[PRCo] Re: Louisville

[Kenneth Josephson]

"Fred W. Schneider III" wrote:

> Railfans like to blame changes in management.  Do you think it might
> have been a rapid change in the number of fares they were collecting
> each day?

Interesting point.

The company that took over the Louisville system was interested in trying to
earn a profit against the odds and used vehicle types accordingly. They
operated the systems in Louisville, Indianapolis and Milwaukee by the early
1950s.

To the new owners, it made sense to bustitute the smaller Louisville system,
in light of the drop in ridership Fred cites. Indianapolis relied on both
diesel buses and trolley coaches during the 1950s, while most of Milwaukee's
trunk lines were trolley coach and a couple of car lines (all gone by early
1958), with all feeder and outer extensions being gas & diesel bus routes. In
1957, the company decided to dieselize Indianpolis and send the newest trolley
coaches to Milwaukee. This made sense because Milwaukee had a larger trolley
coach network, heavier ridership and needed replacements for its oldest
trolley coaches. But ridership continued to slip, parts for the electric
coaches were getting expensive, the population was moving beyond the reach of
the wires and the rectification equipment in the substations was wearing out.
Between 1961 and 1965, Milwaukee also dieselized its system.

It would seem that the rail systems that survived with PCCs into the current
light rail era were dependent upon unique local circumstances. Yes, some well
patronized rail systems were bustituted due to politics, but most were lost
due to lack of ridership, changing demographics, decentralized urban areas,
loss of local industry, etc. Remember, federal funding for mass transit didn't
start until 1964 and by then, there were only a few streetcar systems left in
the U.S. St. Louis lost its last line in 1966, El Paso during the '70s and we
all know what happened in Pittsburgh........