[PRCo] Re: Interesting item on eBay-CompuServe web site item#2194709451: PCC Trolley Streetcar Pittsburgh .P717

[John Swindler]

Also routes 60, 68, 56, 98, 50, 94, 96, 38, 78, and 7.  Also 54 part of 
77/54.

Concerning route 7, PRC tried twice to abandon Charles St. during the 1950s. 
  Without going digging for notes, the first attempt in early 1950s 
mentioned frequent seven day a week service.  By the late 1950s/early 60s, 
service was down to only some peak hour trippers.

I recall, somewhat, 64 and 67 as having 20 min. peak headways in early 
1960s.  That's not healthy.

John



>From: "Edward H. Lybarger" <twg at pulsenet.com>
>Reply-To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
>Subject: [PRCo] Re: Interesting item on eBay-CompuServe web site  
>item#2194709451: PCC Trolley Streetcar Pittsburgh .P717
>Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 10:18:48 -0400
>
>Spring Grove?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
>[mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org]On Behalf Of Fred
>Schneider
>Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 10:22 PM
>To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>Subject: [PRCo] Re: Interesting item on eBay-CompuServe web site
>item#2194709451: PCC Trolley Streetcar Pittsburgh .P717
>
>
>I don't think it was untruthful.  It was the prevalent attitude then.  And
>you
>cannot judge history in todays terms, you must judge it in view of events
>then.
>Buses were considered modern in 1967 in contrast to a trolley that had not
>be
>painted or replaced in 20 years.  Remember too that the 1700s represented
>about
>40% of the fleet in the middle 1960s and they were miserable on a stinking
>hot
>summer day.  An air-conditioned bus had a whole lot to offer.
>
>Remember too that the railways company had been living off the depreciation
>fund.  They simply didn't have the money in the 1950s to buy new cars.  
>Even
>the
>buses didn't come complete ... fare boxes and a lot of other minor hardware
>was
>transferred from older vehicles in an attempt to save money.
>
>Riders in the last years?  Remember the 1954 strike wiped out any need for
>the
>remaining yellow cars ... they probably had 100 to 150 in service in the
>rush
>hours until that strike.  They lost about 20 percent of their passengers in
>that
>strike.  There was at least one other protracted strike, I think about 
>1957.
>By
>the middle 1960s their  car fleet was down to something around 450 cars, 
>and
>of
>that about 75 were in dead storage in Rankin and each barn had its rows of
>idle
>cars.  This implies that they had lost about 70 percent of their rail
>business
>since the early 1950s.  Obviously, the abandonment of routes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
>9,
>12, 20, 23, 34, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 34, 59, 62, 63, 81 C, D, W1, W2, W5
>and W
>caused some of the loses.  The shuttles were probably insignificant.  And
>they
>are not even in my guesstimate for the 70% car loss because they were all
>gone
>the year before the strike.  The Millvale and Ingram-based conversions were
>all
>relatively weak routes with probably the exception of the Spring Hill,
>Spring
>Grove, and Troy Hill lines.  The rest had a lot of unproductive miles.
>Therefore, a big chunk of the reduced mileage was simply the result of
>general
>declines in the industry and responses to the perpetual labor disputes.
>
>Ken & Tracie wrote:
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month.  Limited time offer-- 
sign up now!   http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup