Drake Loop In-Service Info

[Edward H. Lybarger]

Reading from the PUC Order on A-78890:

(The applicant's Commercial Manager testified that) "...the Drake Stop
appears to be the most practical point to terminate the street railway
service and still achieve maximum operating economy.  He stated that the
applicant owns sufficient land at Drake Stop for a turn-around loop and a
parking area; that continuation of street railway service through the first
fare zone south of Drake Stop, comprising six station stops, would result in
a yearly operating loss of $25,273, and through the second fare zone south
thereof, embracing five stops, would result in an additional annual loss of
$23,839, or more that 1/3 of the total operating loss on the entire portion
of line herein proposed for abandonment..."

The "adjusted annual net operating loss" between Drake and Washington was
stated to be $133,449.

I don't have any of the testimony on this Docket, since PTM's copy came from
PRCo files and not PUC microfilm.  John, perhaps you want to pay our old pal
Laila another visit and upset her for weeks to come because you're not a
lawyer!  She's certainly not the most user-friendly person the state ever
had greeting the public, is she?

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
[mailto:owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org]On Behalf Of John
Swindler
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 9:38 AM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: Re: Drake Loop In-Service Info


Jim Holland wrote:
>
>	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.


Drake Wye not necessarily built knowing that loop would follow. Drake Wye
and West Library Loop existed for short turns while lines still extended
into Washington County.  Decision was made to truncate Washington and
Charleroi within Allegheny County.  That's the interesting question to ask
of PRC management.  What do the PUC abandonment petitions say?

Drake Loop was not built because of location of Drake Wye.  It was built to
avoid cost of rebuilding Drake trestle.  Drake Loop was not a cheap
solution.

John Swindler



>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/

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com