[PRCo] Re: PRC History

[Fred Schneider]

The concrete never did set, Phil.

In the period 1859 to 1907 private individuals postulated that they  
could make money for themselves by talking other people into  
investing money into their hair brained schemes for moving people by  
using horses, or steam engines, or electric traction to propel  
vehicles over steel rails in streets or elevated railways in  
cities.   Although 1907 isn't the absolute end, the financial panic  
(depression) that year ended most new construction.   Don't you love  
the adjective "hair brained?"   Remember that the German's had  
already invented automobiles by the time we were first building  
electric streetcars.    The only thing that made the streetcars  
useful for a while was the need to get enough automobiles out there  
(about 1 for every 4 families) to get enough political clout to get  
the government to pave roads for them.

About 1923 the automobile competition made it impossible for the  
urban railway industry as a whole to earn a living.  Smallest systems  
lost money a failed earlier; larger ones later.  (The automobiles  
knocked the steam railroads out of the local market in the late 1920s  
and early 1930s and the medium distance market in the 1940s and the  
jet airplanes wiped out the railroads from the long distance market  
about 1958-1960.)

Politics was different from year to year.   Some politicians went  
along with public transport companies, others did not.   Pittsburgh  
Railways had good relationships with the mayor's office until the  
early 1930s, it did not after that.

In general, most politicians did not like streetcars in the 1930s and  
1940s and 1950s.   There are assertions that they have been bought  
off by the automobile and bus lobbyists.   I would like to see  
proof.   Russ Jackson claims he has it.

We dig up the proverbial street in the 1950s and 1960s and reconcrete  
it with political cement.   There were those who understood the winds  
of change in the 1950s; I had dinner with a man on Thursday who had  
interviewed both C. D. Palmer and the majority stockholder (over 50%)  
of Pittsburgh Railways after 1948.   He claims this stockholder knew  
from the beginning that the city would eventually be buying PRC and  
he bought the company to sell it to the city to make money.   He  
tried to keep it running as long as he good and make money in the  
process until 1964.   My source claims he lost money on PRC but did  
make money in the end because the sale of Pitway (the fire detector  
company) made enough money that he came out considerably ahead in the  
end.

You are trying to make assumptions, Phil.   Don't.   They don't work.

The only safe assumptions that I can see are that

1) the private company, Pittsburgh Railways, was incredibly well  
managed and had very competent people working for it.   The company  
survived as long as it did because it did the right things much of  
the time, and

2) government exists to perpetuate itself by making itself larger by  
taking money from your pockets and placing that money in other  
pockets that will achieve its goals.   Transportation of people is  
not necessarily one of those goals.  I speak as one who earned his  
living in federal, state and local government since 1958.


On May 25, 2008, at 3:44 PM, Phillip Clark Campbell wrote:

> Mr.Lybarger!
>
>
> We could say that the only 'constant' is 'change' couldn't we.   
> This is very true everywhere today inside and outside the railway  
> companies isn't it.  Outsiders notice it most; people living  
> through the change don't notice it as much until they reflect do  
> they.  Just look at the city Of Pgh itself over the years /  
> decades  --  goodness!  From your studies have you found a time  
> frame where the mindset of PRC became set in concrete?  I would  
> guess that this is after the railway was essentially formed and  
> stabilized.  The consolidation of hundreds into PRC would see a  
> tremendous amount of restructuring for a couple decades.  Once auto  
> competition became keen the railway would 'probably not' realize  
> much growth but rather adjustment to reflect needs; this might be  
> when the concrete sets.
>
> This distinction may have come later than mentioned below but it is  
> now generally recognized that Interurbans used Destination signs  
> and city lines used Route Signs.  Destination signs were just that  
> - the town to which the Interurban traveled and usually lacked  
> letter / number preface.  City routes used letter / number preface  
> to a name of a location / dominant street / etc.  There are  
> exceptions - Johnstown didn't use letters / numbers and neither did  
> Boston in the past - could be others.
>
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Edward H. Lybarger <trams2 at comcast.net>
>> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>> Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 7:16:18 AM
>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: 97
>>
>> A point that has been eluding us all in these discussions is that  
>> until
>> 1938, the numbers we came to know as route numbers were officially
>> "destination numbers."  The route numbers were the three-digit  
>> numbers.
>>
>> The other thread that can't ever be forgotten is how much things  
>> changed in
>> a fairly quick time frame.  In the earlier years, it hadn't become  
>> the
>> calcified railroad mindset that allowed change only under duress.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
>> [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org] On Behalf  
>> Of John
>> Swindler
>> Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 1:00 AM
>> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: 97
>>
>>
>> Maybe because very early 98 wasn't Glassport-Wilmerding, and it is  
>> the
>> railfans on this fantrip that were correct.
>>
>> So what listing do you have for 97, Fred???
>>
>> John
>>
>>> From: fwschneider at comcast.net> Subject: [PRCo] Re: 97
>>> Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 16:29:49 -0400
>>> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>>> So,
>>> Boris, what is your point by enclosing was is obviously a fantrip
>>> rollsign?
>>> During the PCC era 98 was Glassport - Pirl Street. Very
>>> early 98 was also Glassport Wilmerding.> > > >
>
>
>
>
>
>