[PRCo] Re: status of PRC maintenance

[James B. Holland]

Harold G. wrote:


> Greetings to Jim and all
>
> First may I say that our discussion group should not further continue 
> this topic.


Then it should have stopped right here after the above sentence.       
But__it__continues.......


> It is clear that there are differences of opinion and that there are 
> words or opinions being emailed that I never said.
>
> I had no personal differences with Mr Palmer In fact I never met him 
> until the Skybus court case.



Thank You for clearing this up.       Please Note I did NOT say you  
*did*  have differences with Mr.Palmer  --  just that your many ascerbic 
remarks about Mr.Palmer suggest that because this is the third time you 
have made the same identical comments about Mr.Palmer and PRCo in rather 
strong terms and unusual language..


> I never commented on any thing about safety.


NEVER  said  you  did  --  *I*  commented on safety and said that I 
would prefer emphasis on safety over cosmetics.


> I never had any personal views of Mr Palmer other than his own 
> statements about establishing maintenance priorities.


You never quoted Palmer  --  you just gave  Your  Impressions  of 
Palmer's decisions. :-)


> I take exception to your remarks about the Pittsburgh area's views 
> about appearance. After Mayor Lawrence and General Richard Mellon 
> cleaned up the air in the late 40's, the community built on these 
> changes and created Gateway Center, etc. The population set out to 
> change the image of what you call a "scrubby place".


What I called a  *scruffy--places*  was open sarcasm on the  scruffy  
appearance of PRCo of which you spoke!       And you openly admit that 
Pittsburgh  HAD  to clean up its image  --  Pgh. had a horrible image to 
the rest of the country for many decades after the mess was cleaned up  
--  Many  Decades  --  and there are still those who speak against Pgh. 
because of its filthy image.


> Several members of our group have agreed about the good maintenance in 
> Cleveland and on many of the independents.. Others have commented on 
> some poor examples of PRC appearance.


I  Personally  Have  Openly  Stated  that  PRCo  cosmetics  left much to 
be desired  --  we have all talked about the Vigrass article on the 
Great Circle Trip he and friends took about 1946 and his description of 
PRCo trolleycars as being filthy which was just a reflection of the city 
at large.         I recognize that other properties did better.       
But PRCo was not as bad as you hinted through your admittedly emotional 
writing!        And this is the third time that you have made the Very 
Same Comments in the Very Same Manner about Mr.Palmer and PRCo  --  
still gives me reason to be suspect.


> I have stated that the Demeron years at PAT were also not good 
> maintenance and appearance years. But.......


The  *But*  for Mr.Palmer was Post-War abandonment of transit by the 
public, autos, and absorption of PRCo into  ({[paac.]})       If  
({[paac]})  can have a  *But*  then so can  PRCo.


> I was never critical of PRC safety, or of the building of track, etc. 
> I never implied that PRC shirked its responsibilities.


NEVER  claimed  you did.       I made the observation that PRCo was 
Highly Safety Conscious  --  and there is Much Evidence in this regard  
--  and said I would rather have money spent here than on cosmetics.


> I do not agree that "what appears nice on other propertoies...is only 
> "cosmetics" and little to nothing of substance. Its all part of a 
> total package of
> good maintenance. 


VERY    NICELY    STATED.


> So, may I suggest that we "agree to disagree" and move on.


Never liked this statement  --  A  CopOut!!!!!!!


Jim