[PRCo] Re: West End- Part 1

[Fred Schneider]

Keating was what I was thinking, Ingram was what the fingers did.  Sorry.  I
wasn't sure that the GE 15s went to Craft ... I started to type that and then
deleted it.  Without checking it, my memory thought that Glenwood was still open
and I wasn't really sure which all Westinghouse barn was being screwed up in
1959.

John F Bromley wrote:

> Do you not mean that the 1700s went to Keating?  The GE 1500s went to Craft
> as all were there in 1960 when I visited.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fred Schneider" <fschnei at supernet.com>
> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 7:30 PM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: West End- Part 1
>
> > Correct, Matt.  The good cars went elsewhere and were replaced by 1000s
> and
> > 1100s that would be scrapped ultimately. Ingram had GE 1500s and GE 1700s.
> I
> > know the 17s went to Ingram.
> >
> > Matt Barry wrote:
> >
> > > Pittsburgh Press, May 27, 1959
> > > Railways Denies Ruse on Bus Shift
> > > Palmer Quizzed About Permit for West End Routes
> > >
> > > CD Palmer, president of the Pittsburgh Railways Company, denied to day
> > > that his company will use a temporary permit to operate buses in the
> > > West End as a ruse to win approval for permanent bus lines.
> > >
> > >  Mr. Palmer took the stand today at the Public Utilities Commission
> > > hearing on whether the firm should be granted a temporary permit to
> > > operate buses in place of street cars on its West End routes.
> > >
> > >  The company, which eventually wants to convert its West End routes to
> > > buses, must win support of affected communities to pull up tracks
> > > without paying for track removal and repaving involved.
> > >
> > >  Mr. Palmer was subjected to intense questioning by Gilbert Morecroft,
> > > solicitor of Crafton Borough and spokesman for the communities involved
> > > - Crafton, Ingram, Stowe, McKees Rocks, Carnegie, Scott Twp., and
> > > Heidelberg.
> > >
> > >  Pittsburgh Railways has reached an agreement with the State Highways
> > > Department under which the State will pay Pittsburgh Railways $300,000
> > > for removal of tracks on State-owned rights of way.
> > >
> > >  The agreement, however, is contingent on the company's reaching an
> > > agreement with the municipalities involved regarding track removal and
> > > repaving.
> > >
> > >  "If the agreement (with the State) is voided, Mr. Palmer said, "we will
> > > go back to trolley service."
> > >
> > >  He said the firm has a tentative agreement with Scott Twp., and sees
> > > eye-to-eye with Pittsburgh and the County on matters involving those
> > > governmental bodies.
> > >
> > >  None of the communities dislikes the idea of getting buses instead of
> > > streetcars, but most are concerned with who will pay for removing tracks
> > > and restoring the torn up rights-of-way.
> > >
> > >  Under its franchise, the trolley company is responsible for this work,
> > > but they would like someone else to pay the bills.
> > >
> > >  But Crafton, Carnegie, Ingram, Stowe and McKees Rocks have money
> > > worries, and Heidelberg doesn't like the proposed bus route going along
> > > its "congested" Washington Street.
> > >
> > >  Scott with a little more than a mile of track to contend with has
> > > agreed to pay its own way.
> > >
> > >  Led by Mr. Morecroft, attorneys for the money-conscious communities
> > > told PUC Examiner Maurice Claster the railways company doesn't want to
> > > pay as previously agreed.
> > >
> > >  But Mr. Claster agreed to continue the hearing at the request of the
> > > lawyers for the affected communities after Mr. Palmer stepped from the
> > > stand.
> > >
> > >  Norman A. Groudine, McKees Rocks solicitor, said he wanted John R.
> > > Razzolla to "clarify some misstatements" made at the opening of the case
> > > yesterday.  Mr. Razolla, of the State Highways Department legal staff,
> > > was absent from the second day's proceedings.  Although not sworn in as
> > > a witness, he took part in the first day's hearing.
> > >
> > >  Other attorneys said they would present evidence against the trolley
> > > firm's request for a temporary approval on bus operations.  They pointed
> > > out that there was insufficient time to prepare the material since
> > > Pittsburgh Railways filed its petition only last Thursday.
> > >
> > >
> > > NOTE from Matt:   I noted in the Pgh Press article written the day after
> > > the last service car pulled into Ingram carhouse in June, 1959, that Pgh
> > > Railways workmen were there to take the cars to other car houses on the
> > > system.  So, that would indicate that active cars didn't stay on the
> > > property until the final PUC-approved abandonment of the West End
> system.
> >
> >
> >