Another Myth Bashed

[Edward H. Lybarger]

New bridge and double tracking constructed 1928-30.

By 1908, the problem was more complicated than Booth & Flinn, though the
Mayor was William Magee, their crony.  PRCo's problems basically stemmed
from the way the leases and contracts with the underlying companies had been
written, and by their omission of a depreciation reserve to renew equipment
and facilities.  They erroneously concluded that renewals would come out of
ever-increasing patronage revenues, but when the 1903-04 recession and the
depression of 1907 hit there was no growth.

Effectively, they were in need of many new cars and much new track, and had
no money to pay for any of it, since the cash was going out to the
underliers in guaranteed lease payments and the like.  The system was
capitalized at a much higher valuation than what reflected the actual value,
and drained away money to earlier investors. PRCo was operating at a deficit
almost from the beginning.  The city has been foolish, too, in allowing
franchises just about anywhere from about 1880 until 1900, and effectively
had no control over these underliers except for paving requirements.

It's a long story that I can't begin to handle in three or four paragraphs,
but you get the gist.  The public was continually screaming about inadequate
service, and that made the politicians take notice.

Ed

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
[mailto:owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org]On Behalf Of Dietrich,
Robert J.
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 8:19 AM
To: 'pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org'
Subject: RE: Another Myth Bashed


I've noticed references here to the Warrington Ave. viaduct, was that the
old bridge over Warrington?  When did it get double tracked?

As to the hate issue.  At the turn of the century William Flinn was a city
boss who controlled construction contracts, wording them so his company,
Booth & Flinn, would be selected as supplier for limestone and lumber etc.
(Probably cobblestone also).  He was also the force behind digging the
tunnel, he had control on one of the PrCo predecessors.  Could it be that
Flynn was still involved in 1908, controlling the contract wording?
According to Stefan Lorant's "Pittsburgh" book the corrupt bosses (Flinn)
were being driven from power at that time, so if he was involved in PRCo it
is understandable that the politicians maintained a hatred.  Is this
possible or am I way off base?

Bob

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Edward H. Lybarger [mailto:twg at pulsenet.com]
Sent:	Tuesday, February 01, 2000 10:25 AM
To:	pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject:	Another Myth Bashed

For quite a number of years, I had believed that the bridge carrying the
interurban lines over Warrington Avenue had been replaced by a double-track
facility in the late 1920s because of a trolley collision at that point a
short time earlier.  While I don't recall the exact source of that rumor
(and there was such a collision), it was interesting to last evening read
the PRCo file on the subject and learn that the City had been pressuring the
company for some time to get rid of the earlier structure with a column in
the middle of the roadway.  The strongly worded letter from the City exists
in the file, and the operative word in it is "menace."  Construction began
in 1928 and took until 1930 to complete (by the low bidder, of course).

Other interesting trivia:  There was a design to put the operators' practice
track on the hill above South Hills Jct.  It would have looped in the
substations area and utilized the original P&CS horseshoe curve leading
toward the old tunnel, and there would have been a second loop up on the
hillside near the steps leading up from the station.  Another proposal would
have used the "lightly patronized" Beechview route during the day as far out
as the soon-to-be-abandoned Neeld Avenue loop for operator instruction.

PRCo was hated by its suppliers, as well as the politicians.  Correspondence
regarding the inspection of ties used to build the Pittsburgh, Canonsburg &
Washington in 1908 reveals that the area's lumber vendors were all unhappy
at PRCo's inspection standards.  Judging from some of the reports, they must
have wanted some pretty demanding conditions, such as accurate counts and
quality lumber!

Ed