Clipping

[Bob Rathke]

Yes, it was hoped that PAT would take over (funding at least) of  the remaining
PRR commuter trains, but PAT decided to run only the B&O trains (the P&LE trains
were not part of PAT's system), and the PRR finally discontinued its trains in the
Fall of 1964.  I have PRR timetables and would be glad to look up information if
anyone's interested.

The PRR had SIX commutter lines:

Greensburgh/Derry
Duquesne/Elrama
Carnegie/Burgettstown
Aspinwall/Schenley
Oakmont./Kiskiminetas Jct.
Sewickley/Beaver Falls

All lines except Elrama lasted until the Fall of 1964, although service was pretty
thin by then.  The Elrama line was discontinued by the PRR sometime between
1962-64.

For a photo I took of one of these trains on 3/31/59, see
<http://gelwood.railfan.net/other/prr/prr-pitt-comm.jpg>.  It was taken from DV
Tower on the east-west mainline near the Bloomfield Bridge.

Bob 2/28



"Fred W. Schneider III" wrote:

> I'll admit to picking nits here.  PRR gradually dropped commuter service
> ... I think that Pittsburgh and Washington quit as early as 1952.  But
> there was some service well into 1964, not 1963.  PAT convinced the PRR
> that it would find ways to fund the service; the railroad continued to
> run trains until concluding PAT was blowing hot air.  I photographed
> both the evening Schenley train and Kiski Junction train on the
> Brilliant branch on May 26, 1964 ... at that time the service on the
> Oakmont-New Kensington side of the Allegheny and that on the
> Aspinwall-Cheswick-Tarentum side was done to one inbound morning and one
> outbound evening.  I think the service was much more extensive to Derry
> at that time.  I have no idea when Brownsville, Carnegie, or Ohio Valley
> services evaporated.
>
> Derrick J Brashear wrote:
> >
> > --On Tuesday, February 27, 2001 11:43:17 AM -0800 Kenneth Josephson
> > <kjosephson at sprintmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Derrick J Brashear wrote:
> > >
> > >> But one could also argue the development around Pittsburgh doesn't fit
> > >> the national norm. And in fact most of the rail lines, electric and
> > >> otherwise, served corridors along creek and river valleys, which also
> > >> happened to be where people lived and worked at least early on.
> > >
> > > True. It is amazing to those of us from locales with relatively level
> > > topography  to discover communities within a few miles of each other being
> > > almost totally isolated. The long narrow valleys and "steps" of the
> > > mountains also led to a number of heavily travelled, parallel car lines
> > > at different levels along ridges. Pittsburgh's situation could be called
> > > unique.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > I believe Pittsburgh's geography keeps the city center relevent. I could
> > > be wrong, but the downtown appeared to be thriving during my last visit
> > > in 1999. I don't see a grid pattern of bus and rail lines being possible
> > > in Pittsburgh and its suburbs.  The growth is entrenched along ridges,
> > > waterways, valley floors and hilltops. That alone may have helped keep
> > > (rail) transit relevent in Pittsburgh.
> >
> > Well, see, here's the thing. I would be useful to get from say, McKeesport
> > to Monroeville. And you can do it, going through East Pittsburgh. But not
> > through North Versailles (North Versailles is growing, now, but the bus
> > service to North Versailles has improved not as much as the sources of
> > traffic have sprung and grown). On the other hand if we still had a
> > rail-based system there'd be no service to the places anyhow; They're
> > strung out along US30, not along a rail corridor.
> >
> > >> On the
> > >> other hand, what if instead of the West Busway something could have been
> > >> done with the extensive private right of way which existed from the West
> > >> End services, and then perhaps tied into the former Panhandle right of
> > >> way outbound of the tunnel?
> > >
> > > Looking at a map, it appears feasible. Could residents of the West End be
> > > lured back to the rails? I always thought that if more of the streetcar
> > > system survived under PAT management, some the trolleys would have been
> > > shifted to parallel railroad rights of way (dual gauge?) as industrial
> > > rail traffic declined. It would have speeded up rail transit and would
> > > have gotten transit vehicles off the surface streets.
> >
> > Sharing rail rights of way isn't as simple as that, especially in this day
> > of lawsuits. Look at what happened after (Ricky?) Gates ran that Conrail
> > train into the path of a Northeast Corridor passenger train... These days
> > it's all about having exclusive use of your tracks, and while maybe earlier
> > that would not have been the case I can't see that until around 1965 things
> > would have been suitable to that, and probably not even then. The Pennsy
> > quit their commuter service in... 1963 I think and I can't see why they'd
> > want PAT on their rails after that. If they did it would be "give us money,
> > let us run trains". And they didn't even seem to be overly enthused with
> > that!
> >
> > -D