Drake Loop In-Service Info

[Jim Holland]

Greetings!

John Swindler wrote:
> 
> 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.

	Whenever I have heard this explained in the past, here is how it was
stated:  "Drake wye was built as an interim solution while the loop was
completed."  So that does make it sound like they were connected.

> Drake Wye
> and West Library Loop existed for short turns while lines still extended
> into Washington County.

	It is my understanding that Drake wye was built not long before the end
in 1953.  In an article by Ira Swett in 1946, even before the PCCs, it
was recognized that much deadhead running was made by rush hour trippers
to Canonsburg.  Why wasn't a wye built then to alleviate that problem? 
My understanding is that the wye was built in anticipation of the end of
Washington service.
	And even though West Library existed, why were trippers run to
Riverview?  Again, from what I have heard, commuter ridership between
West Library and Riverview was extremely thin.

> 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.

	A given that the trestle is expensive to replace but considering the
trestles on Overbrook, it would have probably lasted as long.  But if
the loop was so expensive, why not just continue to use the wye?  I
think it was a service-oriented decision - the loop accommodates and
thus entices the potential passenger much better.

> 
> John Swindler

Jim Holland said:
> 
> >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

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/