[PRCo] Re: Wha[i]t a Minute...

Mon Jun 12 16:50:16 EDT 2006

Yes, there were other companies who did Very Well.       But that is Not 
The Whole Story.
..
PRCo came out of its second Pro--Loonngggeeed Bankruptcy in the Very 
Early 1950s  (Nearly Fifteen (15) Years!!)  and it may have been its 3rd 
bankruptcy.
..
PRCo was bled dry by all the underlying companies it bought out in 1910, 
before and after.       Some of these had  999--Year  Leases  (that is 
Not a typo  --  yes 999-year leases!!!)  which had to be honored with  
Payments  In  Money!!       This was   <apparently>    totally 
eliminated when they emerged from Bankruptcy in early 1950s;  don't know 
how this issue was addressed in the previous protracted bankruptcy but 
these payouts did persist until the 1950s, or until the bankruptcy 
started in 1937.
..
PRCo did not have the cash to go forward  And  Regardless__Of__Reason,  
1950s saw flight to Private Auto which saw massive decreases in transit 
ridership, Even In Pgh.       This, Not Surprisingly, resulted in even 
less Cash for PRCo.
..
By  About  1955  the vote came in to form a County Wide Transit System 
which meant the end of PRCo  --  this wasn't realized, of course, until 
1964    ----    but when ones head is put into the gallows, one doesn't 
spend much money, especially when money is not on hand in the first place.
..
To make Any Kind Of Valid Comparison to Other Systems,  We would need to 
compare many facts about Income, Expenses, Assets, Liabilities, 
etc.       I don't have that info  --  Ed might have some.
..
The Trustees during the 1937 bankruptcy Did The Railway Well.       Most 
of the PCCs were purchased during this time frame  --  had this Not 
Occurred, we wouldn't have had any PRCo to talk about after WW2  --  it 
would have folded or been incorporated into a County Wide Transit System 
Much__Earlier  than 1964!!!!       According to some accounts, there was 
substantial track renewal during bankruptcy as well.

Boris Cefer wrote:
..

>But there were transit companies in the US that did better.
>
>B
>

>From: "Fred Schneider" <fwschneider at comcast.net>
>  
>
>>We simply need to understand that this was a private company,  separated by 1950 from the Philadelphia Company, totally dependent on fares for revenue.   Furthermore they were operating in a political climate that could, in its best sense, be described as adversarial.    If PRC did anything to make money, such as investing money in other areas (gasoline stations on its property, for example), the city came down on them like a ton of bricks because that might increase the condemnation costs to the city.    There was nada that PRC could do that was correct in the city's eyes.   And the Pittsburgh Post Gazette didn't make life easy either; they habitually showed Charles Palmer frowning.
>>
>>I'm afraid, Boris, that you you are attempting to compare what you saw in your youth in Europe with Pittsburgh.   What was run as a communist or socialist venture for the good of the party and the needs of the public.   The other was operated to squeeze the last ounces of money out of a system on behalf of the investors and subject to state regulators.  The goals and operations are totally different and cannot be compared.
>>
>>Under those conditions, it was a miracle that the cars ran at all.
>>    
>>

>>On Jun 12, 2006, at 12:37 PM, Boris Cefer wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>They also did not waste money on wiring cosmetic. They simply laid a fluff of wires.
>>>
>>>B
>>>

>>>From: "Fred Schneider" <fwschneider at comcast.net>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>They also repaired the cars; they simply did not waste money on body cosmetics.   In general, PRC cars ran pretty well and suffered few in service breakdowns.
>>>>        
>>>>

>>>>On Jun 11, 2006, at 2:41 PM, Boris Cefer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>They did, but did not repair the cars!
>>>>>