[PRCo] Re: Neville Island
Edward H. Lybarger
trams2 at comcast.net
Mon Apr 27 10:29:58 EDT 2009
Sewickley Loop was the subject. The source quoted oversimplified its
disposition, which was the reason for the comment.
-----Original Message-----
From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
[mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org] On Behalf Of Herb
Brannon
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 10:15 AM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Neville Island
Drake Loop wasn't the subject of the post. Thanks for the info, however.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Edward H. Lybarger <trams2 at comcast.net>
wrote:
> While this is not always the best source in terms of accuracy, the
> quote here is more or less correct. But lest you infer that they
> simply picked up the Sewickley Loop and hauled it to Drake, I would
> remind readers that the former was dead level and the latter had a
> very significant grade at the entrance/exit, so a LOT of work was
> needed to make the girder rail comply with the topography. Rail
> bending is an art, especially the vertical adjustment, but they did
> have the necessary equipment on hand to do it. No more. PTM had to
> send the McClane Loop rail to SEPTA to be bent because Port Authority
couldn't do it.
>
> Ed
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
> [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org] On Behalf Of
> Herb Brannon
> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 9:06 PM
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Neville Island
>
> From "Pittsburgh Railways", pg 362, paragraphs 1 & 2, "Streetcar
> service to Neville Island, Coraopolis and Sewickley lost passengers in
> the post WW2 years as ownership and use of private autos first
> returned to pre-war levels and then continued to increase. But, in
> addition, Shafer Coach Lines more directly hurt the #23 line by a
> policy of running buses on the same route, same schedule and just
> ahead of the streetcars. PRCo made an effort to regain these
> passengers by adding more cars and improving the schedule. The bus
> company then went to the PUC and complained that it was unfair competition
on the part of PRCo. The PUC stood by the bus company.
>
> By 1950, route 23 was eportedly losing $75,000.00 a year and the PUC
> was encouraging more bus competition so PRCo abandoned the Sewickley
> line beyond Graham Loop on 22 June 1952. The rail loop at the end of
> the bridge in Sewickley was taken up and moved to Drake for the new
> loop there in preparation for the Washington interurban cutback."
> (End quote)
>
> By 1950 there were many more than two vehicles on the road. Passenger
> accidents did happen and as with all passenger accidents, were costly
> to PRCo in addition to tarnishing the image of the company. Albeit the
> cosmetic condition of the trolley fleet did give a tarnished image to
> PRCo :-o
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Phillip Clark Campbell
> <pcc_sr at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>
>>> From: Herb Brannon <hrbran at cavtel.net>
>>> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>>> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 1:18:50 PM
>>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: derail
>>>
>>> I just passed it on. It's from the Pennsylvania Antiquie Motor Bus
>>> Group. Also, when it comes down to economic operation PRCo was
>>> content to run streetcars so long as some money could be made. They
>>> (PRCo) probably did not want to fight the competition on Neville
>>> Island and into Coraopolis. Neville Island running was slow and very
>>> unsafe given the location of the tracks and the fact that passengers
>>> were dropped off into a lane of fast moving autos. Single track (the
>>> main drawback to many PRCo routes) added extra minutes and increased
>>> accident exposure time. Running time with conventional cars was 58
>>> minutes (+/-), however, running time with PCCs increased to 65
>>> minutes
> (+/-).
>>> The bus was most likely faster. The relationship between PRCo and
>>> the PUC was not the best either. Given that climate PRCo management
>>> probably did not shed many tears when the Neville Island,
>>> Coraopolis, Sewickley service was cut back to Island Avenue.
>>>
>> Mr.Brannon;
>>
>> I never saw Neville Island operations; the photo on pg.171 of PCC
>> Coast to Coast shows an huge expanse of highway and only 2-motor
>> vehicles. Prw is side of the road so passenger concern was one
>> direction only. Operations should have been fast on the Island;
>> slow in Coraopolis. Old cars probably did at least tripper service
>> until and even including the cutback to 25-Island Avenue only as this
>> was accomplished in 1952. I don't see PCCs being slower; traffic in
> Coraopolis would have been the main problem but could that account for
> an additional 7-min?
