[PRCo] Re: Routes that Could Have Been Retained

[Edward H. Lybarger]

Fred's "one other factor" was mighty important to utility companies
everywhere, not just in Pittsburgh.  Most enthusiasts' eyes glaze over when
the subject of "rate base" comes up because they don't understand it.
Simply put, public utilities are allowed by law to earn up to a fixed
percentage on their investment, recovered from the user of the service.  So
the more investment, the more they could charge.  Depreciation reduced the
investment, so they took as little as possible every year.  What they did
take helped the cash flow, not the reported profit (remember, it was a
charge against earnings).  But they "spent" the depreciation on general
purposes after a while, rather than reinvesting in the company, which was
really the objevctive of the depreciation allowance.  Eventually the fixed
asset accounts overstated the value of the company.  That is why PRCo wanted
$35 million for the company but got $16 million (plus interest).

-----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 09, 2005 1:11 PM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Routes that Could Have Been Retained


And there are others who would strongly argue that PRC kept the
trolleys running because 1) they cash flow worked and 2) the
depreciation charges gave them a profit.   Unfortunately I cannot put
this all in one sentence.   There is one other factor ...  The
investment in track, substations and overhead also went into the
"rate base" which the PUC used in determining the fare that would be
allowed.   If PRC had been operating buses, the rate base would be
lower and therefore the fare would potentially also be lower.

On Oct 8, 2005, at 6:45 PM, John Swindler wrote:

>
>
>
>
>> From: "James B. Holland" <PRCoPCC at P-R-Co.com>
>> Reply-To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Routes that Could Have Been Retained
>> Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 13:52:54 -0700
>>
>> mtoytrain at bellsouth.net wrote:
>> .
>>
>>
>>> When PRCo/ PAT decided to wipe out trolley lines, was there any
>>> opposition by the general public? I was living here in Florida and I
>>> know I would have stated what i felt needed to be done. Cost for
>>> cost,
>>> is it not true it costs much more to operate a Bus than a street
>>> car?
>>> Philly has a new type of trolley, (single unit) what is the cost
>>> comparison of one of those units verses a new gas gussiling bus?
>>>
>>> Jerry Matsick
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Did PRC decided to wipe out trolley lines, Jerry????????????
>
> It was the government, in form of PAT, that decided to wipe out
> trolley
> lines.  It appears that PRC decided only that they would not make any
> unnecessary investment in continued trolley operation.  My
> suspicion (with
> emphasis that this is only a guess)   is that the requirement to
> restore the
> road surface may have had a lot to do with PRC's rail longivity.
>
>
>>
>> THE    CITY    had been trying to do in PRCo for many years, maybe
>> even
>> decades.       Difficult to gauge public reaction except that I Do
>> Remember many people saying that trolleycars on streets slow
>> traffic -
>> buses could pull to the curb.
>>
>> PRCo seemed quite content to keep the trolleycars  --  ({[pat]})  was
>> Hades-Bent on getting rid of same.       The only thing that went
>> under
>> PRCo was the West End - virtually everything else remained intact!
>>
>> Facts and Figgers can be used to tell any story one wants to tell,
>> even
>> opposing stories.       TrolleyCars themselves last longer than buses
>> but cost more.       Then there is the infrastructure for
>> TrolleyCars.       TrolleyCars and Electric Vehicles Used To Be More
>> Efficient at moving large volumes of people - how that will change
>> with
>> current Energy Crisis is yet to be seen!!
>>
>> Philly now has what they call the PCC2  --  totally remanufactured
>> PCCs
>> from their old fleet.       They also have the Kawasaki streetcars
>> (K-Cars.)       ALL  indications are that septic doesn't want such
>> rail
>> cars  --  being forced upon them by SIGs and others.       Not unlike
>> ({[pat]})  Not Wanting to rebuild Overbrook.
>>
>>
>
> ???  Bill Millar referred to Overbrook as his 'stealth' capital
> project.  It
> was a long process.
>
> John
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jim__Holland
>>
>>
>> I__Like__Ike.......And__PCCs!!
>>
>> down with pantographs ---- UP___WITH___TROLLEYPOLES!!!!!!!
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>