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

[John Swindler]

>Jim Holland commented:
>
>
> > 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.
>



As you note, the system was rebuilt.  Therefore, new equipment could have 
been four axle cars, three section articulated vehicles, or two section 
articulated vehicles such as the Duewag U-2 cars.  Also could have been 
single end or double end.  It was a choice.  PAT wasn't condemned to this 
particular vehicle design.

Likewise, larger diameter loops could have been installed, if needed, for 
single end equipment.  Again, these were choices made by PAT.

The only restriction was probably the diameter of South Hills Tunnel as it 
would apply to vehicle width.

John
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com