[PRCo] Re: West End

[John F Bromley]

These are questions for Superman, er that is Ed Lybarger, when he returns
next week.

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Swindler" <j_swindler at hotmail.com>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
Cc: <billvigrass at hillintl.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 11:11 AM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: West End


>
>
>
> >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
-- Trailing quotes stripped by Listar --