Volatile Fantasy (or What If You Were Running PAT During the1960's?)

[Edward H. Lybarger]

The City of McKeesport alone was the mover to eliminate the 56.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
[mailto:owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org]On Behalf Of Jim Holland
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 6:18 PM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: Re: Volitale Fantasy (or What If You Were Running PAT During
the1960's?)


Greetings!

Kenneth and Tracie Josephson wrote:

> As federal funds became available for transit agencies during the
> 1960's, PAT had some unique opportunities. Suppose PAT decided to try
> for a balanced network of mass transit service. Let's say a mixture of
> light rail style upgrades, conversion of some streetcar lines to
> trackless trolley or motor coach, or even heavy rail. Perhaps retaining
> a core street railway system, like Toronto has. Suppose Pittsburgh
> Railways was advised by their attorneys to retain the streetcar lines
> closed during the 1960, (okay, let's say 1959 for all you West End fans)
> and April 1,1964 with trolley service merely suspended on those lines
> and bus substitution only being temporary. Let's also say all the PCCs
> still on the roster in 1960 are still on the property.
> 
> You have a fleet of about 500 PCCs at your disposal plus a very large
> streetcar network.

	I actually wrote to Ohio Brass in the 70s, I believe, and suggested
that they promote the trolley coach idea for use in the South Hills
Tunnel instead of diesels.  Even with pantographs on lrvs it would still
be possible to off-set one wire for trolley-coaches to avoid shorting by
the pans.  Writing to ({[PAT]}) would have been a definite dead end but
obviously, writing to Ohio Brass didn't produce anything either!
	I would have kept 56-McKeesport as a trolleycar line since much of it
was prw, rail on the outer end was in good shape across the bridge, and
Second Ave was a quick entrance and exit to Pgh.
	It would have been nice to at least consider saving 87-Ardmore but
congestion around Homewood and East Liberty and the lack of a quick
entrance into downtown plus questionable ridership for such a distance
would seem to work against retention.
	Both the 40 and 21 lines would be very popular today as tourist lines
but I would not want that to be their main purpose.
	I would have strived to keep the South Hills lines intact - even the
38-MtLebanon and 39-Brookline.  The ride between SHJ and Brookline Jct
was quite fast even though on surface streets and the 38 was a real work
horse.
	It is a little difficult to consider so many different possibilities in
just a few minutes at the keyboard.  *Maybe* after studying some maps
and considering different alternatives some reasonable ideas might be
possible.  It is said that ridership was light on West End so it may be
hard to justify continuance.
	Would trolleycars be better than buses for close-in, higher density
riding?  This way, a core trolleycar system in all directions from Pgh
could be maintained - near North Side, Oakland, possibly West End, and
definitely South Hills.  Those lines with extensive prw could be kept
and longer lines could be considered where traffic congestion would not
slow the trolleys.

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/