[PRCo] Re: Patronage of the Rail Lines (Was: Pittsburgh 7-Charles Street abandonment)

[Derrick J Brashear]

On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, John Swindler wrote:

> >But the replacement for the PCCs rail-wise were double-ended LRVs, if only 
> >because they were too long to be looped over the existing loops.
> >
> >-D
> >
> >
> 
> 
> Was there ever an analysis done of the additional cost for double end 
> equipment versus cost for new loops????   (never saw such in the project 
> file)

Well, bear in mind the LRVs weren't intended for the then-PCC Library and
Drake service, so technically no "existing loops" were on lines intended
to be serviced by the LRVs. I don't think the report at CLP covered this
because I don't think it was considered.

-D