[PRCo] Re: West End

[John Swindler]

>Jim Holland commented:
>
>
>Good Morning!
>
>
>http://davesrailpix.railfan.net/pitts/htm/bvp003.htm - shows the X-over on 
>the Smithfield St. Bridge which the 32-line cars used for getting into and 
>out of the barn.
>


Out of curiousity, Jim, how do we "know" that the crossover on the bridge 
was used by rt. 32 pull-ins/pull-outs??  (I'm not disagreeing, because it 
seems logical - just asking for documentation)  Was P&LE Transfer always a 
Tunnel Carhouse route, and if not, when and where was it assigned 
previously.


>At any rate, I can't seem to find that photo to see if turnouts were in
>place for turns to and from West Carson.
>
>	These 2-turns seem to have been added during or immediately after WW2 
>which is interesting because the 3750s with left side door were reportedly 
>based at South Hills for the 23-line.


Do we have a PRC document - or even PERC document - that lists 23 as a 
Tunnel Carhouse route - or are we dealing with railfan heresay and 
conjecture??



>
>	At any rate, there would be additional time to route the West End cars 
>over the Smithfield Bridge in addition to increased congestion here.   The 
>West End downtown loop barely made it into downtown so cars were into and 
>out of downtown very fast.   The Smithfield Bridge could handle the 
>additional traffic   ---   consider the frequency of service in the 1940s 
>very early 1950s and the number of lines that used the bridge, the cutbacks 
>in headways in the mid-1950s, and running the West End lines this way could 
>have been done.
>
>	But this would have greatly increased overhead as more cars would be 
>needed on West End routes because of additional running time but would be 
>theoretically carrying the same number of people!
>



>
>Also Mark started this thread with this question:

> > >Forgive me if you've already dicussed this. When was the 32 line 
>discontinued? Also, why didn't PRCo just use the 32 trackage when the Point 
>Bridge was closed?  Could have kept the West end lines running at least a 
>little longer, no?


The answer is:   NO, NO WAY, forget it, Smithfield St. bridge not even a 
consideration  ....


You might say I 'cheated':  Last year I browsed through abandonment petition 
and testimony for west end conversions.  It's on microfilm in Harrisburg.

We always assume that the west end lines were converted due to Point Bridge 
closure and opening of new Fort Pitt Bridge.  Looking at the big picture - 
yes.  But the real reason the lines were converted is that the Penna. Dept. 
of Highways needed land on the Gateway Center side for access  ramps to the 
new bridge.  And that means that the PRC west end loop would require 
relocation.

There was a contract between PRC and PADoH that called for state to pay PRC 
$300,000 (I really should check fine print again) to give up PRC claims to 
right of way for west end trolley loop.  Also for PaDoH to be an advocate 
with PRC to PaPUC for approval for conversion to buses.  Also for PaDoH to 
release PRC from rail removal obligations on state highways used by west end 
routes.  The agreement would also include local municipalities but not all 
were willing to 'get on board' with this agreement.   But don't for a moment 
thing that local officials were concerned with welfare of transit users.   
All the local officials were interested in was trying to 'stick' the cost of 
roadwork on local streets and bridge replacement to PRC.

So as some would say, the west end conversion was really a 'no brainer'.  
PRC would receive a payment that could be used to buy replacement buses.  
PRC would not be obligated for rail removal on west end state highways (and 
some municipal highways).  And the state would not be obligated to provide 
an alternate downtown routing for west end car lines.

The 'biggie'?  It was the west end routes rail removal obligation.

John


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com