[PRCo] Re: PUC Oversight

Sat Apr 25 14:24:11 EDT 2009

> ----- Original Message ----

> From: John Swindler <j_swindler at hotmail.com>
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 7:42:26 AM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: PUC Oversight
> 
> With an apology for going off on a tangent, but in addition to finances and 
> operating rights, PUC oversight also included safety.  PUC authority and 
> oversight ceased when the transit operations were taken over by public 
> authorities.  
> 
> This was brought to the attention of the legislature when a circa 1980 
> Philadelphia Inquirer article discussed what happens when a PCC car loses all 
> three braking systems while descending a hill on route 53.  This resulted in 
> PennDOT oversight of a bi-annual inspection of rail vehicles, just as there is 
> PennDOT oversight of a state inspection of your automobile and busses.  
> 
> In the mid-1980s, the scope was expanded to comply with 49 CFR part 659, and 
> there is now a Rail Transit Safety Review Program for fixed guideway in Pa.  
> 
> Cheers
> 
> John  
> 
> 
> 
My apologies as well, Mr.Swindler;  I didn't mean to limit the scope of the PUC
neither.  I just don't know the extent nor depth of their oversight.  'Back then' it
'seemed' that people were not as involved as they are today;  but that is strictly
an 'impression' which can be totally wrong.  With that 'impression' and other
matters occupying my time I never investigated PUC decisions further.  Day to day
operations pique my interest the most.

Two items really stand out from reading the list archives in addition to
personal observations:
1--PRC seemed safety conscious to a fault;  this is certainly good.
2--Trustees during bankruptcy, specifically the one during WW2, seemed
genuinely concerned about safe and expert operation of the trolley system.
The trustees cared for the system not unlike a good father looks after a child.
This seems indelibly imprinted on my memory.

Phil

> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:54:18 -0700
> > From: pcc_sr at yahoo.com
> > Subject: [PRCo] PUC Oversight
> > To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> > 
> > 
> > Mr.Lybarger;
> > 
> > 
> > Tremendous help, thank you. It would seem that PRC renewed the rails,
> > laid new brick, the channel is the extra space required to do this work which
> > is now ready for filling.
> > 
> > 
> > I changed the subject line. How did the PUC function relative to transit in
> > the 1940s and 1950s? I have vague recollections that when PRC wanted to
> > abandon service that proof of 'red ink' had to be submitted and that this
> > virtually guaranteed approval. I never investigated this at the time as I
> > believed the old saw that one couldn't fight city hall and I had other 
> responsibilities;
> > this was generally accepted without complaint by the public - or so it seemed.
> > 
> > What about changes in operations to routes - shortening hours, greater 
> headways,
> > etc; did these require PUC approval? I am sure that public opinion would be
> > solicited on any transit changes submitted to the PUC; did the public respond?
> > Did public opposition or input carry much weight?
> > 
> > 
> > Phil
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > ----- Original Message ----
> > > From: Edward H. Lybarger 
> > > To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> > > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 12:39:49 PM
> > > Subject: [PRCo] Re: derail
> > > 
> > > My guess is that it is just the line of demarcation between PRCo-maintained
> > > street and city-maintained street, and that one or the other has just done
> > > some work. The one I would choose is the streetcar company, because its
> > > surface looks pristine while the remainder of the street does not. It will
> > > probably be the city's job to fill the gap? Or not.
> > > 
> > > If I got really ambitious, which probably won't happen right now (!), I'd
> > > look in the track sketch book for 1931 to see what work was done on Forbes
> > > Street. But I'm tired...I'm just back from another jaunt and have a lot
> > > staring at me, and don't have any energy!
> > > 
> > > I'm no help, am I?!
> > > 
> > > Ed
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
> > > [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org] On Behalf Of Phillip
> > > Clark Campbell
> > > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 3:09 PM
> > > To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> > > Subject: [PRCo] Re: derail
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Mr.Lybarger;
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I wish you were able to share the other photographs; some of us can't view
> > > them in person. Very nice photo isn't it. (I say this 'mostly' because I
> > > like your tongue-in-cheek replies don't I.)
> > > 
> > > I see a 'canal' between the brick track paving and road paving; I have
> > > noted this in other photographs and 'assumed' it was street upgrading. It
> > > seems rather common. However it appears that a rut is not evident on the
> > > other track. I now wonder if it serves a purpose - segregating the trolley
> > > from traffic?
> > > Certainly not drainage. There have been enough photos that this has piqued
> > > my interest; none of the photos exhibit any evidence of ongoing road work.
> > > 
> > > I doubt any clerk kept details of this work for our edification; just a
> > > curiosity item isn't it.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Phil
> > 
http://lists.dementia.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/derail_number68_ca_1950.jpg

http://lists.dementia.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/5450%20Rt%2071%201931%20AIS.jpg