ride.
>  However, we were disappointed.  The track was awful . . . Because of the
poor track,
> the motorman often had to slow down.  The ride was anything but
comfortable. . ."
> The above could describe prw anywhere on the PRCo system.  The same was
true on
> the interurbans - they often had to slow almost to a stop because the ride
became so
> rough.
> PRW looked abandoned because of the weeds and the ride quality was such
that it
> should have been condemned.  I liked the rough ride but for those who are
not fans and
> who have to commute daily, I can understand if they complain.
> ALL the lines were very slow.  The motorman would hit the power pedal for
all
> of 2 seconds and coast for ten and again 2 seconds of power and ten of
coast and then
> the dynamic governor slowed the car.  My mother often complained about the
slow ride
> and I noticed that other cities put the pedal to the metal OFTEN - but
n-e-v-e-r  PRCo
> on a normal schedule.  I spent my Sundays on an all-day-pass, and the
rides were very
> slow.  Exceptions were rush hours during the week - especially if there
were delays and
> the motorman was heading back to the barn after his trip!
> And if one retorts that a PCC ride can't be smooth, what about Shaker,
Newark,
> and Boston which ran high speed and were infinitely smoother?!?!  Even
with the ugly
> and hard, solid wheels on the MBTA, the ride at speed was smoother than
PRCo.
>
> Body work was anything but exemplary; from *PCC From Coast to Coast,* pg
166:
> "Even though carbody maintenance in Pittsburgh was legendary for its
> shortcomings, electrical and mechanical work was top notch."
>
> PRCo was a private-for-profit company that ran "filthy" streetcars,
operated
> over bone-shattering trackwork, and had abysmal carbody maintenance.  A
pattern of
> benign (maybe malignant) neglect was already in place; no amount of money
could change
> these bad habits.  Indeed, in light of this, I question the
electro-mechanical
> maintenance being "top-notch."  The 1700 city cars rattled and clanked in
the late 50s
> early 60s like an early air car with wheel tread brakes; I don't
understand to this day
> what caused those rattles.
> And before we make excuses for PRCo seeing the light at the end of the
tunnel
> and letting the equipment go, LAMTA trolleys were in impeccable shape in
1963 when they
> abandoned streetcar service.  Newark did a well above average job as did
Shaker in
> maintaining their equipment; why not PRCo?
>
> *-*-  But PRCo and the streetcars in particular are my friends.  I liked
them
> and enjoyed them and looked forward to riding on them.  I now miss
hem.  -*-*
>
> > But more to the point...no one could have made an economic case for
> > retaining any but the South Hills car lines.  Replacement cost was
> > prohibitive, and patronage was/is too low.
>
> I have mentioned many times that I could see the handwriting on the wall -
the
> cost of rebuilding the fixed plant for streetcars in addition to ordering
new equipment
> is prohibitive for the miniscule ridership and return.  The streetcars
were on their
> way out.  THIS  IS  A  GIVEN  --  NO  ARGUMENT.  Streetcars have served
their purpose;
> they are now taking their place in history.
> A-N-D  --  if "patronage was/is too low, it won't be difficult (especially
on
> the *net*) to get people to band together and write their congress people
stating that
> ridership on public transit in Pittsburgh, PA, is below acceptable norms
and such
> transit should be totally discontinued.
>
> --
> 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/
>