[PRCo] Re: Bye-bye Beechview (was: Tunnel // W.Liberty)

[Edward H. Lybarger]

It IS quite expensive!  Or rather, WAS.  You and I paid for this 20 years
ago (or at least borrowed the money in the form of Treasury securities).  No
one will ever relate it to reduced usage...it was intended to carry the
Mount Lebanon cars and will do so again.  In politikspeak, we could say that
it has been overtaxed (no pun intended) by having all that unintended
Overbrook traffic running through it for the last dozen years and now is in
need of some sort of renovation (I hope not half-life).  Never mind that
extra cars don't wear out tunnels...just the track & wires!

Ed

-----Original Message-----
From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
[mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org]On Behalf Of
Donald Galt
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 4:43 AM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: [PRCo] Bye-bye Beechview (was: Tunnel // W.Liberty)


> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, James B. Holland wrote:
>
> > What you state above is what I have consistently argued concerning
> > reopening of Overbrook and apparently shall come true  --  we
> > essentially revert to old PRCo routing of current lrvs as Overbrook is
> > So Much Faster and So Much More Convenient.
>

There has been some discussion comparing ancient and modern schedules. My
one
experience riding the rebuilt line a few years ago left the impression that
the
trains operated at rather sedate speeds. Not only in Beechview and Dormont
but
farther out the line as well. And I don't think that can all be attributed
to
smoothness of the ride.

Don't know that I've seen the following question raised:

With reversion to the patterns of yore and the inevitable drop in traffic
through Mount Lebanon, isn't that tunnel going to start looking mighty
expensive?