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

[Jim Holland]

> John Swindler wrote:

> 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.

	My point was this  --  the system was rebuilt with the U2 (or whatever
it is) in mind, which is double ended equipment that needs larger
radii.  It was rebuilt to accommodate double-ended equipment and to
rule-out single-enders.  This had to be known at the time of the
rebuilding or accommodation for loops would have been made.
	As Derrick pointed out, Library was not intended for lrvs  --  and when
Library did go to lrvs, a crossover was installed because the loop
cannont be negotiated.
	And it would be impossible to build a larger loop on this location
without taking on more property.  Creek on one side and road on the
other, so that is rather limiting!

-- 
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/