Drake Loop In-Service Info

[Edward H. Lybarger]

I suspect that removal of mainline rail was the answer.

Drake loop was proposed in at least two locations of which I am aware.  This
one was chosen because of its larger size and the fact that a driveway
existed on what became the track alignment going down the hill.  There was
still construction delay, but it might have been a late start date, or a
perceived "no urgency" situation (although West Penn wanted the space
occupied by the wye for substation expansion).

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
[mailto:owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org]On Behalf Of Jim Holland
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2000 6:59 AM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: Re: Drake Loop In-Service Info


Greetings!

	The following message arrived about 7 AM EST on Saturday, 05-Feb-2000.
This was several hours after Ken's re: to Ed's original post!  (I
mentioned in an re: to Ken's post that my ISP has been having mail
problems since Wednesday and although resolved, mail is backlogged and
being ever so slowly sorted!)

Edward H. Lybarger wrote:

> There was an inquiry some time back, I believe, about the date Drake Loop
> was placed in service.  The PRCo record shows this as being September 25,
> 1953.  For the minutiae-minded, the occurrence involved car 1724 at 1:20
> p.m.  If anyone wants the operator's badge number, I'll beat him over the
> head!

	I wonder if the operator ate lunch at the Drake loop and what he had
for lunch!--<VVVVVBG>

> Haven't yet found start and stop dates for the nearby wye, but to
anticipate
> the next question, Simmons Loop opened at 8:48 a.m. on June 29, 1953, with
> car 1721.

	Do you think a crossing was cut into the loop and mainline or was
removal of rail from the mainline to complete the loop the *delay* in
getting the loop opened?  The latter would seem most logical.

> So neither loop was ready exactly when the outer ends were abandoned, but
> Library was ready in a day for Monday morning.  Drake took a month.

	It is interesting that a wye was built for Drake first knowing that a
loop would follow.  And I am sure that the loop would be far more
convenient for the passengers than the wye so the wye would be only an
interim solution.  It is interesting to note that PRCo was quite focused
on service at this point.  I am sure PRCo had plans for truncation for
quite some time but probably didn't act until it received PUC approval.
>From early photos of the Drake loop it looked like considerable fill was
needed plus the grading necessary for the connection from the loop to
the main line.  This would add to the time necessary to get the loop
built.
	It would have been nice if the Drake line were terminated closer to the
Allegheny line - then it might be called *Shannon-Fifeshire* -
*Shannon-Valley-Farm* - *Shannon-Cremona* - *Shannon-Orchard* -
*Shannon-Paris-Lake*  But the density was not there and even though the
Drake trestle would probably last until the time Overbrook was closed,
it was probably the excuse to terminate at Drake!
	The Fantasy of what could have been!

James B. Holland
------- -- ---------
        Pittsburgh Railways Company (PRCo), June of 1949 -- June of 1953
    To e-mail *off-list,* please click here: mailto:pghpcc at pacbell.net
N.M.R.A.  Life member #2190; http://www.mcs.net:80/~weyand/nmra/