[PRCo] Re: West End - Part 4

[Matt Barry]

You may be correct.   I would have to check the article again -- it was 
from some time in 1960.  If my short-term memory serves me right, it 
seems that all the independent local transportation companies were 
reporting their financial standings to the papers, quarterly, in those 
early years of the 60's, probably because of the County condemnation 
looming ahead.    So, what I probably saw was simply a report on one 
quarter of 1960.
Edward H. Lybarger wrote:

>Did the news reports actually say that the trolley lines were profitable, or
>just that Pittsburgh Railways Company was making a profit?  There is a big
>distinction here, since PRCo had diversified by this time in order to keep
>the wolf from the door.  They were into aerosol packaging and then into fire
>alarms, for example.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
>[mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org]On Behalf Of Matt
>Barry
>Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 4:42 PM
>To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>Subject: [PRCo] Re: West End - Part 4
>
>
>Yes, indeed!
>I'll try to do research on when PRC PCC 100 went into revenue service,
>officially, and when the first series of 1000's when into service.
>Plus, I would like to dig  more into 56 McKeesport line history, and the
>68 McKeesport.   And a host of other subjects.
>
>Did you folks know/remember that Pittsburgh Railways was conducting a
>Miss Pittsburgh Railways pageant back in 1960 and offering "free ride
>days" at that time to drum up service?   There were also many reports in
>the papers that I noted stating that the trolley lines were running in
>the black, and this was very shortly before the PAT takeover..   I'll
>look more into.
>
>matt
>
>
>Edward H. Lybarger wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Thanks to Matt for digging this info out of the PTM Library.  I think he
>>enjoyed his visit and that we'll see him back!
>>
>>Ed
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
>>[mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org]On Behalf Of Matt
>>Barry
>>Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 7:00 PM
>>To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>>Subject: [PRCo] West End - Part 4
>>
>>
>>The Pittsburgh Press, January 17, 1961.
>>The Public Utility Commission today gave Pittsburgh Railways Co. final
>>approval to run buses instead of trolleys on its West End lines.  Its
>>also ordered the firm to remove rails and restore disturbed areas in
>>five suburban Pittsburgh communities which objected to the conversion.
>>
>>Commission action, vigorously pressed by the City, clears the way for
>>completion of the long-delayed State Highways Department work in the
>>Point Park area in Pittsburgh.
>>
>>Delayed pending permanent approval of the bus operation was:
>>
>>1.  Completion of the Penn-Lincoln Parkway Point interchange street
>>pattern providing quick access between the Fort Pitt and Fort Duquesne
>>Bridges.
>>
>>2.  Needed improvements by the City and State in the affected West End
>>area, particularly the resurfacing of W. Carson Street in the Fort Pitt
>>Bridge area.
>>
>>3.  Completion of the eight million dollar State Point Park because part
>>of the park area is occupied by trolley tracks.
>>
>>The PUC approved agreements under which the City, Allegheny County and
>>Highways Department take over track facilities to be abandoned by the
>>company.  They will be left in place and the City said it agreed to this
>>arrangement to expedite completion of the Point Park improvement.
>>
>>The Railways company is directed to burn off or remove railheads at its
>>own expense in the boroughs of Crafton, Ingram, McKees Rocks, Carnegie
>>and Stowe Twp. In "absence of appropriate or controlling" agreements
>>with the communities.
>>
>>In addition to removing poles and overhead construction not needed by
>>other utilities, the company must burn off railheads imbedded in
>>concrete, remove rails in block stone, brick and cinder surfaces and
>>restore the torn areas with appropriate material.  Ties stay in place.
>>
>>An official deadline for the completion of the conversion work was set
>>for Dec. 31, 1962, but the job is expected to be finished much sooner.
>>
>>The line was given temporary approval to substitute buses for trolleys
>>on June 8, 1959, pending completion of hearings at which objections of
>>the protesting communities were aired.
>>
>>Borough officials protested that no provisions were made for removal of
>>rail facilities and repaving of the track strip in their streets.
>>
>>In addition to contending that trolley service is adequate they said
>>numerous "potholes" created hazardous traffic conditions.  Company
>>witnesses maintained, however, that they were caused by heavy motor
>>traffic and not by trolleys.
>>
>>The record shows, the PUC said, that paving in the track areas
>>"generally is in as good condition as in the adjoining shoulder pavement."
>>
>>Many of the recommendations by the borough engineers for restoration of
>>the track areas, it added, "would impose greater obligations" on the
>>company that its franchise or common law dictates.
>>
>>___________________________________________________________________________
>>    
>>
>_
>  
>
>>_________
>>
>>The following is a caption under a photo of a PCC being dismantled at
>>Ingram.
>>
>> Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 4, 1961
>>
>>SCRAPPED - Old trolleys never die - they're just scrapped.  Workmen of
>>the Iron and Metal Co. of Monongahela, Pa., are ready to swing half a
>>trolley (PRC PCC #1097) aboard a trailer for the trip to the company's
>>yards, where the trolley will be pounded into scrap.  All but four of
>>the 29 trolleys consigned to scrap by the Pittsburgh Railways Co. have
>>been dismantled at the Berry Street carbarn where picture was taken.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>