[PRCo] Fwd: Pittsburgh 1948 - Part 14: Postscript

[Bill]

--- In LRPPro at yahoogroups.com, "Leroy W. Demery, Jr."
<chris_demery at ...> wrote:

Lyndon et al.,

Wrapping up the 1948 Pittsburgh data:

Ed provided the annual ridership statistic from Moody's: 249,522,000
revenue passengers 
at 1948 for the Pittsburgh Railways system. He also estimated the
average travel distance 
at 3.6 miles per revenue passenger.

The sum of "total passengers" estimated for each group of lines is 298
million. That 
implies 1.2 "total" passengers per "revenue passenger" rather than the
1.33 factor used 
throughout this exercise. The difference is explained by the
adjustments incorporated for 
"zone passengers."

The "weighted average" travel distance is 3 miles. That checks very
nicely with 3.6 miles / 
1.2 = 3.

Subtracting the "interurban" and "Washington local" passengers left
286 million "urban" 
passengers. I rounded this down to 285 million for the "traffic
density" table.

The "system length" turned out to be somewhat smaller than the figure
used previously 
(235 miles). Adding up the "summary" system lengths for each group of
lines, then 
adjusting for duplication, gave 220 miles ("to the nearest 10 miles").
This figure is 
exclusive of the interurban division and the Washington local lines.

I found some data for 1926, as follows:

590 miles of track.
396,674,675 passengers.
$21.7 million revenue.

Making sense out of this involves a good deal of guesswork.

System length: Abandonments between 1926 and 1948 were few. These,
based on the 
information I have, were: route 33 - Mount Washington via West End,
Wilkinsburg (Laketon 
Road) to Hulton via Verona and Oakmont, McKeesport to Wilmerding,
Shadeland Avenue 
on the North Side, and the connection between Brookline loop and the
interurban division.  
All that adds up to roughly 15 miles.

The sum of 220 miles, plus 15 miles of abandoned lines, plus the
interurban division and 
the Washington local lines, is about 305 miles. That implies that
"only" about 20 miles of 
the system (7 percent of the system length) was single-track - which
not to be confused 
with one-way loops. I have a bit of difficulty believing this, but
it's not inconsistent with 
the 1959 track map.

I note that the 1907 figure for "first main track" is 299.8 miles.

The average fare per revenue passenger works out to about 5.5 cents.

Assuming an average fare of 2 cents per mile, I conjure up an average
travel distance of 
2.7 miles per revenue passenger. 

Applying the same "correction factor" used for 1948 - 1.2 - which
adjusts for zone 
passengers and transfers - the annual passenger count becomes 474
million and the 
average travel distance becomes 2.4 miles.

To avoid spurious precision, I have used 475 million and 2.5 miles in
the traffic density 
table. 

The sharp decline in PRCo ridership is mirrored by the size of the
active car fleet. At 1940, 
the company had 1,058 active cars including 301 PCCs.

At 1952, the active fleet was 1,066 cars, including 665 PCCs. (I
recall hearing rumors years 
ago that the company wanted to purchase more, but local officials
managed to block this.)

Just four years later - with few closures other than shuttles and the
outer ends of the 
interurban lines - PRCo began placing PCCs in storage. At 1961, there
were 422 active 
cars. Just three years later, at 1964, PAT acquired just 283 cars to
operate the remaining 
rail lines.

Meanwhile, as if determined to extract all possible "useful life" from
its rail infrastructure 
and rolling stock fleet, PRCo continued to make strategic track
repairs. Parkinson 
mentions 2 miles of new track on Second Avenue in 1956, 0.8 miles on
Centre Avenue and 
Crawford Street in 1958, and 1.5 miles Fifth Avenue in 1962. That must
have driven the 
anti-rail city administration to distraction.

Again, I hope that all this has been of interest - to someone !

Leroy W. Demery, Jr.

--- End forwarded message ---