[PRCo] [Fwd: Re: A 77/54 Bus in 1964? Also - A 10%/year loss?]

[Jim Holland]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [PRCo] Re: A 77/54 Bus in 1964?    Also - A 10%/year loss?
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 19:44:41 -0400
From: Fred Schneider <fschnei at supernet.com>
Reply-To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
References: <3DA091A7.21F1E5E7 at pacbell.net>
<3DA0A90B.8EDC4C22 at supernet.com><3DA0CD2A.89EE7C8D at pacbell.net>
<3DA1A70E.BF471F28 at supernet.com><3DA1FCFF.62B02159 at pacbell.net>
<3DA21068.AC0B9F67 at supernet.com><3DA2E274.90908 at pitt.edu>
<3DA32277.2E8CE5C2 at pacbell.net>


By 1963 and maybe even earlier, PRC had shifted most
rail car repairs out of Homewood to the individual car houses.
PAT made a big issue of that in the condemnation, saying
that PRC should not get what they want for the property
because they had not been cycling cars through Homewood for
period A, B and C inspections.  The Railways Company
countered that the road failure rate had dropped as a
result of having car house crews (Keating, Tunnel nd Craft)
inspect and repair cars.  You decide who was telling the
truth...  If you want the actual documents, look in the
PAT/PRC Condemnation File in the library at the
University of Pittsburgh.

A patronage loss of 5 percent a year could come somewhere
close to a 10 percent cash loss if you are living with
inflation of 5 percent per year and the city is preventing
you fron fare increases and route abandonments.
Remember that the Pittsbutrgh City Solicitor (Ms. Finkelhor)
managed to get all the PRC abandonment proposals tabled in
1963 claiming that if PRC were to loose money (or reduce
the income), the county's condemnation price would be lower.

Certainly they were not reinvesting any money.  But that
doesn't mean they made any money.  This was not run on a cash
basis.  Just because you cannot cover accrued depreciation
doesn't indicated that you didn't loose money.