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

[Jim Holland]

> Derrick J Brashear 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.
 
>> On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, John Swindler wrote:

>> 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.

	AND...  the system was actually rebuilt to accommodate the equipment
which is double-ended  --  and which equipment will not negotiate the
same sharp radius curves as a PCC  --  no--way could one of these lrvs
get down to a 36-foot radius  --  which is close to what Simmons was.

-- 
James B. Holland
        Pittsburgh  Railways  Company  (PRCo),   1930  --  1950
    To e-mail privately, please click here: mailto:pghpcc at pacbell.net
N.M.R.A.  Life member #2190; http://www.mcs.net:80/~weyand/nmra/