[PRCo] Re: interesting

[Fred Schneider]

One thing doesn't make sense ... the statement that buses were run on the
weekend to get the public used to buses.  Not a logical reason.  To allow
shutting down substations on weekends is logical ... it gets rid of people.
To close a division down on weekends and run buses out of another location
makes some sense ... it too gets rid of people.  Eliminating railway
emergency staff on the weekends would make sense. Not enough buses to run a
seven day service makes a whole lot of sense.   Reducing maintenance and
parts replacement on streetcars you will scrap in a few months by running
buses when you can also makes some sense.

But doing it just to get the public accustomed to its is sort of an
oxymoron.  There was quite a struggle in 1966 by the unions who told PAT
they didn't want to drive buses on weekends that had a different route
number than the trolley lines on weekdays.  The union prevailed ... PAT put
up the old trolley route numbers on the buses in the East End until the
conversion of weekday service in 1967.  Does changing route numbers get
anyone accustomed to anything or does it cause confusion?

Harold Geissenheimer is the one you want to ask for the real reason.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The statement that the 6th, 7th, and 9th Street lines had to be eliminated
because of urban renewal sounds a lot like my wife when she pronounces that
she just absolutely needs a new car because her old one has 30,000 miles on
it.     It sounds like there is some confusion between "need" and choice."
The choice was made by PAT to get rid of the rail routes, and the agency had
to start somewhere.  Whether Allegheny Center was that far advanced to
require conversion, or not is something I don't know. I do suspect that, had
the agency felt the trolleys should remain, there would have been no great
logistical problem in rerouting the cars around Allegheny Center. There was
also a plan to convert Keating Car House into the Ross Township Garage, and
the trolleys needed to be out of there in order to do it.  If my memory
works (and it fails a lot with age), I think PAT began that conversion as
soon as routes 6, 8, 10, 15 and 13 were abandoned.  Routes 6/13 and 21 were
moved over to Tunnel for their remaining months under rail.  Remember that
route 8 was a very heavy route ... perhaps second behind route 82 at that
time.  But three or four cars an hour probably could never justify the
expense of any rail renewal.

Again, Harold probably remembers the logic.  He was there and in management
at the time.

Fred III

Matt Barry wrote:

> http://www.amcap.org/history/alleghenycnty/pat/pat_part2.html
>
> The streetcar network PAT inherited from PRCo, quite literally, looked a
> mess but was still very viable in terms of ridership. As was mentioned
> in Part 1 of this history, PAT very much wanted to dispose of the rail
> system due to it's dilapidated condition. PAT did, however, repaint some
> of the better condition trolleys into it's gray/red/white livery along
> with a minor reconditioning of the car itself. Some rail to bus
> replacements were done in one stage while others, such as the East End
-- Trailing quotes stripped by Listar --