G.E. Equipped PCCs

[Fred W. Schneider III]

Good point ... going downtown and then back to your job would not be useful if
you can drive to CT in your automobile.

And to Jim, "private mobility" may be incorrect.  We've put so many cars on
the highways that "private immobility" may be more correct.  You should see
the road rage and defiance to the motor vehicle code right here in Lancaster
County, Pennsylvania, particularly people who feel they have immunity from no
left turn signs.  I saw a trucker yesterday make an illegal right turn, and in
the process grind up five of a contractors orange barrels and the grading for
new concrete ... and I'm sure he got away with it.  Today, at the same place,
I saw it happen again.

Back in the 1950s I had cultivated a friendship with Charles Shauck ... he was
Superintendent of Power and Inclines for Pittsburgh Railways ... a graduate
from the same college as my dad with the same major about the same time ... a
fellow Presbyterian ... two daughters (one my age).  I was always nice to be
invited out to their home for dinner.  Even if I was only a teenager.  I think
my last conversations with Charlie was about 1962.  He told me a lot about PRC
finances, especially the budget meetings.  Eacvh department head would decide
how much money he needed.  They would all meet in front of Palmer and be told
how much to chop.  Then they attempted to make do with the money they had (or
less).

I seldom ventured into the east end but I would bet that the track in 5th Ave.
was probably in atrocious condition if PRC (means the track superintendent)
was willing to spend a dime to renew it.   A typical industry standard for
depreciation on a PCC was about 20 years.  That is sort of an artificial
measure but perhaps it was done in order to get enough miles out of it to
write off the 1600s and 1700s.  There may have been other considerations ...
if the other rail, and the power facilities in that area were new enough, they
might have done it to enable them to get full life out of other physical
plant.

There were other areas with very heavy patronage (for those years) where
nothing was done.  The head was actually missing from some of the rail on
Federal Street between Ohio Street and the Allegheny River and I don't recall
that they spent anything on that.  Route 8, by the way, was one of the most
heavily patronized lines in the system.  Of course, Fifth Avenue had several
heavy lines on the same street.

I remember Donohue in Public Relations explaining the facts of life to me back
when I was a bothersome lad of 13 (some things never change...).  He made
certain I understood that PRC had given up investing in new streetcars after
the 1700s because the prices had risen out of sight and the company was well
aware that they were unable to recoup the investment.  At that time the 1700s
were only four years old!  It became quite obvious as time went on.

The Millvale and Etna rail service had been replaced by shiny GM diesel buses
the year before (they cost $18 grand then versus quotes of over $50 K for a
new PCC).  Of course Millvale and Etna were very fast rail routes but fast
also meant there were few homes and business generating riders for several
miles along East Ohio Street ... routes 2 and 3 were nice lines for railfans
... they claimed they showed off what a PCC would do ... but they did not
produce revenue that would keep PCCs on the streets.

There is no sense elaborating on all the other abandonments between 1950 and
53 because most were double-end Jones cars on shuttle lines and the
interurbans, from which the patrons had vanished faster fans of a major league
team in a loosing streak.

But in 1959, the entire west end was wiped out.  Again we're dealing with high
speed lines but long distances between stops for riders.  A route where the
average rider goes 2 miles for his 17 cents is a lot better than a line where
the typical passenger rides 5 miles on his car check or token.  PRC had twice
studied the west end for conversion to trolley coaches, once in 1936 and then
about ten years later.  The closure of the Point Bridge made a most convenient
alibi.  When you want to get rid of a service that looses money, it is most
comforting if you can blame it on the state highway department.

> On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Jim Holland wrote:
>
> >       It was not necessarily the fact that *we-the-people* abandoned
> > trolleycars  --  we abandoned public transport for private mobility  --
> > which means abandoning trolleycars, trolley coaches, and motor coaches!
> > This, too, was a factor but not the total cause.
> >       It was inevitable that this would happen!
>
> After a trip to Sweden I'm not so sure of that. But that's a message for
> another time and place (a message I should finish and send to people;
> anyone not on Harold's list who wants it should let me know)
>
> >       I believe that had PRCo survived until today that they would have
> > systematically replaced the trolleycars rather than rebuild the lines in
> > many but not all cases.
>
> I'm not sure I believe that. Or rather, I'm not sure how much of that
> would have happened. When my father was in high school track was relaid in
> Fifth Avenue, 1962 or so. Obviously someone thought rail had *some* future
> in Pittsburgh. If PAT hadn't happened, I'd bet more of the system (though
> certainly not all of it) would be left.
>
> Me, while I'm resigned to the loss of the 62 line, I really wish the
> Pennsy commuter service wasn't canned, not that I'm sure how going
> downtown first on the way to work would necessarily be useful. But then,
> neither the 62 nor the 87 would have taken me to Oakland anyhow.
>
> -D