[PRCo] Re: One-man cars in Pittsburgh

[Edward H. Lybarger]

I would expect to find similar economics and similar problems in other
cities.

What I was saying in response to Dennis's original comment was that
economics, not technology, was the primary driver in conversion to one-man
operation.

-----Original Message-----
From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
[mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org] On Behalf Of
Schneider Fred
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 12:44 PM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: [PRCo] Re: One-man cars in Pittsburgh

Certainly it is.   But you cannot convince me that other cities did  
not have the same problems.   Pittsburgh Railways management was a  
little stronger than in other places and the PUC was in their  
pockets.   The cities in Pennsylvania were not going to get away with  
telling them to protect the unions just because it was politically correct.

I would like to have similar information for Philadelphia.   I know  
that the union contract required that jobs of men already there be  
protected and thus there were conductors jobs into the early 1970s.    
The number continually diminished until they numbered on a few men on route
53.

To give you an idea of the magnitude of two-man operations in the  
1940s, the PCCs numbered in the 2000s and 2100s were one-man cars.    
Those in the 2501 through 2800 were two-man cars as built.   The  
party-car at PTM was delivered as a two-man car.   I am not sure when  
route 23 Germantown 10th and 11th Sts. was converted to one-man but the
entire 100 2700s were intended for that line.  I remember that there were a
lot of two-man 8000s and Nearsides in the 1950s.  I  
recall riding a two-man 8000 on route 2 on a Sunday in 1956.   I  
think routes 13 and 42 were always two-man until 13 went into the subway and
42 became bus.  We need also remember that all the west Philadelpia routes
today, even though they are technically one-man, use subway cashiers and
turnstiles in the subway to collect over half the fares ... that in my mind
sounds like a two-man operation even  
today.   Does that make sense for routes that allegedly handle 8000  
people a day?  Probably not but you have to lift the fares for the Market
Street subway somehow and the trolley lines just are part of that equation
... that's why I said allegedly 8000 people a day ...  
no one really knows.

I'm pretty sure (and Rich Allman can answer this) that Red Arrow put extra
men on their one-man cars in the rush hours to handle the huge volumes they
carried, at least into the late 1940s or early 1950s  ... maybe not
everywhere ... perhaps a West Chester car might  
carry a conductor to Newtown Square or Westgate Hills.   What sayest  
though, Rich?   (I'm not counting conductors on second cars on MU  
trains in that, I'm talking second men on the lead car.  I know they ran MU
train on West Chester after the St. Louis cars arrived.)

On Jan 23, 2009, at 8:26 AM, Edward H. Lybarger wrote:

> I think it relates most to patronage.  PRCo's peak year for passengers 
> was 1923.  It's just a logical economic process.
>
> Ed
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
> [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org] On Behalf Of 
> Dennis Fred Cramer
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 7:18 AM
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org; Hamley Dave; Becker Scott
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: One-man cars in Pittsburgh
>
> So the move to one man cars was well underway before the economy hit 
> the tank.
>
> How does the data reflect the changes in technology?  ie:  money vs.
> tokens, deadman controllers, self-lapping brakes, shorter work hours 
> for operators, & eventually PCC's?
>
>
> Dennis F. Cramer
>       Trombone
>
>
>
>
>
>
>