Photos

[Edward H. Lybarger]

It's really quite logical:

1.  West Penn had lots of money in the '20s, even though they weren't quite
making the bond interest out of operations after 1920 (they had those
866,000 or so shares of power company stock that paid great dividends).
Thus when the street work had to be done, they went along as a matter of
course, though not without an argument -- which they won -- about girder vs.
T-rail in the replacement track.  The latter was selected because of lower
cost.

2.  The business declined by about 50% by 1932, followed by line
abandonments.  In each case (except for the flood washing away the
Leechburg - Apollo route), a paving or construction project was cited in the
abandonment petitions.  So while it was clear that management would continue
to operate an existing facility because it produced SOME revenue (they still
had those bonds to pay down, remember), they would not invest in anything
major after the onset of the Depression.

3.  Had agreement not been reached to repave Crawford Avenue when they did,
it would still have worn out and required replacement.  The company knew in
the very early '30s that it would be getting out of the trolley business;
they just didn't know when.  "When" for the main line would have been when
this major expenditure was needed.

Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
[mailto:owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org]On Behalf Of Donald Galt
Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2000 5:10 AM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: RE: Photos


On 30 Jun 00, at 10:52, Edward H. Lybarger wrote:

> I'll leave the subject for now with the pronouncement that if
Connellsville
> hadn't resurfaced its main street in the 1920s, West Penn would have been
gone
> in the Depression.  No one has ever said that before!
>

Nor has anyone ever left us dangling quite so badly! C'mon, EL, drop the
other shoe.

Don