[PRCo] Re: an unknown Pittsburgh coal haulage trolley line?

[robert netzlof]

--- Donald Galt <galtfd at att.net> wrote:

> On 6 Jan 2007 at 16:18, robert netzlof wrote:
> > 
> > I was interested to note the triangular protrusion on the west
> side of
> > the RoW of the Castle Shannon incline. Much of that triangular
> area
> > houses many irregularities in the contour lines. I suggest that
> the
> > lower end of both inclines were very close together, the RoW for
> the
> > newer incline taking over much of the older RoW at the lower end.
> 
> Nice job pointing things up on the map, Bob.

Aw, shucks. T'weren't nothin'.
 
> I've got to get a high-speed connection so that I don't have to
> think so long 
> and hard about downloading stuff like these maps.

Yes, DSL here and I couldn't work without it.

> I fancy I can also make out some of the route of the branch over
> toward 
> Grandview Avenue.

As do I.

> Much of that would have been obliterated by later
> construction, but the atlases of the 1880s show the railway
> co-existing with and crossing Sycamore Street.

I agree. Indeed, there appears to be a little notch in the contour
lines on the extended center line of Grandview Avenue, about 120 ft
from the end of that street, and thus about 45 feet lower than the
end of the street. That seems consistent with the 1886 atlas' map of
the area which shows another tunnel portal (presunably a mine mouth)
off the end of Grandview Avenue.

> As to the old incline r/w being taken over by the new, I rather
> doubt it. The 
> photo Ed posted today shows both the old and new in the same
> picture, which is 
> logical since the old one would have been kept in service until
> superseded.

I may have stated poorly what was in my mind. I was picturing
something like:

The first incline was built. Perhaps the right of way for the
railroad along the level (nearly level) shelf was held under terms of
a deed which would allow that right to revert to the land owner when
no longer used for railroad purposes, but the land for the incline
was held in fee. Again, "perhaps". I don't know those things as
facts, but they seem reasonable. Railroad companies can exercise
eminent domain to build and operate a railroad, but I don't know that
they can do so for construction of an incline.

The second incline, starting from farther up the hill, ran down
nearly but not quite parallel to the first incline. Nearing the
bottom of the hill, the line of the new incline entered the strip of
land surrounding the old incline. Thus, part of the strip of land
surrounding the new incline was in fact land acquired when the first
incline was built. The right of way for each incline appears from the
1931 map to be 75 feet wide, which would, I think, leave room for the
new incline to fit onto the original strip, beside the original
incline. As before, I assume the right of way for the new incline was
held in fee.

When the tunnel and its railroad were abandoned, the right of way
held by the railroad reverted to the land owner, leaving the
triangular parcel formerly occupied by the first incline still in the
hands of the railroad company. Hence, the "triangular protrusion".

Even if the first incline's right of way was not held in fee but
would revert upon abandonment, that there was an incline operating on
that land would prevent the right from reverting when the first
incline was abandoned. That the operator was, by 1931, "Pittsburgh
and Castle Shannon Incline Plane Company" rather than the railroad
company doesn't matter, as all the reversionary clauses I've seen say
something like "...to have and to hold so long as it shall be
required for the purposes of said railroad company, its successors or
assigns" or words to that effect.

I'm not sure the above is any less muddy than my original comment.
Apologies for the length.

Bob Netzlof a/k/a Sweet Old Bob


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com