>>
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Phillip Clark Campbell
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Mr.Brannon;
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Thank you very much for taking the time to prepare this report;
>>> > it is very revealing isn't it. The competing service of SCL and
>>> > PRC in Coraopolis not unlike that on the 62 in Trafford - the bus
>>> > line scheduled service just ahead of the trolley. PRC should have
>>> > fought that on the basis of unfair service. Seems strange today
>>> > that those antique buses could offer any competition to a trolley
>>> > but
> people like trying something new.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks again.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Phil
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> ----- Original Message ----
>>> >> From: Herb Brannon
>>> >> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>>> >> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 4:31:34 PM
>>> >> Subject: [PRCo] Re: derail
>>> >>
>>> >> The following is from the Pennsylvania Antique Motor Bus Society:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Shafer Coach Lines (SCL) can trace its roots back to May of 1928
>>> >> when a small bus line was started by a Mr. Helsley to connect the
>>> >> Pittsburgh Railways Company (PRCo) streetcar line 23 in
>>> >> Coraopolis to Clinton which was 10 miles away. This two bus
>>> >> operation had its rights renewed for this feeder type service in
>>> >> 1930 but were not renewed after that so it is assumed that the
>>> >> service was abandoned between 1930 and 1932.
>>> >>
>>> >> The next attempt at a bus line in the Coraopolis area was made in
>>> >> 1937 by William A. Shafer, an operator of a trucking line.
>>> >> Applications were filed for 4 routes, one of which was Mr.
>>> >> Helsley's
> old route.
>>> >> Three of the routes were granted quickly by the PSC and by August
>>> >> of 1937, operations commenced on the original route, a
>>> >> Coraopolis-Imperial feeder, and a line from Coraopolis to
>>> >> Aliquippa via Broadhead Road. The 4th route was held up as the
>>> >> application was considered competitive to the PRCo 23 streetcar
>>> >> route as well as the fact that the Ohio River Motor Coach Company
>>> >> also applied for a similar route at the same time.
>>> >>
>>> >> The SCL was ultimately awarded the rights to the line over Ohio
>>> >> River Motor Coach in the summer of 1938 and service was started
>>> >> on this line after 5 new Beaver Coaches were delivered in August
>>> >> of 1938. This 4th line was considered the backbone of the SCL
>>> >> operation and ran from Aliquippa to Pittsburgh via Neville
>>> >> Island, McKees Rocks and the West End (similar to the 21A
>>> >> Coraopolis to
> Aliquippa route of PAT today).
>>> >>
>>> >> An additional line was added in November of 1938 and went from
>>> >> McKees Rocks to Coraopolis and Sewickley via Kenmawr. The
>>> >> Coraopolis-Clinton line was also extended to Groveton at this
>>> >> time to provide extra service on a portion of the new line.
>>> >>
>>> >> The next major service changes for SCL occurred in 1943 when 2 of
>>> >> the feeder routes were cut back from their original termination
>>> >> points and a new route in October of 1943 was instituted from
>>> >> Coraopolis to the Mooncrest housing project.
>>> >>
>>> >> Although the PSC (later the PUC) tended to restrict local traffic
>>> >> on certain carriers if competition would result, the PRCo
>>> >> streetcar line
>>> >> 23 and SCL had no such restriction outside of the City of Pittsburgh.
>>> >> PRCo and SCL had what many would call a competition war,
>>> >> primarily in the Coraopolis area. SCL had similar headways and
>>> >> fares during the 1940's and 50's as the PRCo 23 line did. Based
>>> >> on events that occurred, it appeared that SCL had its buses
>>> >> scheduled just ahead of the PRCo streetcars and to counter the
>>> >> loss of ridership, PRCo increased service on the line. SCL filed
>>> >> a complaint with the PUC claiming that PRCo was engaging in
>>> >> unfair competition by increasing service on its line and the PUC
upheld the complaint.
>>> >>
>>> >> The action by the PUC, as well as losing passengers, revenue and
>>> >> the fact that there was yet another application for a competitive
>>> >> bus service along its route (which was later denied by the PUC),
>>> >> made PRCo cut back the 23 line to Graham Loop on Neville Island
>>> >> and later to Fleming Park Loop in West Park. A short lived bus
>>> >> feeder was run from
>>> >> 1953 to August 15, 1955 by PRCo from Fleming Park Loop to Graham
>>> >> Loop after the second cutback but was abandoned due to declining
> ridership.
>>> >> After the PRCo feeder was abandoned, SCL had exclusive service on
>>> >> Neville Island as well as Coraopolis.
>>> >>
>>> >> No major changes in service occurred for SCL for almost 20 years
>>> >> except for adjustments to accommodate changing traffic patterns,
>>> >> primarily the opening of the Fort Pitt Bridge in 1959. The only
>>> >> other notable event was a deviation on the
>>> >> Pittsburgh-Coraopolis-Airport line to serve Sharon Hill Manor in
>>> >> Moon
> Township in 1963.
>>> >>
>>> >> It needs to be noted that the Airport service that SCL ran was
>>> >> heavily restricted as Airlines Transportation Company held rights
>>> >> to haul passengers to the Greater Pittsburgh Airport. SCL ran
>>> >> trips intended only for airline employees to get to and from work.
>>> >>
>>> >> SCL's equipment was in good shape and maintained exceptionally well.
>>> >> They were one of the few Pittsburgh independents that exclusively
>>> >> operated transit buses without center doors which some call
>>> >> muzzle loaders. At takeover the SCL turned over 29 buses and 5 routes
to PAT.
>>> >>
>>> >> ________________________________
>>> >> Acquired Equipment (with PAT number if re-numbered) Shafer
>>> >> NumberMakeModelYearPAT Number
>>> >> 59BrillC-311951186
>>> >> 61-62BrillC-311951194,197
>>> >> 63-64BrillC-311951195,196
>>> >> 65BrillC-311951198
>>> >> 67BrillC-311951199
>>> >> 69-71BeaverB-35-PT1952686-688
>>> >> 72BeaverB-40-PT1953689
>>> >> 73-78GMTDH37141954760-765
>>> >> 79-80GMTDH45121955401-402
>>> >> 81-82GMTDH45121956403-404
>>> >> 83-84GMTDH45121957405-406
>>> >> 85-86GMTDH45171960571-572
>>> >> 87GMTDH45121955407
>>> >> 88-89GMTDH45121953408-409
>>> >> 90GMTDH45121955410
>>> >>
>>> >> Note: Coaches 88-90 were second hand.
>>> >>
>>> >> ________________________________
>>> >> Routes (shown with PAT numbers)
>>> >> 21A Coraopolis
>>> >> 21B Kenmawr
>>> >> 25A Sewickley - Groveton
>>> >> 25B Broadhead Road
>>> >> 38A Airport Express
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Phillip Clark Campbell wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Mr.Barry;
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > You always come up with very interesting photos don't you.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > It will take some time to study this photo; only the one
>>> >> > overhead wire
>>> curves
>>> >> > onto the bridge. The other wire could curve out of the picture
>>> >> > to allow
>>> for
>>> >> > overhang of car ends. I have the collection of bus articles on
>>> >> > Pittsburgh; now I need to find them and see if 'Shafer' routes
>>> >> > can be identified. Can
>>> we
>>> >> > deduce that trolleys are 4 times heavier than 'heavy' trucks?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > It is now very tricky to save huge files isn't it since one
>>> >> > can't right
>>> click. It
>>> >> > is necessary to save parts and do a photo merge. Must be an
>>> >> > easier
> way.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > This is a favorite of mine:
>>> > http://tinyurl.com/1515on50SmithfieldWater
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Phil
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > ----- Original Message ----
>>> >> > > From: "Barry, Matthew R"
>>> >> > > To: "pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org"
>>> >> > > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 6:50:58 AM
>>> >> > > Subject: [PRCo] Re: derail
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > I got the photo from the Historic Pittsburgh site. There's
>>> >> > > a couple
>>> more
>>> >> > > interesting ones on there, such as this one... anyone know
>>> >> > > the
> bridge?
>>> >> > > Here is the link to the new set on Historic Pittsburgh:
>>> >> > >
>>> >
>>> http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?c=ascgen&g=
>>> i
>>> mls&page=index
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Matt
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > -----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: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 2:51 PM
>>> >> > > To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>>> >> > > Subject: [PRCo] Re: derail
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Mr.Barry;
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Great photo isn't it; where did you find it?
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>> http://lists.dementia.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/bridge_restrictio
>> n
>> .jpg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Herb Brannon
> On America's North Coast
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Herb Brannon
On America's North Coast
More information about the Pittsburgh-railways
mailing list