[PRCo] Re: Car Houses

[Edward H. Lybarger]

I think this issue was well-addressed in the 1920s when the company built
the new facilities and abandoned most of the underlier companies' barns.
This is significant, because it was perhaps at the only time the company was
acting from a position of financial strength.  It was not a major defensive
move.  They must have concluded that it was cheaper to run fewer facilities
rather than more, because they could have upgraded the older barns for a lot
less money than they actually spent.  Unfortunately we don't have any
records of the thinking, just of the construction.

Ed

-----Original Message-----
From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
[mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org]On Behalf Of
Kenneth Josephson
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 12:17 AM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Car Houses



Here's one for "The Ed". Or maybe "The Fred."

Did PRCo ever consider studying the economics of maintaining so many car
houses
versus the cost of deadheading to a smaller number of larger car houses at
strategic locations?

In other words, was maintaining all those yards and buildings still cost
effective when compared to having fewer but larger facilities with longer
pull
in and pull out runs?

Was this ever considered?  Ken J.