[PRCo] Re: Anybody Here Know Anything About This?

Thu Feb 26 14:45:18 EST 2009

I never heard about shooting it out with potential robbers.   The  
name was Owen or Owens.

On Feb 26, 2009, at 1:07 PM, John Swindler wrote:

>
>
>
>
> The trackless were (initially) a replacement of streetcars.  Over  
> the years, the trackless wires were extended.  Surprisingly.
>
>
>
> Mode assignment was more historical then a decision to put  
> trackless on the heaviest routes and diesel buses on the lighter  
> suburban routes.
>
>
>
> Have always wondered why Dayton kept their trackless.
>
>
>
> Wasn't the owner's name Owen around 1970?  And he did buy a 'new  
> look' trackless.  He also allowed his drivers to 'shoot it out'  
> with potential robbers.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> From: fwschneider at comcast.net
>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Anybody Here Know Anything About This?
>> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:49:00 -0500
>> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>>
>> Good point. But we can be pretty certain that they shielded it from
>> any capital costs such as copper and substations. And we can also
>> be pretty certain that the prior owner, who had to keep costs in
>> line, had trackless on the heaviest routes and diesel buses on the
>> lighter hauling suburban routes.
>>
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2009, at 11:13 AM, John Swindler wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When comparing Dayton costs between types of service, drivers are
>>> paid by the hour, not the mile.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> and you also don't know what is included in the trackless costs.
>>> Where's the electric bill for the shop facility and the head office?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As the Frank and Ernest cartoon once commented: "Would you like
>>> our generally accepted accounting principals to show a profit or a
>>> loss this year?"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Something to keep in mind when looking at pronouncements from both
>>> transit officies and verbage coming out of Washington.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: fwschneider at comcast.net
>>>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Anybody Here Know Anything About This?
>>>> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:19:32 -0500
>>>> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>>>>
>>>> This shows all three pictures that I have ever seen of the
>>>> demonstration project. To the best of my knowledge, the company was
>>>> considering converting the West End to trolley coach. Again after
>>>> World War II it was addressed when the company drew up plans to
>>>> convert Ingram car house to trackless.
>>>>
>>>> It might have made sense as long as Duquesne Light Company and
>>>> Pittsburgh Railways were the same organization and as long as  
>>>> riding
>>>> held up at war time levels. But after the company broke apart in
>>>> the bankruptcy (Ed knows the exact date ... I want to say 1950),  
>>>> old
>>>> friends because quasi business enemies. By 1961 or 1962 there was a
>>>> law suit between Pittsburgh Railways and Duquesne Light Company
>>>> because the former was not using as much power as they were  
>>>> supposed
>>>> to use and the latter was billing them a minimum demand charge. The
>>>> Railways simply didn't have the money to pay for power they were  
>>>> not
>>>> using. I have no idea how it was resolved. By 1964 PRC didn't even
>>>> exist. Not long afterwards my contact (Charlie Schauck retired and
>>>> moved to Youngstown). Obviously the power company felt they had
>>>> some basis to establish a demand charge because they had facilities
>>>> that had been built to provide a certain amount of energy and they
>>>> wanted to continue to be paid for that equipment.
>>>>
>>>> The problem of running trolley buses was very simple. The window of
>>>> opportunity in which trolley coaches were profitable was very
>>>> narrow. A General Electric publication about 1948-1950 suggested
>>>> PCC cars were practical if you could fill up your vehicle every  
>>>> five
>>>> minutes. That translates into about 20,000 riders per day on a  
>>>> line.
>>>>
>>>> The trolley bus according to GE's numbers, could be successful, if
>>>> you could fill it with passengers every 5 to 8 minutes. That's
>>>> probably a 13,000 to 20,000 passenger a day range on a line. The
>>>> Louge report in 1948 shows that none of the West End lines were any
>>>> where near that any longer.
>>>>
>>>> GE went on to suggest that anything west often than 8 minutes apart
>>>> was in the preserve of the diesel bus and if it was used  
>>>> erratically,
>>>> then the gas bus could be preferred.
>>>>
>>>> The demand charge on PRC in 1962 by Duquesne Light was not the only
>>>> example. Ed Miller has explained to me that Wilkes-Barre Transit
>>>> Corporation ran into the same problem with its electricity supplier
>>>> by about 1954 or there abouts resulting in the immediate conversion
>>>> of all the trackless routes.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect, but have the numbers to prove it, that the reason the
>>>> coaches have lasted so long in San Francisco might have  
>>>> something to
>>>> do with the city of San Francisco owning the Hetch Hetchy  
>>>> generating
>>>> station in the Sierra Nevada mountains. They have to pay a
>>>> transmission charge to PG&E to get the electricity to the city but
>>>> otherwise it might be relatively cheap hydro electric power. But in
>>>> their case, the user and the generator of power are the same agency
>>>> and refusing to use it only causes wasted capacity for the your own
>>>> agency.
>>>>
>>>> Seattle? Vancouver? That may be both volume issues and an
>>>> environmentally conscious city government. Philadelphia running TCs
>>>> there strikes me as lunacy but when you don't know how many people
>>>> are on the vehicle, what does it matter.
>>>>
>>>> And Dayton? How can it be economically sound in a city of 155,000
>>>> people that lost 100,000 residents in the last 40 years? Well, if
>>>> you believe GDRTA's numbers, the diesel buses are are taking in 12
>>>> cents per mile in fares and costing 95 cents a mile. The trolleys
>>>> are taking in 82 cents a mile and costing 1.01 a mile to run. But
>>>> there is no route in the system running more often than every 15 to
>>>> 20 minutes and most are 20 to 30 and worse. By thought is that the
>>>> routes the trolleys are on would still take in 82 cents a mile but
>>>> would only cost 95 cents if you didn't have the trackless overhead.
>>>> But then who figures overhead into government calculations?????
>>>> They probably figure that the copper and substations are free. And
>>>> if they wear out, Uncle Sam will replace them (and the loans will
>>>> never be paid back). The flaw in my statement about what the
>>>> trolleys would cost is long term. When the cost of oil goes back up
>>>> to $4 and $5 a gallon, it is possible that electricity will not  
>>>> go up
>>>> as much.
>>>>
>>>> Enough diatribe for now guys?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 25, 2009, at 3:45 PM, Joshua Dunfield wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 2009/2/25 Phillip Clark Campbell <pcc_sr at yahoo.com>:
>>>>>> Believe there was a Twin trolleybus demonstration in downtown
>>>>>> Pittsburgh in the
>>>>>> summer of 1936(?) Believe it pre-dated the arrival of PCC 100 so
>>>>>> it must have
>>>>>> been Spring. It looped Grant, 7th, Smithfield, Liberty to Grant
>>>>>> using the
>>>>>> available streetcar wire on all streets with ground strung
>>>>>> alongside.
>>>>>> Here is one photo at Dave's:
>>>>>> http://www.davesrailpix.com/pitts/htm/pitt134.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that picture is also on the site Ken linked to:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.trolleybuses.net/earlyops/htm/
>>>>> usa_h_earlyops_pit_demo_01.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> There are two more pictures of it there. The picture linked  
>>>>> below is
>>>>> of the 700 block of Grant Street, consistent with your
>>>>> description of
>>>>> the loop.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.trolleybuses.net/earlyops/htm/
>>>>> usa_h_earlyops_pit_demo_03.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> -j.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Access your email online and on the go with Windows Live Hotmail.
>>> http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?
>>> ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_AE_Access_022009
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live™ Hotmail®
> more than just e-mail.
> http://windowslive.com/howitworks? 
> ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_hm_justgotbetter_howitworks_022009
>