[PRCo] Interurbans - Drake Loop

[John Swindler]

I was browsing through the archives of messages from last summer and found 
the following concerning Drake Loop:



Fred Schneider answered:

You answered your own question.  The trestle was a maintenance expense that 
the company didn't need, and the area south of Drake was largely farmland in 
1953. All those houses we showed you in June between County Line stop and 
Drake stop were not there in 1953.

Macmarka at cs.com wrote:

>    I've always meant to ask someone this but never seem to get around to 
>it. I noticed in the map on page 10 of the ERA Pittsburgh Interurban 
>booklet.  When PRCo decided to cut the lines back to the county lines,  why 
>was the Washington line ended at Drake and not at Cremona or Montclair 
>stops. The Charleroi line was cut back much closer to the county line than 
>Washington.
>What was the reasoning behind this?  My guess would be because of the
>maintenance involved on the Drake Trestle. Maybe the fares dropped off
>considerably after Drake stop?  Thanks!
>Mark McGuire



Yes, I had always heard about the maintenance liability of Drake Trestle, 
and Fred has a good point about housing development - or lack thereof.

But I've never heard anyone ask this question:  so who owned the land under 
the north side of Drake Trestle?????

Again checking the 1934 Allegheny County plat map:  Pittsburgh, Canonsburg 
and Washington Railway Co.  Putting a loop at Drake meant not having to buy 
any land.

Of course the next two questions are:

- why PC&W owned that much real estate??
- what was PRC testimony in Washington interurban abandonment petition to 
PUC??

John







_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail